35 units on a single floor ...
Alas, this one is going to be a bit of a wide-scraper I'm afraid. Half as wide and twice as tall would have been nice here. At least it's only going to be half as tall as View Towers, but about the same width.
BUILT The Jukebox Uses: condo, commercial Address: 1029 View Street Municipality: Victoria Region: Downtown Victoria Storeys: 9 Condo units: (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR, 1BR + den) Sales status: sold out / resales only |
Posted 22 August 2017 - 06:25 PM
35 units on a single floor ...
Alas, this one is going to be a bit of a wide-scraper I'm afraid. Half as wide and twice as tall would have been nice here. At least it's only going to be half as tall as View Towers, but about the same width.
Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:42 AM
Alas, this one is going to be a bit of a wide-scraper I'm afraid. Half as wide and twice as tall would have been nice here. At least it's only going to be half as tall as View Towers, but about the same width.
That's been your refrain for most projects, but I disagree. We do need projects like this as well. I think it fits.
Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:55 AM
That's been your refrain for most projects, but I disagree. We do need projects like this as well. I think it fits
What is the benefit of a wide building at 9 floors verses a narrow building at 18 floors? Why is the former "needed" more than the latter?
Posted 23 August 2017 - 11:28 AM
One isn't need more than the other, but both types of buildings are needed. This project is still high density, that's the important part. We want narrow 20+ storeys, but if that was all we had, it wouldn't look so nice overall.
Posted 23 August 2017 - 11:34 AM
...We want narrow 20+ storeys, but if that was all we had, it wouldn't look so nice overall.
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Wide-scrapers are never going to be nice IMO. They are not the best use of limited land, they rarely allow for much articulation of their facades (i.e. large, unvarying street walls) and they block view corridors that taller, slimmer buildings better preserve.
Posted 23 August 2017 - 12:50 PM
This one doesn't have large, unvarying street walls!
Posted 23 August 2017 - 01:56 PM
For the sake of comparison, the Fairmont Royal York *averages* about 50 rooms per floor, though there is significant recessing on the upper storeys (along with the royal suite, etc.) so floors 2-10 may have 60+ rooms per floor, for example.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 07:58 AM
It's an odd building, but for such a low wide massing I think it does a pretty good job.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:02 AM
It's an odd building, but for such a low wide massing I think it does a pretty good job.
I tend to agree. Perhaps considering the soil conditions a wide-scraper was the only option for this site, but I'd really hate to see this become the default building form downtown. Tall and slim whenever possible, with little-to-no setback at the street should be the starting point.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:23 AM
35 units on one level seems like a heck of a lot, especially since one side of the building is blank against the property line. So that means every window on those lower levels = a different unit? Do we know what the back side is going to look like?
That image actually looks pretty good. It really depends on the nature of the cladding, especially on the grey part. I just hope it isn't as dull and cardboard-ish looking as the cladding on the Union.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:45 AM
It's an odd building, but for such a low wide massing I think it does a pretty good job.
It would be odd if it was sitting in a field all by itself. To me, it's a decent infill project like 860 View and 932 Johnson that will add much needed density and vibrancy to the area. Not every project can or should be a 20+ floor tower. Once and for all another derelict vacant lot has been erased from Harris Green. I think it looks pretty good. It's not a 'widescraper' at all.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:25 AM
...It's not a 'widescraper' at all.
If it's over 6 floors and wider than it is tall, it meets the definition of a wide-scraper in my books. As I have said before, the site conditions likely played a role in the building form for this location (deep excavation prohibitively expensive). I wonder if there is a rendering that shows Jukebox and Tara Place side-by-side to see how much (or little) variation there is in their heights? I don't think downtown needs any more 1000 block Johnson Street flatness (The Suttons through to Mondrian) .
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:34 AM
35-units per floor should be alright with three elevators, especially in a lowrise where residents can quickly exit via the stairwells. On the way up (if the building employs standard security measures) they'll have to take the elevator.
Where problems tend to arise is when buildings are taller than Jukebox and only have two elevators. If one is locked off for move-ins things can get a little messy, and folks from the upper floors won't be as likely to walk down and will opt to wait.
The building is also limited in terms of parking meaning there won't be a lot of elevator traffic to the secure underground, which requires an elevator to access from within the building.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:36 AM
If it's over 6 floors and wider than it is tall, it meets the definition of a wide-scraper in my books. As I have said before, the site conditions likely played a role in the building form for this location (deep excavation prohibitively expensive). I wonder if there is a rendering that shows Jukebox and Tara Place side-by-side to see how much (or little) variation there is in their heights? I don't think downtown needs any more 1000 block Johnson Street flatness (The Suttons through to Mondrian) .
So, by this definition, would the Wave *not* be a widescraper? It was often derided as one, but it's 13 storeys tall and certainly not that wide...
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:44 AM
35-units per floor should be alright with three elevators, especially in a lowrise where residents can quickly exit via the stairwells. On the way up (if the building employs standard security measures) they'll have to take the elevator.
Where problems tend to arise is when buildings are taller than Jukebox and only have two elevators. If one is locked off for move-ins things can get a little messy, and folks from the upper floors won't be as likely to walk down and will opt to wait.
The building is also limited in terms of parking meaning there won't be a lot of elevator traffic to the secure underground, which requires an elevator to access from within the building.
The Savoy building at the corner of Fairfield and Blanshard was completed in 1975 and has just one elevator serving 9 storeys. It's moderately wide relative to its height, but there are definitely issues there when the elevator goes out of service.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:46 AM
...would the Wave *not* be a widescraper? It was often derided as one, but it's 13 storeys tall and certainly not that wide...
It has the occasional wide-scraper moment . Mostly, it's a little ugly with one of the worst ground levels of any contemporary multi-storey downtown building and a dreadful (and apparently permanent) green tarp attached to one side.
Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:50 AM
The Savoy building at the corner of Fairfield and Blanshard was completed in 1975 and has just one elevator serving 9 storeys...
My 4-storey condo building is losing its only elevator for a month (starting August 28) while it is retrofitted. I am not sure what is going to happen if there are any move-ins/outs (other than on the first floor) around the first of September.
Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:16 AM
Marko Juras, REALTOR® & Associate Broker | Gold MLS® 2011-2023 | Fair Realty
www.MarkoJuras.com Looking at Condo Pre-Sales in Victoria? Save Thousands!
Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:18 AM
I am looking forward to seeing some of the unique shapes of this project starting to appear.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users