305 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...it appears that Council opted to send this one to a public hearing...

The James Bay NIMBYs are gonna massacre this; not because it's ugly (which is kinda is) but because it's "too tall". It will probably end up being a 6-storey wall along the entire block. 

[nagel]

They also want the bike lane gone.  Time for an Anschluss between pro height and pro bike to get this approved.

[Nparker]

...Time for an anschluss between pro-height and pro-bike to get this approved.

I'll support the bike lane as long as we get the full requested height and something more appealing than the current boxy design. Would some curves be all that difficult to include?

[aastra]

Come on, it's not ugly. Check out page 61 of the city's document. Conservative, maybe even boring. But it's not ugly. To my eye it looks a fair bit better than Townline's rental buildings behind the Jack Davis. There's more variation in it and it isn't so grey/drab. The ground floor looks pretty good. I can live with it as is, but I'd be much happier if they could just add some zing somewhere.

 

 

Would some curves be all that difficult to include?

 

If the penthouse-level windows facing west were curved like the bow of the Janion that might look sharp.

[Nparker]

Come on, it's not ugly. Check out page 61 of the city's document. Conservative, maybe even boring. But it's not ugly...

Chacun à son goût...I stand by my opinion, especially considering what was proposed for this site in the past.

[jonny]

Come on, it's not ugly.

 

It's not ugly. It is conservative and bulky, though. As usual, I'd much prefer something slimmer. This is essentially a bulkier Era.

[aastra]

 

This is essentially a bulkier Era.

 

Heavy times, indeed.

[Mixed365]

It's not ugly. It is conservative and bulky, though. As usual, I'd much prefer something slimmer. This is essentially a bulkier Era.

 

+1

 

I agree. Conservative, but by no means ugly.

Edited by Mixed365, 28 April 2017 - 10:09 AM.

[Nparker]

We are far too willing to accept mediocrity in our contemporary architecture these days.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Reminder: the public hearing for this project will be at Thursday's council meeting...

[Kapten Kapsell]

This passed 6-3 with councillors Madoff, Isitt, and Thornton-Joe opposed (for various reasons). Due to a technicality related to a statuatory right of way, there will be one more vote (final approval) at next Thursday's daytime council meeting. However, no more public comment is allowed, so the 6-3 vote in favour will likely stand...

[DavidSchell]

This passed 6-3 with councillors Madoff, Isitt, and Thornton-Joe opposed

 

Maddoff and Isitt ... so concerned about affordable housing, yet against any higher density development, which is the only way the housing situation will get resolved ...  .

 

At least it appears it will get passed ... any idea when construction will start?

[Mike K.]

Very good, thank you.

[zoomer]

Very good, thank you.

The mysterious case of the disappearing prequel post:

"Hey Mike, how are you?"

Or was it:

"Hey Mike, Ben and Jeremy here.. we've voted against as per your secret instructions."

[Mike K.]

Haha!

[lanforod]

Worth pointing out, that in spite of the posts against Jeremy in this thread, he did NOT vote against it...

[Nparker]

Worth pointing out, that in spite of the posts against Jeremy in this thread, he did NOT vote against it...

But he did vote against the Yates on Yates project.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Based on his comments last night, I had the sense that he had several concerns about the project but would nevertheless support it.  I think the fact that the building serves seniors helped sway his vote in favour.

[Mike K.]

Victoria council approves trio of downtown residential towers

http://victoria.citi...le-849-johnson/

[Kungsberg]

Feb. 2017 revisions 

 

https://tender.victo...318114428840000

 

 

Attached Images

• 
• 
•