Jump to content

      



























BUILT
Ironworks
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 515 Chatham Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 5
Condo units: (studio/bachelor, 1BR)
Sales status: sold out / resales only
Ironworks is a mixed-use two-building, five-storey condominium and ground floor commercial development in down... (view full profile)
Learn more about Ironworks on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] The IronWorks | Condos; retail | 5 & 5-storeys | Under construction


  • Please log in to reply
641 replies to this topic

#161 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:16 PM

The development permit application will be considered by the Committee of the Whole this coming Thursday.



#162 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Colwood

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:21 PM

It's boring, short and not offensive. Should be a slam dunk!
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#163 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:01 PM

It is better but still not great. A little offensive actually but I am not on council.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#164 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:23 AM

 

A little offensive actually but I am not on council.

 

Try being more offensive and maybe you'll get there.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#165 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:31 AM

My final suggestion would be to copy the ground level onto the roof. I'm not sure if that would make it more industrial looking or less industrial looking. But I don't mind it as is, assuming that the cladding on the orange parts and the grey parts ends up looking interesting and not cheap or blah. I just wish it wasn't two identical buildings.

 

Ironworks-Hypothetical.jpg


  • Nparker likes this

#166 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 06:11 AM

This is moving forward to a public hearing. This article from the T-C outlines concerns that the DRA have about the project, including height.

http://www.timescolo...rdle-1.23057609

#167 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Colwood

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 06:15 AM

^Height?!? Oh, come on now!
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#168 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:20 AM

#ballerinasnotelephants


  • AllseeingEye and Greg like this

#169 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 08:24 AM

For the longest time Victorians were worried about the potentially harmful effects of tall buildings in the old town, but now Victorians are worried about the potentially harmful effects of short buildings in the old town.


  • Nparker likes this

#170 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 08:42 AM

What Victorians are most worried about: change.



#171 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 09:17 AM

I don't get the height concerns unless they are talking about the uniformity rather than the storey count.

 

I do think the blockbusting criticism is worth considering. On the plus side it usually means only one service entrance. On the negative side, one of the things we love about Old Town is the granularity: the way the architectural flavour changes every 20 feet or so.



#172 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:55 AM

I note the TC article shows the wrong side of the block for the project location. They're depicting the Capital Iron overflow lot on the north side, but the property in question is the gravel lot on the south side.


  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#173 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:59 AM

I note the TC article shows the wrong side of the block for the project location. They're depicting the Capital Iron overflow lot on the north side, but the property in question is the gravel lot on the south side.

 

It's the main Capital Iron lot the TC has.  Way to go TC.  They even used Google Street View but forgot to spin it.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#174 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:14 AM

 

What Victorians are most worried about: change.

 

I know I'm a broken record about this but I've seen no evidence to support that premise. Positive change (additive or restorative) is what Victorians seem to resent. Nobody has ever worried about subtractive/negative change. When the department store abandoned the old HBC building did anybody care that an absolutely huge negative change had occurred? Nope, the big worry was that something else might eventually happen again on that property. Many people are in a stew about the redevelopment of the old post office site. Did any of those people ever express the faintest concern about the negative change that the 1950s building represented as compared to the 1890s building? Nope. Did anybody shed a tear for the old school building on Pandora? Nope, it was never even mentioned. Significant and obvious subtractive change... and literally nobody cared. The Mason Street controversy was ALL about the possible positive effects of the new building. That's what worried people.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#175 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:17 AM

 

...one of the things we love about Old Town is the granularity: the way the architectural flavour changes every 20 feet or so.

 

For sure, this should be consideration #1 in the old town. Narrow frontages, no longscrapers.



#176 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:22 AM

But you know, on this block facing north I think a strong counterargument could be made that it's not really the old town anymore, anyway. The old buildings are few and far between. There's no coherent old town atmosphere. It's definitely not the old town proper, so to speak.


  • Rob Randall and Bingo like this

#177 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:27 AM

But you know, on this block facing north I think a strong counterargument could be made that it's not really the old town anymore, anyway. The old buildings are few and far between. There's no coherent old town atmosphere. It's definitely not the old town proper, so to speak.

 

Agreed. There's some argument on the short Store Street frontage, but not Chatham. This is an industrial area, and the design looks like it is trying to mimic a converted industrial building. If anything, the "groundscraper" form fits perfectly in this part of town.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#178 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 11:51 AM

But you know, on this block facing north I think a strong counterargument could be made that it's not really the old town anymore, anyway. The old buildings are few and far between. There's no coherent old town atmosphere. It's definitely not the old town proper, so to speak.

 

I'm a broken record on neighbourhood individuality. 

 

I agree, this is not Old Town. Rock Bay should retain its industrial heritage and look and form. Part of this will be that converted factory aesthetic but it should be punctuated by great small infill projects. 

 

What Rock Bay has going for it are a few great heritage buildings on each block, meaning huge developments that smother an entire block are less likely.



#179 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:11 PM

What Rock Bay has going for it are a few great heritage buildings on each block, meaning huge developments that smother an entire block are less likely.

 

Those buildings are brick and will likely collapse in an earthquake, and the ground below is probably still polluted as I don't know how they could have remediated that soil.

I think old town is gone was that move was afoot when they decided that the blue bridge had to go.



#180 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 279 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 04:51 PM

great content in your postings aastra, enjoyed your perspective.



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users