Jump to content

      



























Photo

Height Challenged


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 08:42 AM

At Victoria councils meeting you actually see developers showing pictures that don't show their buildings. "and here you can plainly see that the planned building is not visible." Bizarre.

IBA, you seem to be suggesting that the ability to see the building would somehow be a negative thing. But is this necessarily true? If attention is paid to architectural detail could this building not enhance the view from the Coho, rather than detract from it?

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#22 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:03 AM

No judgement on my part until I see the analysis...

I'm saying.. Show Me

I get confused when someone in the know or an "authority" says..

" Try to picture the Empress from the Inner Harbour with this in the background!"

And I get equally confused when someone says:

"you seem to be suggesting that the ability to see the building would somehow be a negative thing. "

So, I say Show Me! It's not just the impact on The Empress.... What else is there and how does the building complement or contrast in a positive way..???

#23 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:25 AM

Developers are so terrified of the reaction they might receive, it's true--they often present skyline renderings where the building can't be seen.

I liken it to a great sculptor like Rodin, presenting his latest creation to his client: "it will sit in the garden over here." "But Mr. Rodin, I can't see it from the mansion!" "Of course, I placed the cursed object where it won't be seen!"

Westbank did this for the Public Hearing for The Falls, despite having the most spectacular building top in recent times. Their renderings from Laurel Point and the Legislature showed nothing--the building couldn't be seen, yet they were too scared to provide renderings from where the building would actually be visible, like upper Douglas St. or the Visitor's Information Centre.

So because of this fear and paranoia City Council are evaluating buildings with really no idea how they fit into the local landscape.

It would be interesting to sail into the Inner Harbour in 2008 and be confronted with the same skyline that existed in 1920. But what would that tell visitors about the city? That we threw in the towel 80 years ago and said "why bother, we'll never top that".
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#24 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:27 AM

Well I would agree that any architect should understand the context of their project to the best of their ability.

However in Victoria, it would seem that developers seem to take the prospect of showing their building from all possible angles as a targeted attempt to lower the height of the building. I am not saying that this is the intention of planning staff, but when these types of things come up at Council Meetings there is a tendency on the part of certain parties to point out the pictures where their buildings are visible as some sort of "caught red handed" proof. Thus future developers design their buildings to be invisible from as many POVs as possible.

From an architectural viewpoint it makes you wonder whether too much focus is being put on context and perhaps not enough on the stand alone merit of the design.

Just a thought...

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#25 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:41 AM

- top deck of the Coho? Songhees, steps of the Old Steamship Terminal, ends of Ship Point??? entries into the Downtown at Johnson Street Bridge, My outrigger canoe with a viewing level 1 metre above average water level in James Bay.. Top of Harbour Towers??


This is the heart of the matter re: views.

From a pedestrian's point of view in front of the Empress, none of the new buildings behind it are visible. The reason should be obvious: the Empress is absolutely gigantic and it's also taller than many of Victoria's highrise buildings.

However, if you view the Empress from a long way away (Laurel Point, Esquimalt, Metchosin, the Moon...) you will indeed see the tops of the tall buildings behind it. Is this bad? I don't think so. Some people may disagree. Methinks they're not being realistic. Methinks many of them also tend to assume that all new buildings must be unattractive buildings, which is rather ignorant when you get right down to it. The Empress was a new building once. Its newest wings aren't very old at all, in fact. Makes me wonder how people will react if their plan for a boutique hotel on the bus depot site ever gets revived.



#26 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:56 AM

Personally, I've never understood the reasoning behind limiting height around significant buildings. There seems to be this idea that buildup around such a building would somehow undermine it. As far as I'm concerned, a building will stand-out based on it's own merits and not what sort of "buffer-zone" it's been given.

Would one think this cathedral has been undermined by it's surroundings.

I'm sure some of you would say yes. But I would completely disagree. I see a greater impact, as a level of intimacy is thrust upon you. The artistic, and architectural detail is more tangible when other more modern (more simple) designs are in the same field of vision.

Besides, the green space around the Empress grounds should be enough of a buffer.

#27 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:04 AM

^ I've been there. St Patrick's Catherdral. That is on 5th Avenue across from Rockerfeller Center. That is the building that first comes to my mind when I think about people claiming that new buildings overpower old ones. When you see that building it still overpowers building more than twice its height.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#28 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 12:45 PM

I've already heard that the hudson project is very 'disrespectful' and will "overshadow" the historic building from a few people, even friends. That evil capitalist condo's for the rich will be standing so high, saying "we're better than the old building, and we're better than the poor", simply because the building is taller and bigger. The building isn't big to house people and use the land efficiently, it's not shiney and new simply because it's.. well.. new and designed well, they are both purposeful and intended insults towards the poor and history.

I think people read wayyyy too much of their own ideas of class-war and think everything has some deep representational message. Sometimes a building is just a building. yet sometimes people take offense simply because a building is "too nice" and that is somehow insulting everyone else. I think some people have trouble looking at the big picture, and only zero in on the single issue they care about. So a die hard communist will see it only as a potent and insulting symbol of class. An scared old lady will see it only as a frightening symbol of change and growth. Even on the pro side, some people will mindlessly support any building because "tall buildings are cool" while not caring the slighest to the actual reasons the building is good. They don't realise that these buildings actually have real pysical functions and related to people other than them selves or their personal issues and arn't just athstetic or political symbols on the canvas that is THEIR personal city.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#29 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:08 PM

^ Well said, Baro. And, yeah, I agree with the others who, by pointing to St.Pat's in NYC, make the case that existing great buildings aren't going to diminished by new great buildings. The key thing is "great" -- I don't get why adding a great building should take anything away from existing ones. In fact, great+great=better. (The Roberts/ Orchard House towers visible behind the Parliament, as "viewable" from the Inner Harbour, coming into it via water -- those are ugly and really do detract, on the other hand. But who wants to repeat those structures? No one here!)

Also, the thread started around height & view cones/ preserving views. Does the "view" of the Empress qualify as a view, in the sense that you can't build anything behind it? Or is the Empress itself "the view"?

Sometimes a building is just a building.


Haha, and remember, [url=http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BGBz:58556]sometimes a cigar is just a cigar[/url:58556], right?

Hey Baro, you don't have an avatar. May I suggest [url=http://www.psychoed.net/PSYCHOEDNET/Page_29/IMAG002.JPG:58556]this one[/url:58556]? (Save page to desktop as jpeg and upload, Herr Doktor!)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#30 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:36 PM

A lot of people are prejudiced against new buildings just because they're new. But such people are also notorious for accepting new buildings with open arms once the buildings aren't new anymore (short memories?). They'll even defend formerly new buildings when new buildings are proposed nearby. It's the war on new.

If the Bay towers are built as planned and they become beloved fixtures in the north part of downtown, you can be sure people will rally to their defense if another major project is ever proposed around there.

#31 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:56 PM

The Hudson was Victoria's tallest for almost 100 years and signified the start of the northupdowntowndouglastown neighbourhood. The new 30 story library and office complex is insulting the history of this building. We all know we need a new cyber-library, as the one built in 2050 was half the size needed at the time, but do we really need to give in to these greedy developers who want to add the 20 stories of office on top of the 10 story library? and let's not forget how over-shadowed the historic Save on Foods arena will become, a true architectural marvel of the early 21st century.



..

30 story cyber library? maybe. People looking back at the new arena fondly? not a chance.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#32 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:20 PM

Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon the developers to provide views of their proposals in context. Actually, the city should have proper software that can show a virtual downtown that can pop the proposals in so that we can see it from all angles. This was a recommendation in the Spaxman report (that such software resources and skills be developed).
Remember - people enter the harbour by outrigger, dragonboat, kayak, the Coho, private vessels, float planes, helicopter tourists etc. There are many viewscapes.
I'm not saying don't change anything - just know what we're getting.

(and I STILL think the Falls is too big for the site.....)(and that putting a waterfall on the SW corner of a building in downtown Victoria is just plain silly. don't they know what happens to falling water in a wind storm? Just hope there is nobody trying to play volleyball at the strath......they may get wet!)
Pieta VanDyke

#33 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:27 PM

Architects have the 3-D fly-thru software.

No one asks them to use it. Probably because the software uses clunky rough models that don't look as glamorous as the colour 2-D drawings, they're afraid they'll turn people off.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#34 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:38 PM

Ms. B. Havin,
I think you spoke too soon about Orchard House and Roberts House, I like them, and I wouldn't have minded if there were some similar style buildings built with similar perspectives ie. height vs. width. Don't worry I know I'm in the minority here. Roberts House has some nice aesthetic qualities for a building from it's time, and I think Orchard house is much nicer then View towers, which bears similar architecture (though at an inferior level IMO).

Barra,
That's when they turn off the waterfall! I'd like to see more views of towers from different viewpoints where we can actually see them. It's really sad that most of the new buildings we're getting wont be visible to the people using the harbour, kinda sad really. I agree partially about the falls building, it is a large looking building, but it's massing could've been streamlined with a little more height which would've made it a little less imposing at street level, and then maybe we could have been able to see the lantern effect of the roof treatment from the harbour. With the restrictions they were given I think they did a pretty good job.

#35 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 09:49 AM

I don't mind robert's and Orchard house because they remind me of the west end in Vancouver, which maybe isn't pretty, but it's a damn lovely neighbourhood.

Of course it's missing shops on the bottom and vibrant street life.

Sometimes I really wish we could turn James bay into a victoria sized west-end. It actually has quite a few apartment "towers" of that era already there. With a little more density and a few more streets with shops along it, parts of James bay could be so amazingly vibrant, while the north corners can still easily remain "sleepy" residential.

Extend the shops around the streets by the Thrifties area, put in a bunch of 4-10 story apartments and condo's, and enjoy!
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#36 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 10:42 AM

^I like your thoughts on James Bay but the JBNEA (what's the E for?) are pro sprawl so they'd never approve of any of those ideas if they were to be proposals. More condos within 10-15 of downtown would definitely get more people out of their cars.



Personally I'd like to see a nice modern building behind the Empress. In tourism photos it would show that Victoria has a growing economy and may have something new to offer to those tourists that have been here before. The standard tourism photo of the inner harbour is getting stale.
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#37 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 10:52 AM

I think that what is being discussed is basically the findings of the Coriolis report. Do we want to go up, out or way out.

You guys are discussing the middle option of out which means keep the height and density restrictions in place and this will cause density to move into the fringe neighbourhoods.

I would personally prefer to see greater density in the downtown core first, as there is a large amount of undeveloped or underutilized land there. Also by up they do not necessarily mean 30 storey buildings it could be just getting rid of the ridiculous 3:1 FSR which in my opinion is more destructive to good neighbourhoods than the 43 metre height restriction. I mean theorhetically you could build a 14 storey building at 14:1 FSR

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#38 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 11:01 AM

Perhaps the JBNEA should lessen its stronghold over development proposals and demand developers to help pay for some sidewalks ;)

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


#39 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:39 AM

Couldn't think of where else to put this. This could be a game changer in building design of the future: http://money.cnn.com...epage_tech_pool



#40 mbjj

mbjj
  • Member
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 07:24 AM

We've visited Munich several times. They have height restrictions on buildings and it's a lovely city. Most of Paris skyscrapers are at la Defense so the skyline is attractive. London, I feel, is full of tall monstrosities. My mother, who was a Londoner, would be rolling in her grave.



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