Height Challenged
#21
Posted 13 March 2007 - 08:42 AM
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?
#22
Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:03 AM
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
Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:25 AM
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".
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#24
Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:27 AM
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...
#25
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
Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:56 AM
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
Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:04 AM
#28
Posted 13 March 2007 - 12:45 PM
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.
#29
Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:08 PM
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!)
#30
Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:36 PM
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
Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:56 PM
..
30 story cyber library? maybe. People looking back at the new arena fondly? not a chance.
#32
Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:20 PM
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!)
#33
Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:27 PM
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.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#34
Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:38 PM
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
Posted 14 March 2007 - 09:49 AM
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!
#36
Posted 14 March 2007 - 10:42 AM
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.
#37
Posted 14 March 2007 - 10:52 AM
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
#38
Posted 14 March 2007 - 11:01 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#39
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
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.
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