27 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

Shots from today:

[aastra]

Any reason for that blank concrete wall facing the street like that?

[G-Man]

Thanks for posting that Gumgum I have been meaning to take a pic. So far so good in my opinion. Very nice design. It is hard to tell in these shots but the West side of the building has a nice curve to it.

[Nparker]

I was hoping they'd go up a few more floors; goodness knows a larger shelter is probably going to be needed sooner or later.

[Barra]

I just got offered a job (job sharing) as the Volunteer Coordinator at Our Place. I'm going to take it - it will be fun, interesting, and challenging.
The former Vol. Coord. will take the job of facility manager.

[G-Man]

Congrats! That will be a challenging position but I am sure that it will be well worth it!

[gumgum]

Seems like Tysick would be a very cool boss.

[Holden West]

January 29, 2008. Demolition of the former Upper Room at right.

[Nparker]

I didn't know the old Upper Room was coming down. Is anything be built there or will it become parking for staff at Our Place?

BTW this project would have been really cool if it had been about twice as tall...with a bit more glass. And it's not like a larger building would not have been useful.

[aastra]

Well that just about makes me sick. Were the heritage defenders too preoccupied with Mt. St. Angela's apartments to care about this one?

Another little piece of Victoria's authentic urban heritage bites the dust. And it was only a little while ago that people were fighing like hell to preserve a lousy post-war motel. I'd be interested to know if anybody batted an eyelash for this place.

The new building isn't bad. From some angles it's quite decent. But it would have looked a lot better if the old building had been left beside it.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Agreed. Where's Nick Russell now, considering he's otherwise so completely obsessed about heritage buildings getting "whacked"? (It's one of his favourite words.) One suspects that Mr. Russell is more interested in "whacking" allegedly evil, greedy-ass developers, and since there weren't any allegedly evil, greedy-ass developers involved in this project, he didn't mind that this building got ...well, whacked. But, point is, we (Victorians) are out one nice looking, true heritage building.

[D.L.]

when the circular portion of the new Our Place was constructed I thought it looked out of place in relation to the old building. being of significantly different shapes (circular and square) they were too close to each other and did not relate to each other. Now that the old building was always ment to be removed, I can see why the circular part of the new building was designed as it was.

[Phil McAvity]

^ Agreed. Where's Nick Russell now, considering he's otherwise so completely obsessed about heritage buildings getting "whacked"? (It's one of his favourite words.) One suspects that Mr. Russell is more interested in "whacking" allegedly evil, greedy-ass developers, and since there weren't any allegedly evil, greedy-ass developers involved in this project, he didn't mind that this building got ...well, whacked. But, point is, we (Victorians) are out one nice looking, true heritage building.

As cynical as you are, I agree. So many of these so-called heritage advocates are the exact same people that vociferously oppose what they see as evil, nasty, greedy developers. Enough so that it isn't hard to see behind their motives, sadly. Unless the old Our Place building was really falling apart and unfixable (which i've never heard), it's pretty hard to understand why no one said anything given it's age.

[Ms. B. Havin]

That's absolutely right, Dylan: the new building makes much more sense now. I'm just a bit annoyed that I didn't register until now that the old building was slated for demolition -- totally missed that. It would have been possible to design a new building that fit in with the old one, but somehow it was approved as executed, and I'm just surprised that I didn't even realize a demoliton was going to happen.

[D.L.]

does the new building have any underground parking?

[Phil McAvity]

^I doubt it. I doubt many of their "customers" have cars. They might need parking out front for all the shopping carts though.

Nparker, I actually like the building and it's a bit of an improvement height-wise over the old one, which I also like, but as I recall they had a really tough time getting the funding for it. It's not like the people that will be using it have a lot of money so understandably it's not as tall as it should be.

[Audrey]

There is no underground parking at the building. The Upper Room building is coming down so that a driveway (to the receiving area around back) and some parking can go in--probably for volunteers and staff. Right now, volunteers who drive in have to play parking-metre tag, or use one of the places at a church a couple blocks up.

The circular portions of the building make up a computer lab on the first floor (look for Rev. Al's stained glass panels going in up top) and a meeting room/classroom on the second floor. The blank concrete section is the elevator shaft, and the balconies are part of the lounge area for each residential floor.

[gumgum]

^Thanks for the info, Audrey.

[Phil McAvity]

How is this building 6 stories? I only count 5.

[Audrey]

There's a basement. It has lockers for people to stash their things for the day, another bank of lockers for volunteers, a section with racks of free clothing, a games room, and a hygiene area (showers, foot bath, laundry.) None of that is open to the public yet, however.