Jump to content

      













Photo

[Fairfield] Mount St. Angela condos, proposal #2 | 6-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,061 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 05:13 PM

Mount St. Angela development proposal to get public airing

Times Colonist staff

A proposal to build 60 condominiums, townhouses and seniors’ housing on the site of historic Mount St. Angela College will go to public hearing.

Cielo Properties, on behalf of the Sisters of St. Ann, is proposing to restore and reuse the heritage-designated Mount St. Angela College on Burdett Avenue, transforming it into nine units of affordable housing for senior women.

[...]

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


#2 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,818 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 12:13 PM

I wish I could see a rendering of this project as I am having trouble visualizing it based on on this article. BTW my mom had a cousin who was a nun who lived Mt. St. Angela. Small world huh?

#3 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 06:36 PM



They're not proposing to demolish the cool four storey apartment house tucked in behind, are they? I love that building.
"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

#4 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 07:27 PM

yeah, that's probably the addition that was built in 1912 that's going to go.

#5 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 07:48 PM

Apartment Building?

That was probably a dorm. for the nuns...

#6 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,043 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 09:12 AM

Anybody got a good pic of the 1912 addition?

#7 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 10:03 AM

It's one of the most difficult buildings to get a clear picture of.
"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

#8 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,443 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:29 AM

This project goes before Advisory Design Panel tomorrow at noon at City Hall.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#9 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:02 AM

Mount St. Angela: Why we should care
Development plans for historic precinct pay little heed to citizens' wishes


Nick Russell
Special to Times Colonist

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

CREDIT: John McKay, Times Colonist
Details of a development proposal for historic Mount St. Angela and its immediate neighbours pay little attention to recommendations contained in the Humboldt Valley Precinct Plan, says the president of the Hallmark Society.

What's the point of developing community plans if even the city ignores them?

The current example is Mount St. Angela (formerly Angela College) on Burdett Street -- one of Victoria's most treasured streetscapes and historic clusters.

[...]
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007
"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

#10 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,043 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:20 AM

I don't have any problems with the overall sentiment here and many of the particulars, but some things still jumped out at me:

As the plan calls for a maximum of three storeys or four storeys, why even consider six storeys?


Because the difference between six and four is trivial?

Because there are plenty of buildings that are six stories or taller in that area?

Why have we not seen scale models of what these towers would look like?


Good question about the models, but calling six story buildings "towers" is a gross misrepresentation of things. Is Victoria's old town really full of heritage towers? Obviously not, but there are plenty of buildings there that are six stories tall (or equivalent).

If the towers will be visible over the roof of Mount St. Angela, why not lop another floor off them?


Key point: visible from where?

Enhance opportunities for passive, useable open space and enhance historic open spaces in the precinct.


I can't agree with the supposed need for passive open space. If there was no such space before, how would we be preserving the character of the area by introducing it now?

#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,043 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:30 AM

...you can't hide two six-storey towers, and you can't hide 150 or so new residents


Why on earth would we want to hide such things? This attitude is absolutely backwards, in my opinion. We should be demanding fine buildings because fine buildings don't need to be hidden away.

Crappy buildings that maintain a low profile to divert attention from their crappiness just shouldn't be allowed anymore. That was Victoria's strategy in the 1950s. It was a near disaster.

#12 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:36 AM

More people in my neighbourhood? Good.

Preserving an old character home? Good.

Getting rid of a mediocre four story structure for two decent six story buildings? Good.

All bets are off if the buildings are ugly though...

#13 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,927 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:49 AM

I am actually against the proposal but this article is just plain ludicrous. It is articles like these that absolutely destroy any crediability the anti-height and density crowd people have.

The biggest most glaring mistake is calling a density limit a "population density limit" I mean caome on does this person know anything about development or just things he doesn't like.

Anyways I hope that this project does not go through but at the same time I hope this guy doesn't think his words had any effect on the outcome.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#14 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,818 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 12:31 PM

[quote name='"G-Man"']I am actually against the proposal ...."

As I am rather ambivalent about this project (too few details so far) I am curious as to your objections G-man. Too little denisity? Too much? No need for development in this location? A soft spot for the nunnery? Enquiring minds (OK me) want to know.

#15 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 12:37 PM

3. Mount St. Angela is in good shape, so why is restoring it cited as the justification for exceeding the height and density guidelines?


Good shape? Is it seismically upgraded to current standards? I somehow doubt it.
"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

#16 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,927 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:58 PM

I am against ripping down decent and historically valid buildings such as the 1912? addition on the back of this building. In addition I think that the risk of damage to both the esthetic of the whole site as well as the original building is too great, especially when the outcome will most likely be two Mount st Mary style hospital buildings. There are many places for valid development in our downtown core I just don't think this is one of them.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#17 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,043 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 04:02 PM

I agree. If we continue to knock down "non-significant" early 20th century buildings then little by little we also continue to chip away at the old urban character that makes Victoria what it is.

I have the same concerns about the older buildings at the Jubilee. They're not particularly fine buildings and their architectural integrity has suffered somewhat over the decades, but they have more Victorian (as in Victoria, BC) character in them than probably anything else in that part of town.

I had the same concern about the Oak Bay United Church but the Hallmark Society's website tells me they're going to do a full restoration, which is great.

#18 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,443 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 04:45 PM

This project was voted down at last night's Advisory Planning Commission by a vote of 4-3.

This afternoon it was tabled for further massing revisions at Advisory Design Panel.

They had a detailed model there which was the first chance I had to see the project. I was surprised at how large the project is. There are two rectangular towers set north/south that look similar to some of the other low-rise projects Cielo has done recently.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#19 rayne_k

rayne_k
  • Member
  • 170 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 06:41 PM

I've had a glimpse of the model.. I too was struck by how deep the buildings seemed to be, BUT then you realise *no* one passing by on the sidewalk would ever get a view of them like that (ie. big wall) The sidewalk is perpindicular.. and there are already some skinny deep buildings in the area that no one rants on about.

Are model makers allowed to put in more neighbouring buildings for context? I think that would have been helpful.

#20 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,443 posts

Posted 29 June 2007 - 11:30 PM

This project goes before Advisory Design Panel Wednesday, July 4 at 1:50 p.m. The public can attend but not speak.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


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