272 replies to this topic

[jonny]

No, it was too dense for 21st century Victoria.  I don't object to the design: as I already said, this would have been great on the corner of Fort/View and Vancouver.  

 

As for what you can build at this site?  Four or five storey infill would be appropriate in my opinion.  

 

I disagree. This area is not static and has already changed quite a bit. It’s already a dense area, and only getting denser.  

 

There is already View Tower, the two pink buildings on View, the Metropolitan on Yates, the apartment building nearby at View/Cook and several mid-rise buildings on Fort. The highish-rise buildings on View and the Wave on Yates are a block or so away. There is a planned new mid-rise building at Cook and Fort, and of course the Jukebox property on View. We also have the Chard site on Yates which is likely to be developed in the near term. There are dozens of 3-6 storey buildings throughout the neighbourhood as well.   

[jklymak]

^ Two relatively remote towers in close proximity to one another can and do work well together. Promontory/Bayview 1, Orchard House / Roberts House, the two dark brick towers by the arena and the two beautiful pink and green buildings on Yates/View come to mind.  

 

Yeah, I agree.  But those two pink buildings together including the gap between them are only about 10% wider than all of View towers.  The two buildings on Quadra are a block apart.  Orchard House and Roberts house and the Promontory/Bayview have big gaps between them.  The lot beside View Towers is far smaller in total than the gaps between these buildings (except for the pink pair).  

 

BTW, that was a pretty interesting use of perspective in the rendering above.  I think this one is more accurate and demonstrates that the "alley" was to be narrow small indeed.

 

[Mike K.]

With that line of thinking we are forever bound by what View Towers has done to its immediate area.

 

We should be doing absolutely everything we can to hide that monstrosity from view. Killing one project after another because View Towers imposes some limits on what can be done is backwards thinking. And for the record View Street is already a street wall and is the likeliest candidate for a legitimate "urban canyon" in Victoria and has been shaping into its present form over 50 years. And the pink/green towers at Vancouver and Yates are spaced at virtually the same distance as the 837 proposal and View Towers would have been. In fact the Harris Green development guidelines actually encourage close proximity between buildings.

[jklymak]

With that line of thinking we are forever bound by what View Towers has done to its immediate area.

 

We should be doing absolutely everything we can to hide that monstrosity from view. Killing one project after another because View Towers imposes some limits on what can be done is backwards thinking. And for the record View Street is already a street wall and is the likeliest candidate for a legitimate "urban canyon" in Victoria and has been shaping into its present form over 50 years. And the pink/green towers at Vancouver and Yates are spaced at virtually the same distance as the 837 proposal and View Towers would have been. In fact the Harris Green development guidelines actually encourage close proximity between buildings.

 

Yes, I believe VT imposes limits on the immediately adjoining property. If the Harris Green guidelines encourage close proximity of two very large buildings, I couldn't find it.  How wide was that alley supposed to be?  It doesn't look like more than 40' to me.  

[jonny]

It wouldn't have been my favorite situation, but that's mostly because the View Tower is so awful. I don't think for a second that a great building next to View Tower would be a bad thing for Victoria.

[bluefox]

It's a fairly bleak street east of Douglas as far as architecture goes.

 

Fixed it for you.

[Mike K.]

If the Harris Green guidelines encourage close proximity of two very large buildings, I couldn't find it.  How wide was that alley supposed to be?  It doesn't look like more than 40' to me.  

 

You bet it does.

 

Here's the 1075 Pandora proposal. To the left is Sutton East, to the right is Mondrian. This design is literally according to the Harris Green requirements. Behind Mondrian is the other wing of 1075 Pandora.

 

 

The width of the 937 View alley is what City Hall wanted. Some buildings are built right up to the lot line and scale straight up without setbacks.

[jklymak]

Ok well I strenuously object to the pandora proposal as well

[G-Man]

I think the massing on this project is much more spacious than what you see in the Pandora Cook example. I mean it is down right roomy in comparison especially with the four storey section. 

[Holden West]

The strictest reading of the Harris Green guidelines do encourage setbacks after the second floor. In fact, the hypothetical "ideal" project as originally conceived would have been a squat, short-ish ziggurat-shaped building. A lot of them. Shoulder to shoulder. That "Mayan pyramid" style of construction fell out of favour before major projects went underway so really architectural styles were made up there as they went along, hence the eclectic diversity in Harris Green.

 

The developers were getting positive feedback on the extra height as it was seen by some as a way of challenging View Towers' brutal dominance of the block and the skyline. I don't think the height would have been enthusiastically received if the tower wasn't so visually impressive, especially that dynamic roofline element. 

[amor de cosmos]

http://www.darkroast...ecture-and.html

[Mike K.]

This site is now the focus of two separate development proposals, one a 12-storey condominium tower along Fort Street and the other a purpose-built rental complex along View Street.

[Mike K.]

New proposals for:
 
937 View Street - Citified entry | Discussion
930 Fort Street - Citified entry | Discussion