Jump to content

      













Photo

[Downtown Victoria] 937 View/930 Fort condos | 14-floors | Canceled in 2012

Condo Commercial

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
272 replies to this topic

#21 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,980 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:24 PM

Fort St. elevation:



Fort St. looking west:



Fort St. looking east:



View St.:



Mid-block walkway, looking toward Fort:



Lund's Auction has an easement on a lane-width strip alongside View Towers that is used to unload furniture at the back entrance. This means any future development (including this one) has to accommodate truck parking in the walkway.

#22 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:27 PM

The Fort Street frontage really needs to be improved. The four storey portion looks like it was designed to have it's side facing to Fort Street, while it should be much more animated in it's design and have a better presence to Fort Street. The View Streen face of the tower that I have seen in other renderings is much better.

#23 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,313 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:28 PM

woah, I'm liking this more and more. Thanks so much for posting these. The fort street bit looks a little tacked on though. It needs something more to be the real 'face' of the project as this is the main facing.

So what are the chances of something this size actually getting built here?

#24 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,471 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 08:07 PM

I am liking this proposal.

I agree with the comments suggestign there is something about the Fort Street facade that makes it seem as though it is turning its head. Also I think that all that trim needs to go from the walkway. I like the walking width but adding a fountain and stuff is crazy. Stretch the commecial along fort street a metre or so to the west and skip the fountain until you get further north on the alley.

Still overall 8.5

#25 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:10 PM


The Fort St. side looks crappy from this angle. What's with the blank wall? They need to wrap the window around the side here...

#26 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,980 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:30 PM

^The blank wall is built to the lot line, so windows are not allowed. On the other side of the blank wall is a bedroom and the two stairwells (the core is not in the centre of the building. There is no elevator--it is strictly a walk-up building.

There isn't enough room to set the building back far enough to allow windows.

Cielo properties owns the adjacent Japanese restaurant building.

#27 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 1,438 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:35 PM

/\/\ exactly...hasn't anyone heard Vibrant Victoria Commandment No. 3?!

Thou shalt no create a building with blank walls!

Seriously, the Fort street side is crap. It's as if they are targeting suburban buyers for those townhouses, by facing them to a "quiet" alley! Hello, you're right downtown on Fort street! Why not have the units face Fort, as they'll have a great view of the street life (sure some traffic), the businesses and buildings across the street.

As for the tower itself, as stated earlier it can't be the same height as View Towers. It's a nice enough building, would look good, but standard fair nowadays. It's like a typical Vancouver condo...well, at least that means it's not Edmonton quality!

EDIT: OK, I see Mr. Randall's reasoning. Well, why not design a building that can have windows on all sides within those limitations?! Obviously they are maximizing the space by using this design, but then perhaps this design was the wrong one for the lot. Don't build right to the lot line and have windows and transfer that lost density to the tower. I just don't want to see a bunch of blank wall buildings around town. Still, if there are some design details on that blank wall as there appear to be in the rendering, all is not lost. Heck, make it a green wall! ;)

#28 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,473 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:53 PM

That wall looks really awful. The concrete on the other part of the building looks cool; it would look so much better if that was the theme all over. It looks like the building was designed all piecemeal & it's really amateurish.

#29 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:14 PM

A building with blank walls is good because it creates a vibrant, dense streetwall.

A building with windows on all sides is good because it creates an airy viewscape.

Where things go wrong is when you mix the two side by side. You have to make a choice and stick with it or else (St. V. de P., anyone?)

#30 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,471 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:35 AM

I would rather a blank wall than a side yard setback with windows. I hate to see density wasted in prime urban locations.

The real problem is with the law I mean old brick buildings had windows that got covered up all the time. Of course can you imagine what the NIMBY reaction would be to a window being covered completely.

#31 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:16 AM

OK. That is seriously not a retail unit facing Fort St? That's a bedroom on the first floor? How nutty is that?

#32 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:26 AM

^ That's retail facing Fort. At this point, it's conceived as having retail all around the podium: Fort, alley, and View.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#33 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 13,996 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:32 AM

I like the water feature in the walkway.

The Fort Street face needs work.

#34 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 13,996 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:29 PM

I was thinking this proposal would work really well on the parking lot across from the Wave on Yates. Just flip it around so the tower is on Yates and the lowrise is on Johnson.

#35 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,487 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:07 PM

I was thinking this proposal would work really well on the parking lot across from the Wave on Yates. Just flip it around so the tower is on Yates and the lowrise is on Johnson.


Is there a reason why the Yates-Johnson lot couldn't be developed with towers on both sides? Is there a rule that towers (properly designed) can't exist back-to-back? I wonder when SOME sort of proposal will come up for this property? It seems to me it is a prime location for highrise development.

#36 DelsterX

DelsterX
  • Member
  • 80 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 11:44 AM

Long time no post but here is my 2.72 cents Canadian.

From the Fort street side it look like a shiny new extension of the View towers building. I think that the tower should be flipped to the Forst street side so it can stand on its own ancreat space btween the two buildings. Although there is probably height restrictions for Antique Row-Fort Street side it probably wouldn't fly. Because as you know in Victoria thou shalt have the same height buildings on each block so they can replicate slabs of cake from the air.

#37 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 09 November 2007 - 12:35 PM

^ Yes, there's a 4-storey height limit on Fort. The View side is in Harris Green and falls under yet another height restriction (10 storeys? or is it more?). But that's indeed the rationale behind the lowrise on Fort and highrise on View.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#38 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,313 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 12:56 PM

Can someone re-post to renders? None of his pics in any threads seem to be showing up. Maybe it's the host? Is anyone else having this problem?

#39 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:07 PM

Fort St. elevation:



Fort St. looking west:



Fort St. looking east:



View St.:



Mid-block walkway, looking toward Fort:



Lund's Auction has an easement on a lane-width strip alongside View Towers that is used to unload furniture at the back entrance. This means any future development (including this one) has to accommodate truck parking in the walkway.


@ Baro: Do these images show up? (They work fine for me.)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#40 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:10 PM

It's interesting in how the first one (below) makes the two towers look flush (pretty much same North to South depth), whereas the second image (below) emphasizes a big difference in depth. Which one's more accurate, I wonder?



and




In other words, the first one really does look like a big shiny extension of VT, while the 2nd looks more like its own building.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

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


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.