12 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

For the first time in many years Victoria will get its tallest office tower -- not just once, but twice, with Radius topping out at 13-storeys (above its Blanshard elevation) and Gateway Green at 15-storeys.

Based purely on pre-construction aesthetics and information presented thus far through each projects respective website and informational/planning materials, which of the two gets your vote? Discuss your choice if you like.

It would be nice to have a similar poll when the two projects are completed and compare the results.

Disclaimer: Now not to shoot ourselves in the foot, Gateway Green has yet to be approved (the hearing is Dec 13, 2007) but enough councillors have expressed early support for the project that it has a solid chance of getting the go-ahead. Because of this we can consider Gateway Green as a legit project for the purpose of this poll.


Gateway Green facts (click here for more)
Address: 1620 Blanshard Street
Developer: Tri-Eagle Development
Architect: de Hoog Keirulf
Website: gatewaygreen.ca

Status: Proposed (rezoning public hearing Dec 13, 2007)
Completed: 2009
Floors: 15
Height: 58m
Density: 7.6:1
Space: 150,000 sq. feet Class A


Radius (office) facts (click here for more)
Address: Blanshard and Caledonia Streets
Developer: Principle Developments
Architect: Merrick Architecture
Website: radiusvictoria.com

Status: Under construction
Completed: 2009
Floors: 13 (14 from lower elevation of Caledonia Street)
Height: ~55m
Density: ~
Space: 185,000 sq feet Class A

[gumgum]

GG has a better podium. It has that cool green wall and retail on the ground floor. Radius has those dumb cavernous spaces on the ground level and what looks like a significant setback.
But I prefer Radius' sleek, rounded glass design. a
Although I like GG's overall look as well.

It's tough, but my vote will have to be GG.

[amor de cosmos]

They both look good but I think I'm leaning towards gateway green also because of the "green" cascading down the podium. The shape of Radius is more interesting though imho. Those Centro buildings would look a lot better with a podium like Gateway Green's.

[G-Man]

I like them both but for the attention to detail in the pedestrian realm I have to go with Gateway Green. I am just really unsure about the pillars and the inset commercial on Radius.

[UrbanRail]

i do like GG as far as office buildings go. The city needs to attract more office/commerical space in the core. That green podium is really cool.

As far as Radius is concern, I am not too crazy with the design of the podium, but the project will force redevelopment in that area of Blanshard St.

So my vote is with GG

[Baro]

Radius has nice curves and sleek glass, but the street interaction is entirely suburban, as if the building was recoiling away from the horror that is the street. Buildings should come out to the edge of their lot to greet and touch the street, not suck them selves in to avoid it.

So I suppose I like GG a little better, if just for the first couple floors, but I've always thought the first couple floors are the most important.

[Mike K.]

I'm a sucker for reflective, all glass office tower facades and Radius takes the cake in that respect. I just can't fathom why Merrick would have designed an otherwise perfect office tower for Victoria but instead of hitting a home run he derailed the entire project with the ground floor. Although GG has a different facade it's ground floor is exactly what we need in modern office buildings and therefore I give it the final nod.

Since this is an opinion before the building is built and used I hope to be pleasantly surprised by Radius' groundfloor but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[D.L.]

Looking at the photos of the Gateway Green model that have been posted recently on SkyscraperPage, I find the design to be quite plain and repetitive. There is little difference between the fourth floor and 14th floor, and the roofline leaves much to be desired for something that will be so prominent on the skyline. The living wall podium is interesting, but is just a minor feature in my opinion.

The Radius office building has a much more varried and interesting form, and I don't mind the recessed ground level. Therefore I vote for Radius.

[Nparker]

I stated my basic opinion about these back on the main thread, but despite the "colonnaded" ground floor (which certainly has too many columns and is set back too far), for me the Radius project wins out overall. I think people may be forgettting that Radius also has a second shorter office tower component to the west of the taller building. This tower has a more traditional street frontage which I think will make for a lively ground floor, comparable to Gateway Green.

[Mike K.]

Unfortunately only a portion of the lowrise office component is flush with the street. Most of it is recessed.

[aastra]

...instead of hitting a home run he derailed the entire project with the ground floor.

If only there was some way the city could obligate developers to style the ground floors of new downtown buildings to fit the downtown milieu. If only...

[Baro]

That's what blows me away about the city, they'll fuss and wave their hands for YEARS over meaningless statistics and measurements like hight and density while harping on about design and the 'feel' of the city, yet take no actual action towards this apparently stated goal. Focus on the podium of a building, have it emulate old town in terms of street interaction. Then also make sure that if it's a builder that's taller than most in the area that it has a damn fine top, as this is what will be seen from a distance. The space between the street level and the top? Don't worry so much about how far that distance is or how many faux bay windows are installed.

Instead the city seems obsessed with the space between the podium and the top. They don't seem to care if the building has an interesting roof, or good street interaction so long as the space between these two points is small. They're absolutely obsessed with this one, and relatively meaningless measurement to the exclusion of demanding good design and architecture.

[Mike K.]

In order of important to planners:

1) setbacks
2) materials
3) landscaping
4) design

Perhaps that's not how the process works in reality but that's certainly how I see it from my point of view.