215 replies to this topic

[aastra]

The inappropriate glass and steel pyramid design of this building is an offence to the historical character of James Bay.

Okay. Why?

James Bay residents are vehemently opposed to this project, as should be the rest of Victoria.

Interesting. Why?

Modern glass and steel structures have no place in our historic areas...

Why?

...taxpayers must look to city council to protect the valuable heritage entrusted to its care. Without this heritage, there will be little reason for tourists to venture here.

Hmm. Is that motel really heritage that needs to be protected?

[aastra]

It's okay to be opposed or even to hate the darned thing, but an intelligent person won't be persuaded if you don't attempt to substantiate your reasons.

Here's the "pro" equivalent of this letter:

Pyramid Beautifies City's Heart

The very heart of Victoria's Inner Harbour will be enhanced tremendously by the exquisitely beautiful development proposed at the site of the Admiral Inn.

The density and height of the proposal are both appropriate for such a high-profile site. Permission to build up against the property line is also sought, thereby enhancing the pedestrian experience.

The impressive glass and steel pyramid design of this building is in keeping with the grandeur of the legislative precinct. James Bay residents are joyously supportive to this project, as should be the rest of Victoria.

Impressive architecture is a perfect fit for our historic areas and taxpayers must look to city council to protect the valuable heritage entrusted to its care. Without our grandiose buildings, there will be little reason for tourists to venture here.

City council should support outright the entire proposal, congratulating the developer for submitting an architecturally responsible plan that respects Victoria's heritage.

[Baro]

Haha perfect. Except your letter actually makes some good points. Tourists DO visit cities to see grand buildings. The height and density ARE within the general norms of the district.

[amor de cosmos]

Hmm. Is that motel really heritage that needs to be protected?

HELL NO! That faux-country style needs to be buried, & why not start with that Admiral Inn. After Admiral's Inn, Huntingdon Manor should go! I wonder which James Bay residents oppose this project? It's like the federal Liberal party who for the last year has said that "Canadians" don't want an election, which in English means "Canadian Liberals"

[aastra]

The implication, of course, is that all residents of James Bay are opposed. Can you imagine making the claim that all residents were supportive of something? You'd be laughed out of town. The newspaper wouldn't even publish it.

Anyway, the menace of a new condo building suddenly seems rather irrelevant after that ruling yesterday.

[Ms. B. Havin]

It's okay to be opposed or even to hate the darned thing, but an intelligent person won't be persuaded if you don't attempt to substantiate your reasons.

Here's the "pro" equivalent of this letter:

Pyramid Beautifies City's Heart

The very heart of Victoria's Inner Harbour will be enhanced tremendously by the exquisitely beautiful development proposed at the site of the Admiral Inn.

The density and height of the proposal are both appropriate for such a high-profile site. Permission to build up against the property line is also sought, thereby enhancing the pedestrian experience.

The impressive glass and steel pyramid design of this building is in keeping with the grandeur of the legislative precinct. James Bay residents are joyously supportive to this project, as should be the rest of Victoria.

Impressive architecture is a perfect fit for our historic areas and taxpayers must look to city council to protect the valuable heritage entrusted to its care. Without our grandiose buildings, there will be little reason for tourists to venture here.

City council should support outright the entire proposal, congratulating the developer for submitting an architecturally responsible plan that respects Victoria's heritage.

Seriously, I think every one of us should copy and paste aastra's counter-letter into an email to the letters editor at the TC. Sign our real names, but just send the same letter, en masse.

Well, it would be a good idea if it didn't also automatically imply support for this project, vs mere opposition to the idiocy of the knee-jerk opposition...

[VicHockeyFan]

That was brilliant, Aastra.

Ya, people sure hate our big buildings. The Legislative Buildings, Empress Hotel. I've never even seen them on a postcard.

Emergency access? That's right up there with "increased traffic" for bullshit reasons to not develop residential with more density.

[amor de cosmos]

I think James Bay actually has the biggest & most high-profile buildings in town. There's the Legislature & Museum of course, but there's also a big office building attached to the museum, & two ~20-story apartment buildings behind South Park School. & then there are Shoal Pt, Goodacre Towers, etc.

[amor de cosmos]

the latest:

Proposed pyramid too tall for site: staff

Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, October 16, 2008

Victoria planning staff say a proposed 12-storey, pyramid-shaped condominium to replace the Admiral Inn is too big for the Belleville Street site.

A consortium, led by Calgarian Bill Demcoe, wants to replace the 33-unit motel at 257 Belleville St. with a condominium -- called the Landmark -- of up to 40 units and some 62 underground parking stalls. The proposed brick and glass building would be pyramidal with sloped south-west and north-east facing facades,

http://www.canada.co...c5-052a5e5560a5

Sure it contrasts with the form of nearby buildings. That's because the nearby buildings (like Huntingdon Manor) are unconvincing counterfeits of actual heritage buildings. Gatsby Mansion, for example, can stay of course since it's a genuine heritage building, but all that fake stuff has to go.

[aastra]

But a report to city councillors today says the proposed building is simply too big for the site and too tall (41.4 metres) for the Inner Harbour and lower Douglas Street permit guidelines.

The staff report also says the pyramid-style contrasts with the form of nearby buildings.

There are some odd implications in these comments:

1) Too tall: Are they saying there aren't any tall buildings around there? That's incorrect. The old Laurel Point condo building and the Harbour Towers Hotel are both just about exactly the same height as the proposed building. The Harbourside condo/hotel buildings are only slightly shorter.

2) Contrasting form: I hate to break it to city planners, but the forms and styles in that area are all over the place. There's no consistency at all. Ironically, the extruded triangle form of the proposed building could be seen as an homage to the terraced pyramid form of the old Laurel Point condo building.

[aastra]

It's amazing how selective the planning folks can be when they analyze the context of proposals. Major buildings can disappear altogether if their presence is inconvenient to planning's position.

Seriously, I'd much prefer it if the planning folks just fessed up and said something like, "the proposed building is too cool for lame old Victoria so that's why we're rejecting it."

[http]

... but there's also a big office building attached to the museum...

Last I checked, Fannin Tower is where the museum holds non-display and research collections.

[Baro]

I heard a horrible rumour this project was just canceled!

[Rob Randall]

Yes, I ran into the development team at City Hall today where they were withdrawing the 257 Belleville application due to what they told me were difficulties obtaining secure financing in these troubled economic times.

So, yes: officially canceled for now.

[gumgum]

It's going to be a very quiet next couple of years.

[amor de cosmos]

Sure it contrasts with the form of nearby buildings. That's because the nearby buildings (like Huntingdon Manor) are unconvincing counterfeits of actual heritage buildings. Gatsby Mansion, for example, can stay of course since it's a genuine heritage building, but all that fake stuff has to go.

correction: Huntingdon Manor actually doesn't look too bad from Belleville St, making a backdrop to Gatsby Mansion. From the Quebec St side it doesn't look quite right across from Harbour Towers, but the finishes are pretty nice on that building. Admiral Inn on the other hand looks silly with the anchor & steering wheel on it.

[Rob Randall]

A new proposal for this site is being, uh proposed. Warner James and Hughes Condon Marler are out and the new architects are Alan Lowe and Marshall Tittemore.

We received some very good input from neighbours who attended our open house on March 24th and we have used many of the ideas and suggestions that were important to them to inform our design.

We had over 50 people attend the open house and many of the ideas and opinions were similar. We could summarize them as follows:

• The new design needs to fit into the neighbourhood
• The pedestrian experience along Belleville needs to be enhanced
• The building should not be any higher than the Laurel Point Condominiums
• View lines from the Laurel Point Condominiums need to be respected
• The building needs to be set back from the Laurel Point Condominiums
• Condominiums is a good fit within the neighbourhood

We are now working on preliminary plans and building forms and we would like to extend an opportunity to you to review these ideas. We are holding a second open house at the James Bay New Horizons, 234 Menzies Street, anytime between 4:30 – 7:00 pm on Tuesday April 6th.

I'm not sure about this one. I haven't seen any renderings yet but the old pyramid was a dynamic design that dared to challenge the other icons along the harbour, from Rattenbury's rockpiles to Erickson's glass cathedral. There are some interesting designs on the Marshall Tittemore website but a lot of the multi-family residential has that ubiquitous west-coast faux-ski lodge look.

[aastra]

The new design needs to fit into the neighbourhood

Depending on whom you ask, this could mean a glassy highrise tower or it could mean a stucco shack.

The pedestrian experience along Belleville needs to be enhanced

Depending on whom you ask, this could mean townhouses and storefronts or it could mean massive setbacks and a parking lot.

The building should not be any higher than the Laurel Point Condominiums

My biggest concern, too. We definitely don't want to make the Laurel Point Condominiums look insignificant. Heritage and history, don't you know.

View lines from the Laurel Point Condominiums need to be respected

Fair enough, but this could mean many different things depending on whom you ask.

The building needs to be set back from the Laurel Point Condominiums

Fair enough.

Condominiums is (are?) a good fit within the neighbourhood

So do we take this one at face value or does it really mean "No coffee shops or restaurants"?

[G-Man]

^ No low income housing or rentals is what that means to me.

[Rob Randall]

The new design needs to fit into the neighbourhood

I know, this is a puzzling phrase. JB is 150 years of world architecture.