Jump to content

      














BUILT
601 Herald
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 601 Herald Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 5
Condo units: 27 (studio/bachelor, loft, 1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: sold out / resales only
601 Herald Street is a five storey, 27 loft-style unit woodframe condo with ground floor retail situated at He... (view full profile)
Learn more about 601 Herald on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] 601 Herald | Condos| 4-storeys | Built - completed in 2011

Condo Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#61 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 01:58 PM

How about a green wall along the face of the courtyard?


The Kabuki would not likely do this because the strata does not want to buy and maintain an expensive feature they cannot see or use.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#62 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,053 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 02:13 PM

Perhaps a tile mosaic of a wave.

#63 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 02:19 PM

^That might work. At least something decorative.

As you may know, the east wall of the Jigsaw building against the Mosaic has metal sculptures on it suitable for climbing plants along with large ceramic pots. The potted plants died years ago. The Jigsaw isn't interested in maintaining something they can't see and half the Mosaic residents can't see it so it would be difficult for us to pay for it.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#64 hotdoglegz

hotdoglegz
  • Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 03:04 PM

is the courtyard ground level or first floor? I was under the impression that the ground floor would be parking.

#65 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 05:39 PM

The Kabuki would not likely do this because the strata does not want to buy and maintain an expensive feature they cannot see or use.


I guess I don't see why the building needs a courtyard. Kind of a dinky way for the developer to give the inner residents light. Why not rearrange the buildings so that the "courtyard" is on the N side of the building and make the units longer so they all have a N exposure? The courtyard could be a rooftop garden for the 2nd floor owners above a full retail podium.

#66 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 05:45 PM

^Good point.

#67 Old School

Old School
  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 June 2008 - 08:08 PM

From what I understand the courtyard is elevated above the parking/commercial ground floor giving the first residential floor access to the courtyard which is away from the street frontage...Looks like a fine outlook for the inward facing units especially when compared to what the back units of 613 Herald might get a view of.

#68 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 16 September 2008 - 09:49 PM

The official name for this project is 601 Herald.

Here are the latest renderings. Note the roofline is varied and the large arched windows on the top floor are diminished on the advice of City Hall:

Herald Street:



Government Street:



Government and Herald sketch:



Herald St. sketch:


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#69 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,965 posts

Posted 16 September 2008 - 11:20 PM

This one is pure class. I REALLY hope it goes ahead.

#70 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,466 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:19 AM

If this project is viable, it makes me wonder why something similar but slightly larger couldn't be built on the Bambu lot. Maybe six or seven stories on Pandora and three or four stories on Fisgard.

#71 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:29 AM

^Aastra, it can't be done because the Bambu/Buckerfield's site was purchased at a price that reflected the increased zoning allowance. It is not considered economical to build anything there now.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#72 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,053 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 12:03 PM

Well I would guess that was just a poor purchase, they could offload the property at a loss and someone else could build a smaller building.

#73 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 12:10 PM

I should also note that the bay windows mentioned previously have been omitted. The building had been pulled back from the lot line in order that the bay windows not jut out onto the public airspace above the sidewalk. Although the window feature is no more, the building is still set back several inches.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#74 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,053 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:13 PM

I hope you don't mean that the building is set back behind the line of the current buildings along Government Street. If this is what you mean it could be as big a disaster as the ground floor of the Wave.

#75 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,965 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:47 PM

I totally agree G-Man.

#76 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,466 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:26 PM

The sketch doesn't seem to show a setback on the Government Street side.

#77 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 11,730 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:12 PM

The building will only be set back a few inches. The sidewalk is narrow so I think this will be good.

Unfortunately, the slightly staggered roofline is only a decoration--it does not reflect an actual variation in the roof heights.

On second thought, I agree the corner entrance is underwhelming. I did tell the proponent that the design would be enhanced with custom detailing like quality lighting fixtures, door handles etc. etc.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#78 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,466 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 10:47 AM

I don't want to sound negative because this is exactly the sort of residential building that I think the old town needs in spades...but I agree that it's missing something. It seems a bit too plain.

But I'd be more than happy to give it a pass, much like I give Astoria and Belvedere a pass. This building represents the beginning of something good in the old town. If the trend has legs, then we can safely assume that subsequent buildings will strive to be a bit better than the one(s) that started it all.

#79 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 01:42 PM

On second thought, I agree the corner entrance is underwhelming. I did tell the proponent that the design would be enhanced with custom detailing like quality lighting fixtures, door handles etc. etc.


Yeah, a slight design tweak like a semicircular window over the door, and widening the door a bit would spice it up w/o too much of a change.

Otherwise I think its a nice building. A shocking lack of floor-to-ceiling windows, but I bet it'll still do well....

#80 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 02:23 PM

Herald St. sketch:



One Smart Car, a few people with backpacks. Three bicyclists, a dog that looks more like a big cat, and a kid. Another bicycle alone. Where are the homeless and beggars in this rendering? The SUVs? At least they included a single-mom. But they showed who your neighbours would be, good, safe, upper-class Mercedes-drivers (the one entering the parkade).

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