[Downtown Victoria] Kirk Hall office | 10-storeys | Canceled in 2009
#41
Posted 26 June 2008 - 03:51 PM
#42
Posted 09 July 2008 - 09:42 PM
#43
Posted 09 July 2008 - 10:11 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#44
Posted 09 July 2008 - 10:20 PM
#45
Posted 10 July 2008 - 09:25 AM
#46
Posted 10 July 2008 - 09:47 AM
Actually, even if this building were a few stories shorter it would still block views of the church tower from the inner harbour.
#47
Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:39 AM
#48
Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:44 AM
#49
Posted 10 July 2008 - 11:55 AM
And so the question begs to be asked...."What gives the church tower precedence over any other structure as viewed from the harbour?"
good question
#50
Posted 10 July 2008 - 02:49 PM
No one gets to enjoy the view from the church's spire, but many will enjoy the view from this new office building. Hundreds of people will be blessed with lovely views where none existed before. Great!
PS
I really like this rendering. I had trouble fully envisioning this site until I saw this. It's a reasonable handsome little project. I'm not a huge fan of a church getting into the development business but I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend in this situation.
#51
Posted 10 July 2008 - 03:47 PM
It just occurred to me that in this case (unlike the Broughton Street proposal) the proposed building is actually taller than the adjacent historic landmark. The church has been the tallest thing in that little quarter there for ~120 years.
Now that I mention it, I think this proposed building would be the tallest thing downtown west of Douglas (in other words, the tallest thing in the old town). Methinks only the Empress Hotel would be taller, but then again this building is up the hill a bit so it might indeed be the highest point west of Douglas. That's a pretty significant precedent.
#52
Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:31 PM
And so the question begs to be asked...."What gives the church tower precedence over any other structure as viewed from the harbour?"
The church doesn't get precedence over any other structure seen from the inner harbour. What gets precedence are nimby morons that make a big noisy stink about ridiculous things like this. And exactly how many people do you think really cherish the view of that church's steeple from the inner harbour every day? three? five? Whatever the number, I can assure you it's miniscule and it's not like the church is going to suddenly disappear. If you want to see the church you can get a very nice view of it at Douglas and Broughton, i'm pretty sure it's still there. From the inner harbour most people see the Empress and the Legislature. The more perceptive ones catch the Royal BC Museum, the Belmont Building and the Tourist Info Centre......and that's about it. You know what would be nice? If people that oppose development like this would just be honest and admit that their far-fetched, wild-eyed, ridiculous arguments against construction aren't really the issue, the issue is that they are stubborn morons who are filled with fear so they are opposed to any kind of change. Of course rather than be honest with us and themselves, everyone dances to their tune and i'm ****ing sick of it. Are local politicians such pansies that they can't just disregard these idiots for the far greater good of development and growth?
#53
Posted 11 July 2008 - 06:52 AM
#54
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:24 AM
Obviously you don't feel there's anything significantly negative about the precedent. That's great. That's your opinion. Your belief. Others might disagree. Regardless, it's still a precedent. Doesn't matter what you think of it. (I really shouldn't have to go over this stuff with you guys.)
If you re-read my post (good advice for everyone, I'm starting to think) you'll see that I made no indication whatsoever as to what my personal sentiments were towards the precedent. I merely described the state of affairs, and observed the (seeming) contradiction/hypocrisy inherent in the concerns about the Broughton proposal being too tall while this proposal would actually be taller. If somebody believes the Broughton proposal is bad because it would block views of the church from the harbour, then it follows that this hypothetical person should also believe that this taller proposal is equally as bad, if not more so, yes?
For all anybody knows, I could be salivating with delight at the prospect of a "new tallest" in the old town. I made no indication either way in my original post.
#55
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:28 AM
I didn't even know the church could be seen from the harbour.
Picture by Brian Bowrin at Flickr.com
http://www.flickr.co...@N00/423595767/
Picture by n_willsey at Flickr.com
http://www.flickr.co...sey/1376769210/
#56
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:36 AM
#57
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:41 AM
Well now that I see that picture, I have to say this proposed abomination on the skyline of the city can not, nay, MUST not be allowed to proceed! Imagine the horrors if all the tourists who come to Victoria specifically to see the top 2 metres of this church tower were so incensed that they never returned? This could easily run into the two's of people, and maybe even both of their persnickity friends. This madness must stop now. In fact, can we not put some pressure on the City to have removed all existing structures that block the view of this architectural landmark? Can you say goodbye Union Club?
Maybe the city should just expropriate this land too from the private land owners and bulldoze them all down...I think that'd be a great platform for a candidate (base the entire campaign on expropriating land from the Federal Government on down...they'd be a shoe in
#58
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:43 AM
And no boats on the harbour, too.
#59
Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:48 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#60
Posted 11 July 2008 - 12:35 PM
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