345 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I totally agree about the grass thing. I do not think that it should be there at all.

[m0nkyman]

Victoria has been "greening" Yates Street for years. I really don't understand why.

Maybe because people in city council and various neighbourhood organizations scream about needing setbacks and community gardens downtown? :roll:

Well, we have to take some of the blame for not screaming loud enough that we want to live in a city, and that we don't want to bring the suburbs downtown... We've dropped the ball as much as they've been carrying it the wrong way.

[aastra]

Here's a good quote I found:

...instead of taking pride in their downtown and flaunting it, some Victorians prefer to be constantly at war with it:

- They try to cheapen it with height restrictions and setbacks and other suburban design imperatives that have no relevance in the downtown core.

[Mike K.]

There's also the Regent Park towers, Manhattan and the 5-storey job at Cook and Yates.

Out of all of them The Wave has so far done the most for the street. The thrift store has a meagre entrance with drab decor on display so it doesn't win many points. Once retail establishes itself at the Wave and at Cap 6 the thrift store won't be as noticeable.

The only thing this demonstrates is how bad the development along Yates street has been over the past decade. It's like saying "eating dirt is better than eating dog turds" :roll:

Hardly. Yates was devoid of storefronts in new developments up until the last few years. At least what we have here is retail joining the street with the potential for outdoor extesions right up to the sidewalk.

The real issue is that we're reacting to a building that was approved in 2003/04 before Victoria's urban form was challenged en masse as it is today. The next incarnation of Yates developments will respond to the criticisms of The Wave, so nothing's lost.

[Oxford Sutherland]

There's also the Regent Park towers, Manhattan and the 5-storey job at Cook and Yates.

Out of all of them The Wave has so far done the most for the street. The thrift store has a meagre entrance with drab decor on display so it doesn't win many points. Once retail establishes itself at the Wave and at Cap 6 the thrift store won't be as noticeable.

The only thing this demonstrates is how bad the development along Yates street has been over the past decade. It's like saying "eating dirt is better than eating dog turds" :roll:

Hardly. Yates was devoid of storefronts in new developments up until the last few years. At least what we have here is retail joining the street with the potential for outdoor extesions right up to the sidewalk.

That just reinforces my point about how bad the development along Yates street has been over the past decade

The Wave isn't very good, but it's better than many of the turds on Yates Street.

The analogy of the dirt and the turds is that you wouldn't want to eat either, but if you had to, you'd probably reluctantly eat the dirt.

[gumgum]

The analogy of the dirt and the turds is that you wouldn't want to eat either, but if you had to, you'd probably reluctantly eat the dirt.

Wow Ox, That's deep man. :wink:

[Oxford Sutherland]

So we've had turds, now we've got dirt, maybe....just maybe....we can have something better in like....oh I dunno....2009, that we can point to and say "that is a good and appropriate building for Yates Street", because bland fatscrapers with unfriendly Gates, broken streetscapes, pointless setbacks, stupid murals, and cheap building materials is a recipe for a very dull city.

[D.L.]

I really don't like the way the street frontage of the Wave juts in and out from the sidewalk. I would look better if it were all one straight line.

[Ben Smith]

Hm, well after seeing everyone else's disapproval with it, I looked back at the photos, and after looking over it again and again, I still have nothing to not be pleased with!

It would be nicer if it was tall, but hey, you know...decent.

Ben

[Scaper]

I totally agree about the grass thing. I do not think that it should be there at all.

EXCEPT FOR THE G-MAN

[gumgum]

That patch of grass in front of Market On Yates is alright.

[Kapten Kapsell]

I guess some of the forum members aren't too happy about my new home. Alas, it's not a perfect building, but no building ever can be. I think that buildings like the Wave, whatever their flaws, are a preferable alternative to surface parking lots in the "Harris Green" area of the city centre.

[Scaper]

^ EXELLENT COMMENT!!!

I am really happy with the wave. and from the things people see that could have been done differently helps with the next project.

I would be so happy to live in the wave.....especially the top floor!!! :-D

[G-Man]

I am a fan of the Wave I have just been quiet because I know it makes Ox grumpy

I have said it many times it is a vast improvment over what was there before. AND a new building downtown is not just about the building it is about the vibrancy it brings to downtown in the form of new residents

[Oxford Sutherland]

That's some serious lowered expectations you've got if simply building anything on a parking lot makes you satisfied.

Personally, I'm very concerned about Victoria being filled with mediocre buildings. You know how great lower Johnson Street looks or Government Street? We could be building modern versions of those kind of great streets with towers above great retail spaces, but we aren't really doing that.

Unfortunately, Victoria really is all about lowered expectations and lack of vision. I think it's sad to see so much of it on this forum too.

[Kapten Kapsell]

I'm disappointed that some would use a public forum to criticize the residences of other people. I certainly harbour negative opinions about certain residential structures, but I keep them to myself or speak about them privately. The only exceptions to this personal rule, for me, are social housing structures built with public/Crown funds, since ultimately every citizen/resident is a stakeholder.

Saying that the Wave- or any other building- is mediocre will always be a subjective opinion that cannot be buttressed by hard facts. I'm fond of certain Modernist buildings that would make neo-traditionalists and others cringe, and still others like buildings I eschew. Publicly criticizing someone's home is counter-productive because they ultimately chose to make it a home based on subjective factors.

[Doc Sage]

I live a block or two from it. Actually I look at it from my kitchen window.

As a building I see little wrong with it. I need to see the sidewalk level occupied before I can pass judgement.

To the above poster (BCguy75). It is not your home that is criticise, but the building itself.

The interior photos of the suite must be localed in the innner corner of the building hiding the view to the east. Out from that corner and a few floors higher the sun exposure, and the view, will improve a lot.

Doc sage

[Oxford Sutherland]

I'm disappointed that some would use a public forum to criticize the residences of other people. I certainly harbour negative opinions about certain residential structures, but I keep them to myself or speak about them privately. The only exceptions to this personal rule, for me, are social housing structures built with public/Crown funds, since ultimately every citizen/resident is a stakeholder.

Saying that the Wave- or any other building- is mediocre will always be a subjective opinion that cannot be buttressed by hard facts. I'm fond of certain Modernist buildings that would make neo-traditionalists and others cringe, and still others like buildings I eschew. Publicly criticizing someone's home is counter-productive because they ultimately chose to make it a home based on subjective factors.

In that case, you probably shouldn't read anything I post anymore, because I like to criticize things, I wouldn't want you to pop that pollyanna utopian bubble you're trying to live in. :roll:

[Oxford Sutherland]

By the way, I've publicly criticized my own building as well. I'm an equal opportunity critic. :tup:

[Kapten Kapsell]

I don't think I'm in a Pollyanna utopian bubble- i've freely admitted that my home- like any other building- is not perfect. Over time, I expect the strata to have many challenges, and it's possible that some of them will be related to design issues. To give you an example, my last condo building of residence- located in Vancouver- had street-level retail situated directly below residences. A bar moved into one of the retail spaces, and the design of the outdoor area encouraged patrons to linger after leaving the establishment; thus, residents constantly complained of noisy drunks.

I would hope that posters would have the tact to refrain from referring to another poster's home as 'mediocre'. Legitimate debate is useful, but respect for all posters- and their residences- should be paramount. I don't mind someone pointing out individual flaws in my building in a tactful way, but I would hope that glittering generalities- such as calling a building mediocre- could be avoided.