2343 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

I need some visuals.

[Mike K.]

I noticed the treatment of the roof elements last night. It's done well. The griping is pulling at straws, IMO.

[Jackerbie]

I need some visuals.

 

The plans are available online, here: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=44826

 

It's a grainy photocopy, but enough to get the general idea. Existing on the left, proposed screening structure on the right.

 

[Mike K.]

Isn't there some sort of screening already installed up top?

[aastra]

 

“It’s incredibly frustrating,” he said. “We have to sit down with them and say: ‘OK, we proposed it. This is what you told us to do. Now, you told us you don’t like what you told us to do.’

“The process is really you just propose something different and hope that they like it.”

 

How many times have we talked about this game over the years?

First proposal: the CoV says it's wrong in many ways.
Second proposal: the CoV says it's still wrong in many ways.
Umpteenth proposal: the CoV says it's still wrong in many ways.

But whenever anyone asks the CoV to clearly describe what the right thing would be, they just can't find the words.

 

 

City staff, however, said the proposed screening "negatively impacts the visual symmetry and architectural harmony of the two buildings" and appears "incongruous with the elegant curving-roof forms of the buildings."

 

The exposed mechanical units don't look good, but shrouding them would also not look good.

 

 

City staff say the enclosure was installed without necessary approvals and might deter people from using walkways around the marina buildings.

 

In the year 2019 the CoV is now concerned that people might not be enjoying the complete marina experience. Just a wee bit of irony there, when you consider the full history of the marina saga.

 

From Times-Colonist "Victoria council rejects marina changes built without permit"

[Nparker]

Comrade Isitt's response from the above TC article.

...I think there’s a much greater risk of over-reaching and not adhering to the city’s regulations when it’s done through a unilateral process rather than a more collaborative process...

At least he speaks with the authority of someone who has personal knowledge of over-reaching and making unilateral decisions. Pot meet kettle.

[IPH]

 There's a simple solution to the Marina's dilemma.  All they have to do is change their name to BC Housing and call the place Mount Edwards.  Then they can make any changes they want, including violating any permits they get from the City without bothering to consult them.   

 

Council will tell them how disappointed they are with their actions, but carry on with all the good work boys! 

[aastra]

 

City staff, however, said the proposed screening "negatively impacts the visual symmetry and architectural harmony of the two buildings" and appears "incongruous with the elegant curving-roof forms of the buildings."

 

I think this marina might be the all-time champ re: the most abrupt transition from "evil-development-that-will-surely-ruin-everything" to "beloved-landmark-that-must-be-protected".

 

For decades before it was made real it was a looming menace of apocalyptic proportions, and then it was finally made real, and now in the blink of an eye it's something sacred.

 

Pretty much every development controversy goes through these same phases, but this one was dragged out for so incredibly long, and then flipped from "chaotic evil" to "lawful good" in an instant.*

 

Will people finally learn? I doubt it.

 

*dungeons and dragons reference

Edited by aastra, 25 September 2019 - 11:09 AM.

[Sparky]

It could be time for the marina to check their architect’s errors and omission insurance policy.

[Cassidy]

Using the marina as an example, in the COV it really only comes down to two things.

 

First is that you're a bit of a gambler if you make changes to your construction project that aren't already approved in the plans approved by the COV ... simply because you can't anticipate at all how Council is going to react or respond to your proposed changes, or to changes you've made after the fact. As noted by aastra above, if you're Mt. Edwards, they give you a huge break ... if you're the marina, apparently they don't give you the same break.

Such is life when troubled children with strong agendas are running your city.

 

Second is that any sort of "design" element that conceals HVAC ductwork on any building is better than exposed galvanized metal and HVAC machinery towering above the buildings roofline, the proposed changes in this case definitely being more architecturally appealing than the status quo.

And if the marina wants to pick up the tab to replace the chain link fence around their utilities hardware with a (no doubt very expensive) glass enclosure ... well ... anything is better than a galvanized chain link fence.

 

As an aside, whom with COV staff rendered the comment that the proposed changes would diminish the swooping roofline and damage the overall integrity of the design? ... what are the details of their artistic credentials in order that we should consider their statement valid? ... what buildings has this person brought from the design phase to completion of construction such that their opinion even matters, or should in any way be taken seriously?

 

So we simply acknowledge that the COV continues to suck politically in almost every (if not every) regard.

We learn that expectations of the Mayor and Council should always be kept incredibly low (as in very bottom of the barrel) and thus many profound disappointments amongst the business community and general citizenry of the COV won't be quite as commonplace.

Edited by Cassidy, 25 September 2019 - 04:34 PM.

[aastra]

 

As noted by aastra above, if you're Mt. Edwards, they give you a huge break

 

T'was not me who provided that wry insight. It was IPH.

[Sparky]

I can see where some poor soul(s) have bought and lived on the glorious edge of the harbour only to face the exhaust, equipment, noise....etc of the rooftop HVAC gear....instead of the ocean ....might have concerns regarding the proposal not matching the finished product.

[aastra]

Exhibit #999 in the case against Victorians and their misplaced priorities re: architectural esthetics. People fret about all the wrong things, all the trivial things, while ignoring the very obvious/relevant things.

[aastra]

That stuff should be shrouded, not only there but on the roof of any half-decently prominent new building.

[Victoria Watcher]

edit

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 31 October 2019 - 12:57 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

I love this proposal and its potential to bring some life to the graveyard that is the Songhees. What a joke that a resident feels it will impede her ability to walk in the neighbourhood. Do these people really feel that by purchasing a condo here they have exclusive control of all harbour development and activities in perpetuity? Why anyone would prefer this sterile wasteland to a place where people actually congregate is beyond me. And gawd forbid there be any walkable amenities in the neighbourhood. We're the Songhees and we love the fact that we need a car to do any sort of business. Who wants to be able to walk to a store, a restaurant or any other activity?

 

this one took 10 years of talking then just a year to build.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 31 October 2019 - 12:59 PM.

[Nparker]

this one took 10 years of talking...

That's actually a pretty brief planning period for this part of the world. We should probably measure planning in generations rather than years.

[laconic]

There is new raised aluminum lettering on the concrete of both buildings stating "Public walkway", so you can walk around them.

 

The letters are subtle while the doors with electronic locks are a formidable visual barrier, but if you believe the sign, then you'll find the doors unlocked.

[Victoria Watcher]

We are OPEN
We are COVID-19 compliant
NEW - *We are also open to 40-FOOT+

May Promotion:
"Spend 2 Nights and get 3rd Night on us"

* under temporary provision of the harbourmaster we can offer moorage to vessels under the usual 65 foot minimum. This is due to low harbour air traffic due to COVID-19.

The Victoria International Marina is open to all vessels from 40' - 180' who wish to spend time relaxing in a safe and secure oasis. All slips and marina infrastructure are COVID-19-cleaned and ready for you. We are fully committed and vigilant in following the COVID-19 directions provided to us by the BC Centre for Disease Control and Federal Government. We welcome you to review our Covid-19 policies and procedures.

We're currently accepting all Canadian vessels from 40' - 180'. We are extending discounted Winter Moorage Rates until May 31st for now.

Book Your Slip Online Today  - Or Reserve by Phone: +1 778 432 0477

[Dr. Barillas]

Those are great rates for mooring.