570 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

The proposal was tabled at this morning's Committee of the Whole.

Planners were recommending that this proposal be rejected but the mayor and most councillors agreed that it should be brought back with changes. Sticky points included the above-ground parkade increasing the overall height of the project, the density (although it's roughly 5.5 without the parkade), the view of the tower "from" the entrance of St Andrew's Cathedral (?) and the massing in general.

Interestingly enough, Councillor Madoff referred to planners as professionals who's opinions must be respected. Althewhile every time planners support a proposal she doesn't like she'll over-ride their opinion and even claim the planners are out of line or what have you. Double standard?

C. Madoff also likened this proposal to a modern View Towers and reiterated how the podium would be as much of an eyesore as View Towers' podium design. Clearly that's not the case, but I bet it'll make a great soundbite for a news story.

[G-Man]

So what about the walking path. Also who gives a crap of the view from St Andrews. Ridiculous.
Anyways I am not in love with this design or this project in general so if madoff thinks she is getting a win great.

[aastra]

Did she really say that? That really does turn my stomach. Absolutely no comparison between the base of View Towers and the podium of this proposal.

Once again I think she's played her anti-development card poorly. She should say she thinks it's a great design and the podium is excellent and blah blah blah, but then criticize it for being much too tall and recommend an 11 story cap.

Eternal opposition just isn't working. Don't they see that? I wish they'd stop opposing everything and start working to make these proposals the best they can be.

[aastra]

You guys are pretty insensitive about the view from the other side of Blanshard Street. Don't you know the view from there is supposed to be ugly? Planting an attractive building in the vicinity will just kill the atmosphere.

I mean, who the hell wants to get married in a district full of attractive architecture??

[aastra]

Sort of defeats the purpose of maintaining a shack/empty lot on the corner of Yates and Blanshard if somebody can just go build a spiffy glass highrise across the street.

Why did we ever bother replacing a row of heritage buildings with a bunker-style cineplex if we're just going to try to make things nice all over again??

I swear, if you guys had your way you'd make every inch of downtown "pleasant" and "attractive".

[Mike K.]

With regards to the walking path, councillors agreed that there is little need for a path a few feet from the street. In fact C. Hughes said it in such a way that got a chuckle from the crowd. One of the planners suggested that 100 years from now when everyone is walking around and vehicular use is minimal compared to what it is today, these sorts of paths will be a God-send.

Yeah, C. Madoff likened this proposal to a modern View Towers. And the mayor wasn't sure if people would appreciate seeing highrises from the vicinity of the church, even though the 20-storey portion of the tower falls short of the 90-metre church steeple protection rule the City has.

[G-Man]

I would love to know three things that this podium has in common with View towers actually find one. Oh yeah it is a podium.

As for the walking path 100 years from now we are just going to be brains floating in jugs of water so I don't think we should be too worried.

[Rob Randall]

I don't recall Councillor Madoff commenting on the podium's resemblance to View Towers' but she did compare the overall massings of the two buildings. She claimed the project was "driven by parking". However, Councillor Young said no other use for the podium other than parking was practical.

The primary concerns expressed by the neighbours at the August meeting were loss of views and loss of public parking.

[aastra]

And the mayor wasn't sure if people would appreciate seeing highrises from the vicinity of the church...

News flash: they can already see several highrises from the church. Problem is, most of them aren't particularly attractive buildings.

Fact: nobody has ever stood on the steps of St. Andrew's Cathedral and said, "I sure am glad there's an ugly cineplex across the street with a big parking lot behind it. I hope that never changes."

PEOPLE LIKE NICE BUILDINGS.

Sheesh.

[G-Man]

I don't care about the parking I do still think the lot lends itself better to 2 buildings at either end of the lot one at perhaps 8- 10 storeys and the other at 14- 16 storeys. Or something along the lines of a sideways Aria.

[gumgum]

It reminds me of view towers too.
It's too wide.

[Mike K.]

With regards to the podium, she mentioned both have podiums that do little for street interaction, or something along those lines.

It reminds me of view towers too.
It's too wide.

Which incarnation? The 16-storey fastscraper, which is the old design, or the 20/10-storey incarnation which was presented today? The new design looks almost identical to what the 9-storey Shutters building would look like with a 10-storey tower rising from one side.

[aastra]

What a silly comment about street interaction. View Towers has blank walls and a parkade entrance. This Capitol 6 building will have places of business and windows and light and all of that. Right then and there it's 1000x better than View Towers.

Does the existing parking lot do much for street interaction? Why on earth are they so attached to these frickin' surface parking lots??

Just once I'd like to see her clarify exactly what she'd like to see happen on these empty properties. Has she liked anything that's come along in the past five years?

[Mike K.]

She was trying to compare View Towers' above-ground (I guess street level, or are there two levels?) parking as a detriment to the area (which it is by nature of its design) and how this proposal was essentially mimicking the same travesty.

Not so, of course, but like I said before it makes for a great soundbite.

[aastra]

Am I missing something? Are we saying the podium would just be a soulless parkade? I thought the parking was hidden inside, with commercial and/or residential space facing the streets.

[Holden West]

I'm confused. A podium is identical to the low-rise "horizontal highrise" Madoff is always talking about as an ideal.

[Mike K.]

I find much of what Councillor Madoff says confuses me. Don't feel bad

[gumgum]

Which incarnation? The 16-storey fastscraper, which is the old design, or the 20/10-storey incarnation which was presented today? The new design looks almost identical to what the 9-storey Shutters building would look like with a 10-storey tower rising from one side.

Sorry. I was confused. I guess the lastest incarnation was post on the "800 block changes" thread.

[gumgum]

Confusion is the theme tonight it seems.

[aastra]

Come again?