3132 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

he did say that Saanich considers 8 stories "highrise"

He also said that he plans on asking Santa for a real money tree for Christmas. Apparently he isn't sure that he will get it as the Easter bunny didn't leave anything again last year. His kid was miffed too...

[valdez12]

Is there a practice where the retailers share a part of the costs? You see those big box stores - the entire storefronts dressed up for the "look" of the store. The retailer itself must be fronting a portion of the cost in those circumstances. I'd expect to see similar dressed-up storefronts for this dev. Not that this idea is reassuring...but it may explain the meager budget.

It's usually the developer and tenant that agree to a set layout/standard tenant corporate look before construction and the developer builds it to the tenant's specs in exchange for a 10-20 year lease sort of deal at $XX per square foot for rent. So tenant get's their standard corporate look and the developer gets a great tenant for a long time.

[G-Man]

I am not holding out too much hope for this project I think it will be a drive-in version of the Bay Centre though maybe cheaper looking.

[G-Man]

Town and Country mall renovation gets scrutiny


Developers want to replace aging mall with Canada's first 'lifestyle' centre


The biggest commercial development planned in the capital region inched forward last night, as Saanich council questioned the developers who want to replace the outdated Town and Country mall with Canada's first "lifestyle" shopping centre.

Can't put the rest due to locking...

[Amanday]

Since I know the suspense is killing everyone....



Town and Country mall renovation gets scrutiny
Developers want to replace aging mall with Canada's first 'lifestyle' centre

Kim Westad, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006


The biggest commercial development planned in the capital region inched forward last night, as Saanich council questioned the developers who want to replace the outdated Town and Country mall with Canada's first "lifestyle" shopping centre.

The project, now estimated at more than $100 million, would see the 1960s strip mall replaced in phases, resulting in a mix of commercial and residential that could become the town centre for Saanich.

[...]

[aastra]

...with some angled parking on the main street, reminiscent of a small town.

It's lines like this that worry me. Why are we trying to emulate a small town? Are small towns supposed to embody some sort of ideal? If so, then why doesn't everybody live in small towns instead of large cities?

(I might also ask what possible relevance angled parking could have to the size of a community, since we've got angled parking right downtown on Yates, but then I tend to ask questions like that...)

The proposed commercial development -- more than triple the size of the current buildings -- would not have "themed" architecture. Rather, it would have a mix to look as if it evolved over time.

There's something reassuring about this statement, but I'm still keeping my expectations pretty low.

I'm not bashing this project. I think it could be fine. But I have concerns about how authentic it will be and how well it will all come together as a "town centre" for Saanich. The term "town centre" sends a shiver up my spine. Shouldn't that be "city centre"? We're talking about Saanich, population ~115,000. The Town & Country site is smack in the middle of Greater Victoria!

[Urbalist]

In terms of the superlative that's being quoted, the claim is that it is the largest commercial project in Victoria history.

What is not in dispute is that it is the largest faux-heritage project ever seen. It is not only out of character, but out of time and out of place. At least the Disney properties are authentic because they are purpose-built places of cartoon-like entertainment. I don't have the vocabulary to describe how wrong this New T & C is in design.

Does it need revitalization? Yes. Does it need to shed the era of serving vehicles first? Absolutely. But no one in the future will be able experience this place and say, "oh wow, this is really early 21st century." Unless the vast majority of faux-heritage throughout the region is compressed between 1980 and 2010 and then our descendents will look back and truly say, "oh, this really is early 21st century."

The approval bumpf states: "(The concept) is to transform the shopping centre into a modern shopping and residential village, built around an open-air Main Street of two to three-storey buildings. The architectural style is built-over-time - reflective of the way that main streets grow and evolve over time. There is no themed architecture - just the eclectic architecture of a traditional, multi-level, busy main street. The architecture of the retail areas will be designed to reflect both the rich heritage of the surrounding area, and the diversity of styles inherent to an evolved-over-time urban street."

Excerpts from today's Times-C article:

It's a move away from the shopping centres of old, with their miles of asphalt. Much of the parking in the new development would be underground, with some angled parking on the main street, reminiscent of a small town.

"It's a major project with terrific potential, but if mistakes are made on this we'll have to live with it a long time." Paul Gerrard, neighborhood rep.

The proposed commercial development -- more than triple the size of the current buildings -- would not have "themed" architecture. Rather, it would have a mix to look as if it evolved over time.

As if. If you look closely at this sketch, you can see a replica of Victoria City Hall, elements of the Eaton's Centre facade, the steel roofline of the Conference Centre, and the 1931 Imperial Oil Tower down on Wharf Street. It also has a piece of Bastion Square.

It's abominable; it has everything you want of downtown.

[G-Man]

The part that scares me the most is:

There are several "lifestyle" centres in Scottsdale, Ariz. and in Los Angeles.

[G-Man]

I agree that this the the wrong way to be developing any place and really no matter what theme they use it will seem fake and contrived. What I personally would have preferred would have been a new cross street cutting through the lot and the proper continuation of Oak Street to Carey Road and then the building of an actual town centre on the remaining chunks, they could have had alleys and what not. Think Selkirk waterfront but bigger and more downtown like. All done in modern current architecture.

[VicHockeyFan]

The part that scares me the most is:

There are several "lifestyle" centres in Scottsdale, Ariz. and in Los Angeles.

There are also lots of apartment buildings that have open-air hallways like many of the Songhees buildings. But they are in ARIZONA and S. California, not somewhat rainy Victoria. People will prefer Mayfair, and people hate underground parking.

[Amanday]

the two words that scare me the most: "Park Royal."

[gumgum]

If they want to emulate small town, there should be residences ABOVE the retail. Why has this philosophy become so unconventional? Putting actual resdidences right in the hub of the shopping district, instead of just somewhere in the peripheries sometime in phase two of the development, is unimaginative and wasteful.
I'd might be excited about this development if this were a possibility.

[aastra]

the two words that scare me the most: "Park Royal."

No worries. Park Royal is "not as advanced." The new T&C will be an advanced Park Royal. Doesn't that sound great?

...no one in the future will be able experience this place and say, "oh wow, this is really early 21st century."

Good point.

[aastra]

If they want to emulate small town, there should be residences ABOVE the retail.

Oh, sure. You advocates of hyper-density are all the same. What do you want? Another Oak Bay Avenue? Move to Hong Kong.

[aastra]

"Santana Row"

I expect Victorians will lap it up. "It's like downtown, except it's nice," they'll say.

The city of San Jose considers this to be "smart growth." Is it? Are we out to lunch?

If you're going to go to the trouble of creating a pleasant urban shopping experience, I'd prefer you created it downtown. My opinion.

http://www.stanc.net/santana/

[aastra]

[aastra]

How come Santana Row got the storefronts so right whereas some of Victoria's newer buildings -- genuinely urban buildings, unlike the fakes at Santana Row -- have gotten them so wrong?

[G-Man]

Because they are trying to look like a downtown of a city we are trying to look like a quaint village.

[Ms. B. Havin]

@ Urbalist: I agree with you completely. This makes me think of a book by Kevin Lynch, [url=http://www.amazon.com/What-Time-Place-Kevin-Lynch/dp/0262620324:d5566]What Time is This Place?[/url:d5566], which I've been trying to get a hold of, and I think the basic question applies to fake "heritage" architecture, too. From what I understand, Lynch's book asked after the human sense of time, the subjective experience of it (vs. what the clocks or calendars tell us), and he then argued that our innate sense of time affects how we look at (and change) the built environment.

When I'm around a whole fake "town" (and I've been to some of those lifestyle malls and Santana-style things in the US), I actually get a sense of "no-time," of my own sense of time somehow ebbing away, because something about the "architecture" is so all-at-once (but not real time). Also, I can't help feeling that there is only one way to spend time there, namely touristically and as a consumer. There're no other ways to spend or experience time there, no other options, because there's nothing to imagine as having happened over time. In other words, it's as though my "innate sense of time" (the kind Lynch argues all humans have) is shut down by the compressed "time" of the fakery. Consequently, all the fibreglass ornaments and details become oppressive.

[aastra]

Not unrelated to that: in a real city (or a real natural environment) there are plenty of things that don't fit together. Things can clash and fit poorly. In these outdoor malls everything fits perfectly. It was all built at the same time. It's all one thing, but it's pretending to be a decently diverse mix of a bunch of things.

I think the good people of Saanich might be naive if they think this complex will work as a legitimate town centre. Are you allowed to rollerblade inside the complex? Are kids allowed to ride bikes on the sidewalk? Are you allowed to hand out leaflets or hold a political demonstration? Heck, are you allowed to panhandle? Will public transit run down the main "street"?

Then again, an environment that prohibits all of those activities might be exactly what the good people of Saanich want.

Here's a question: are there cameras and security people all over the place?