36 replies to this topic

[Koru]

There used to be a Mt Royal Bagel retail location across from Marg Jenkins school on Fairfield Rd, next to the old pharmacy, I was over at the folks place for dinner and had them asking if I knew what was being built in that location. Mt Royal has been gone for some years now, and the building was torn down at least a couple years ago, there has been a lot of forming and foundation activity going on there in the past few weeks apparently. Any idea what is going in here?

[FunkyMunky]

GumGum and I both commented on this project in the middle of Page 2 in this [thread=1918]Fairfield discussion[/thread]. The project (1827 Fairfield Road) doesn't have it's own thread.

The blurb from the sales brochure says:

The subject property has been approved and issued a Development Permit by the City of Victoria for a mixed use development of Five (5) townhomes ranging in size from 1,559 to 1,758 sq.ft. and a 898 sq.ft. commercial unit on the main floor. Bicycle and storage lockers have also been designed on the main floor. The plans for the development feature eight (8) under building parking stalls with access and egress off of Fairfield Road.

[Rob Randall]

As the building was being deconstructed, three local artists used the half-demolished building as a temporary art exhibit titled Reconstructing Deconstruction:

[G-Man]

^ yeah that was a cool event and free wine to boot!

[Mike K.]

D'ambrosio Architecuture + Urbanism has released new renderings of this project.

[G-Man]

Looks really nice!

[gumgum]

Don't know why there's patio furniture in the front. It's all garages along the front.
A friend of mine lives in the house behind this one and mentioned to me that the land owner had promised retail along the front. Turns out to be a bit of BS.

[gumgum]

^At least they look like garages in person.

Even if they're retail, the bloody thing is setback so far, it will do little to nothing as for the streetscape.

[aastra]

Yet another example of a big setback on a new building that doesn't jive with the minimal setback on adjacent older buildings.

Are we going to keep on making this mistake forever?

[jklymak]

It looks to me like that is just supposed to be a reflection of the silver car off a store-front window (one that is maybe 30 degrees to the street?).

This sort of setback doesn't seem to egregious to me if it is meant to accommodate street-front patios. Its only about 6' or so. I'd be more concerned about them getting real retail at that location.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ It looks like a huge setback (where the patio umbrellas are), with a drive-through passage where the car is exiting on the right of the building. The drive-through, you'll remember, has to be there because this development has a separate building behind it, with a garden space inbetween the 2 new buildings. See rendering #3 on the DAU link.

The car in the rendering here is exiting from a very slightly below-grade parking area, over top of which the two buildings and their greenspace are built. (At least that's what it looks like from the drawing.)

I agree that the setback is ugly. The building right next door is nice and tight to the street, and the new building's set-back ruins that streetfront. (IMO)

[gumgum]

This is under construction btw.

[Mike K.]

Thanks.

[Bernard]

Is that supposed to be retail on the ground floor?

[gumgum]

The car in the rendering here is exiting from a very slightly below-grade parking area, over top of which the two buildings and their greenspace are built. (At least that's what it looks like from the drawing.)

That's not below grade.

Like I said, all indications are that there will be no retail. The setback is just over a car length, the openings are exactly the same size as most single width garage doors - and the same height. I would say it's very unlikely there will be retail.
I should add that my friend whom lives in the house behind is a contractor and came to the same conclusion.

I should mention that this building is already fully built up.

[Holden West]

Dup thread.

[Mike K.]

Thanks, Holden. The two threads have now been merged.

[FunkyMunky]

That's not below grade.

Ah, yes, the parking is below grade. In the minutes of the council meeting of Thursday, April 27, 2006, Frank D’Ambrosio discussed the "submerged parking area" and how the access ramp affected the height of the patios above.

Like I said, all indications are that there will be no retail....I would say it's very unlikely there will be retail.

In the same minutes, the project is described as "construction of five townhouse units in two groups with commercial floor space at the street level facing Fairfield Road." The Colliers sale literature for the property that was circulated in the summer of 2007 also mentions "a 898 sq.ft. commercial unit on the main floor".

It looks like a huge setback (where the patio umbrellas are), with a drive-through passage where the car is exiting on the right of the building.

The variances granted at the public hearing included a "front yard setback relaxed from 6.0m to 1.0m". (I assume the previous storefronts were non-conforming.)

A little research would go along way before forming an opinion.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Thanks for the details, Funky. But re. the setback: it looks like a lot more than 1.0m in the renderings, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's 1.0m for the second floor? But the ground floor looks hugely set back, otherwise how come so much of the old building's wall shows in the rendering, and the chairs/ tables/ umbrellas aren't on the sidewalk, they're in the setback.

Maybe the rendering isn't accurate/ up to date, but the storefront/ retail looks far back.

[gumgum]

A little research would go along way before forming an opinion.

Alright, no need to get snooty.

I did say that it was based on what I had seen in person. That's more "research" than most others had done.