[Downtown Victoria] Atrium Building (BC Ferries headquarters) | Office | 7-storeys | Built - completed in October 2010
#61
Posted 11 October 2007 - 09:15 PM
It reminds me too much of another Blanshard street office complex, the Jack Davis building. They both present a blank wall to the public and are very uninviting. Sure this Atrium building is built right to the sidewalk, but it might as well be set back 20 feet as it's turning it's back anyways.
#62
Posted 11 October 2007 - 09:43 PM
#63
Posted 11 October 2007 - 10:00 PM
#64
Posted 11 October 2007 - 10:58 PM
#65
Posted 11 October 2007 - 11:36 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#66
Posted 12 October 2007 - 09:23 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#67
Posted 14 October 2007 - 09:49 AM
So my two bits - I was feeling iffy on the massing before but now that I see it I like it.
But as others have said that is where it ends the cladding needs some work. When did we adopt yellow brick as the official brick of choice? I must have missed that meeting. I completely agree with the comparisons of the Richard Blanshard building and Jack Davis.
I love the setback or lack there of but wonder what purpose or use the atrium will fill? The two similar examples of the library and Sussex Building are both lacking some quality to make them destinations.
Also suggestions on possible tenants or uses for the bottom floor. I still think a live theatre or independant movie theatre would be great like the Brava buildings in Vancouver.
Holden - I think that there should be additional emphasis on the Yates and Blanshard corner as this is the logical cornerstone point.
#68
Posted 15 October 2007 - 08:39 AM
On the one hand, the Jawls have a reputation of quality projects. Despite the lack of height at the Selkirk Waterfront, for the most part the overall look and feel of this area is pretty good, especially by Victoria standards.
On the other hand, I would have liked to have seen a push for something taller at this location, if for no other reason than to break up the visual monotony of the the east side of Blanshard Street. Is NOTHING on this side ever going to exceed 7 stories? If not, why???? I can also see the similarties with the Jack Davis Building, and the legacy of that ultimate fatscraper will be felt for decades, so I'd rather not see the same mistakes repeated again.
The bottom line is that Yates/Blanshard is a high-profile location, and whatever ultimately gets build here deserves to be of the highest quality possible, and based on the images thus far rendered for this project, I am not yet convinced. I'll play wait and see for a while, since so many other projects are still in the planning stages and the downtown of October 2007 will not be the one of 2011 or whenever this project is realized.
#69
Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:50 AM
#70
Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:07 AM
Are bands of bricks really the best material to use? Must he emphasize the bands so much? I'd much prefer bands of glass than bands of bricks.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#71
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:06 AM
I too do not mind the scale and the density, but I would have thought D'ambrosio would design something similar to Selkirk Waterfront's Gatehouse.
Are bands of bricks really the best material to use? Must he emphasize the bands so much? I'd much prefer bands of glass than bands of bricks.
Speaking of bands of glass, I agree, and although I'm not crazy about this London building below either, it's breaks up the horizontal mass better than D'ambrosio's design, while maintaining the much beloved horizontal bands.
Perhaps the glass bands could glow at night, or be like a lcd display. A graceful curve or two would enhance the design as well. BTW, the pic below is from Olga at SSP:
#72
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:10 AM
#73
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:14 AM
#74
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:17 AM
Though that building is totally killed by its ground floor. Put a nice tenant space on the corner and something to emphasize it on the top and it would work... kind of...
#75
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:37 AM
That building has much more "verticality" (due to the way the windows are framed) than the proposed Atrium does. Maybe that's why it looks a bit more interesting? But I agree it's a pretty cold uninviting wall nonetheless...
#76
Posted 28 October 2007 - 11:12 AM
#77
Posted 28 October 2007 - 03:02 PM
Though that building is totally killed by its ground floor.
So certain are you that the Atrium Building's ground floor will be good? Aren't there pillars in that rendering? (It's hard to tell.) Where there are pillars, there will likely be those awkward cave-like spaces that Victoria's architectural revisionists seem to favour.
Edit looking back in 2019: this building ended up having very good commercial spaces.
Edited by aastra, 15 April 2019 - 02:26 PM.
#78
Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:25 PM
#79
Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:37 PM
Why do I hear a voice saying, "O.K., spread 'em!" when I look at that comparison?
#80
Posted 20 November 2007 - 10:59 AM
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users