Jump to content

      



























Photo

Richmond Court Apts. 1082 Richmond razed?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 06:54 PM

^Yes, but no successful business person would have followed in Kramer's footprints.

#42 Jill

Jill
  • Member
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 09:33 PM

My feeling about Clara Kramer's buildings is that as long as they exist, there's always hope that in the future they'll be restored and used. If Chris LeFevre can save the soda factory, anything is possible.

As for Mike Miller, even though he didn't exactly go on a charm offensive with his letter to the editor about this particular project, I'd like to believe he isn't such a creep that he'd let this building rot just because he didn't get his way.

Gosh, I think I might be an optimist.

#43 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:19 PM

From what I've seen of Mike Miller in action, he's a good guy. Definitely not a creep.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#44 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 29 June 2009 - 09:27 AM

Moving the goalposts every time something doesnt go their way does not win them anything. In fact this council is not acting in the interests of the people that elected them. On the one hand we need a comprehensive transport plan and the only way to achieve success is with higher density. On the other hand they object to legitimate development that is not out of touch with the neighborhood and expect people to adhere to non-existent rules.

They are exposing themselves to legal action, which in turn is taxpayers dollars. I really think examples of this is a clear indication that we need term limits and get rid of the decay sitting at that table.

The issue around lack of rental housing is a federal one. When the tax rules were changed about 30 years ago, it was not feasible to develop rental housing anymore. If Council has concerns then they need to lobby the Feds through the UBCM to change the tax rules.....or because Maddoff knows better than anyone else, why doesnt she put her money where her mouth is and develop rental housing and prove them all wrong.

Heres a new release from the Chamber out today regardng this......

Chamber Calls for City to Provide Business Certainly

June 29, 2009 – Victoria, BC – The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce is concerned that the City of Victoria council is creating an uncertain environment for construction investments in the city with their decision regarding the development of a condo building on Richmond Road.

“It is rather disconcerting that council has made this decision in a vacuum of by-law or a policy framework to support it,” says Bruce Carter, chamber CEO. “Doing so creates a significant element of business uncertainty in Victoria and could drive business elsewhere.”

The developer needed a permit to demolish the five suite apartment building to build a twelve unit condo project. The property is correctly zoned for the proposed development. Council decided to disallow the project citing heritage concerns even though the property is not on the city’s heritage registry and is not designated as a heritage building.

The construction industry is an important part of the region’s economy, responsible for 50% of the job growth on the Island in the last economic cycle. “The construction industry is certainly in a downturn in the current economy,” continued Carter. “It is important that all levels of government do everything they can to encourage economic activity. This is an example where the city could have very easily participated in economic stimulation for Victoria, simply by following their own guidelines. We urge council to reconsider this hasty decision and work towards encouraging economic activity rather than preventing it.”




#45 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:54 AM

On the other hand developers should be challenging the status quo and giving people what they don't know they want yet.


This developer is within his rights to do what he wishes with his non-heritage designated property - and city staff gave him the greenlight.

He played by the rules - whether you like his vision or not.

So I guess 'challenging the status quo' will translate into filing a law suit.

#46 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 07:25 AM

I have been mostly on Mr. Miller's side in this issue. I was simply suggesting that rather than building yet another bland tudor-esque stucco box, that developers could try to be more inventive in their designs. I agree that this developer has the right to do (within zoning parameters) what he wants with his property.

#47 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:40 AM

I have been mostly on Mr. Miller's side in this issue. I was simply suggesting that rather than building yet another bland tudor-esque stucco box, that developers could try to be more inventive in their designs. I agree that this developer has the right to do (within zoning parameters) what he wants with his property.


I meant whether "one" likes his vision or not - did not mean to single you out. Sorry if it sounded like a personal attack. (I should be more mindful of emails I write after midnight)

As for more innovative designs - I'm reminded of the new (leaky) California style designs that were introduced here in the late 80s and all the trouble that caused with. So I think a developer prob needs to be conservative and stick to established designs. Not to mention the increased costs to have architects and contractors go outside the norm.

#48 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:50 AM

As for more innovative designs - I'm reminded of the new (leaky) California style designs that were introduced here in the late 80s and all the trouble that caused with.


The problems were MUCH more a result of shoddy workmanship and bad building codes than with the designs themselves. Almost any design can work if it is built properly and any design can fail if it is not.

#49 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 10:46 AM

One needs only go down the street a block here to see a decent honest looking condo. It's that exactly cheap fake faux-everything style-less design we're against, not for. I prefer the 70's boxes accross the street to this design, at least those designs were honest.

Give me something glassy and modern like a mini-shutters, give me horrible brutalism, give me a clean contemporary take on art deco, give me something west coast like Richmond Gate, give me an honest but tasteful cheap box, give me anything but THIS.

If anything good was being proposed I'd be supportive. It's a nice old heritage building, but some do need to make way for progress. But this building is not progress, it's a downgrade in every way except a slight density increase.

I've got half a mind to just design something for them for free. I'm sure they'd ignore it and the RNA would hate it, but come on, decent architecture isn't hard. It just takes some actual artistic thinking rather than putting some hardiplank siding, shingles, and cultured stone through a blender.

Also I'd have to put a lot of blame on the city and our ridiculous zoning system. Right now this lovely little building has 0 setbacks, which creates an almost urban corner to the street here, it also affords the building quite a large back yard and setbacks from its neighbours. This new design has massive useless setbacks in the front. This will be of no use to the residents of the building and will only serve to further suburbanise this block. Of course this developer is trying to play by the rules, and those setback's are the city's rules. So if the developer was to actually try to build anything good on the lot, he'd have to get a variance or re-zoning and that would kill the project. The developer is just trying to make some safe money by playing by all the rules, the problem is that the rules are set up to push everything new into this worthless architectural form.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#50 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 11 September 2009 - 08:19 AM

Debate over demolishing historic apartment heats up

The building at 1082 Richmond Road is facing development pressure.
Sharon Tiffin/News staff

By Roszan Holmen - Saanich News

Published: September 10, 2009 12:00 PM
Updated: September 10, 2009 12:15 PM

When the matter was reviewed at the governance and priorities meeting, however, councillors expressed concerns the plans would demolish a building of historic value. Others were hesitant to support an application to destroy five-units of rental housing.

Neither concern is a valid ground for rejection because rental housing availability is not referred to in any development permit guideline, according to the petition to the court. Also, the property has no heritage designation, the petition continues.

The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce backed his objections.

“It is rather disconcerting that council has made this decision in a vacuum of bylaw or policy framework to support it,” said chamber CEO Bruce Carter, in a press release. “Doing so creates a significant element of business uncertainty in Victoria and could drive business elsewhere.”

Coun. Pamela Madoff disagrees.

“I don’t think it’s a particularly defensible position to take (that if the building is) not formally protected it has no value. When we look at developments in communities all over the city ... we still look at the form and character and what fits in the neighbourhood.”

Also, she points out, Miller may still demolish and redevelop the building as long as his plans do not include any variance permits requiring council’s approval.

It’s this possibility that upsets Nick Russell, president of the Hallmark Society, a local heritage advocacy group.

“Heritage advocates may have won the skirmish, but they certainly haven’t won the war,” he wrote in a letter.

The apartment block, more than a century old, has many architectural features worth preserving, he pointed out, adding St. Michaels University School was founded in the building in 1906.

Abstract’s right to demolish it “demonstrates -- once again -- that the planning/zoning system has a fatal flaw.”

The hearing between Abstract and the city is already underway but the proceedings have been adjourned until later in September.


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#51 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 11 September 2009 - 09:15 AM

I should make a T-shirt out of this:

Coun. Pamela Madoff disagrees.

“I don’t think it’s a particularly defensible position to take (that if the building is) not formally protected it has no value.



#52 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:39 AM

Someone should paint it on the Johnson Street Bridge.

#53 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,670 posts

Posted 11 September 2009 - 08:03 PM

"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."

#54 Koru

Koru
  • Member
  • 715 posts

Posted 12 September 2009 - 09:08 PM

Christ almighty, raze the damn building already...Has anyone bothered to take a look at Mike Miller's track record? He does not build cheap, "california" like condos, he builds provoking and architecturally appeasing buildings. The particular building in question completely under utilizes this corner. This current council needs to give their heads a shake and actually build a city, instead of cripple it. - When I look through the neighborhoods and municipalities of Victoria I've realized all the bland buildings seem to get built in Victoria, all the WOW factor buildings that make one think, stop and appreciate the lines get built in every other municipality....Madoff is quite frankly very much a cancer to council and a cancer to the economic and architectural development of this city.

#55 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 05:50 AM

Developer beats city hall

Abstract now permitted to go ahead with 12-unit condominium project

By Carla Wilson, Times Colonist May 22, 2010


Victoria developer Mike Miller fought city hall and won, earning a development permit that council rejected a year ago.


Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0ofMAm016

#56 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:35 AM

Christ almighty, raze the damn building already...Has anyone bothered to take a look at Mike Miller's track record? He does not build cheap, "california" like condos, he builds provoking and architecturally appeasing buildings.


I took a look on his website and have to agree that his homes are very nicely designed.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users