Jump to content

      



























BUILT
Hudson Place One
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 777 Herald Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 25
Condo units: (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR, sub-penthouse, penthouse)
Sales status: sold out / resales only
Hudson Place One is a 25-storey, 176-suite mixed-use condominium tower with ground floor commercial space at d... (view full profile)
Learn more about Hudson Place One on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Hudson Place One | Condos; commercial | 25-storeys | Built - Completed in 2020


  • Please log in to reply
1676 replies to this topic

#261 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 08:57 AM

That's the thing, there's a density target that has to be hit to make everything jive.
  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#262 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 09:06 AM

now we're talking. at 30 storeys it would actually make an impact on the skyline
  • Nparker, jonny and DavidSchell like this

#263 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 09:38 AM

That's the thing, there's a density target that has to be hit to make everything jive.

But do the folks on council understand this or will they just react to the height? Sooke Hills etc.



#264 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 10:04 AM

Wow, that's exciting. I really hope this is approved, can't wait to see some renderings.
  • jonny and DavidSchell like this

#265 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 10:21 AM

That's the thing, there's a density target that has to be hit to make everything jive.

 

 

But do the folks on council understand this or will they just react to the height? Sooke Hills etc.

 

There's no connection between density and the extra requested height. They can get the density they need at the already approved height. It's just a matter of how visually attractive that massing is.

 

They will have to make a very strong case that the new height results in a better looking building, a landmark. Council has approved these requests before for that reason. Otherwise they will assume it's just a greedy attempt at piling on some pricey penthouses.


  • aastra and jonny like this

#266 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 10:27 AM

There's no connection between density and the extra requested height.

But if each floor is smaller in a slimmer tower, then they have to go taller to achieve the same density.



#267 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 10:41 AM

 

They will have to make a very strong case that the new height results in a better looking building, a landmark.

 

This is what I'm saying. If it doesn't translate into a (very clearly) better building then what's the point?

 

Methinks the last thing Victoria's skyline needs is yet another tower with the default slab proportions and a flat top and not a lot of glass coverage and cladding no better than the standard brick... but at 30 stories tall.


Edited by aastra, 31 March 2017 - 10:42 AM.

  • zoomer and Rob Randall like this

#268 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:05 AM

But if each floor is smaller in a slimmer tower, then they have to go taller to achieve the same density.

 

But that's the argument they already used when they asked permission to smash the height limit and build 24 slim floors. If they want even more height they're going to have to bring something new to the table.



#269 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:09 AM

...the last thing Victoria's skyline needs is yet another tower with the default slab proportions and a flat top and not a lot of glass coverage and cladding no better than the standard brick... but at 30 stories tall.

Would something like this work?

Sussex.JPG

It's a Townline development in Burnaby.


  • shoeflack likes this

#270 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:11 AM

But that's the argument they already used when they asked permission to smash the height limit...

Well someone needs to push back on the height limit. It has created possibly the blandest, flattest skyline of almost any city I have ever seen.  :whyme:


  • jonny and DavidSchell like this

#271 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:16 AM

^ ^ what is that shadow behind it?


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#272 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:18 AM

^Peter Pollen's ghost, I'm telling you.

 

 

 

Would something like this work?

 

Probably not. If you cut and pasted six more storeys onto Hudson's old plan it would look like that rendering. 



#273 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:21 AM

...Probably not. If you cut and pasted six more storeys onto Hudson's old plan it would look like that rendering. 

So you expect Townline is going to propose a junior version of The Shard for this site?



#274 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:23 AM

^ ^ what is that shadow behind it?

An existing tower on adjacent site.

adjacent.JPG



#275 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:48 PM

There's no connection between density and the extra requested height. They can get the density they need at the already approved height. It's just a matter of how visually attractive that massing is.

 

There is a very important connection between density and the extra height. In order to utilize the density that they are approved for without widescrapers, they want to thin out the future tallest building in Victoria. And that's ultimately what this boils down to, the opportunity to slim down what will be a future architectural landmark.

 

The old Merrick design was found to be a very poor example of the actual density that had been sought and approved a decade back. It looked interesting, but it wasn't representative of what could and would be built once the dust settled (especially the angles of the units which became a no-go for interior design purposes).


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#276 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:51 PM

But that's the argument they already used when they asked permission to smash the height limit and build 24 slim floors. If they want even more height they're going to have to bring something new to the table.

 

In terms of design, or in terms of amenities?


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#277 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:57 PM

^Probably both. 

 

Merrick first designed the triangular towers. As I understood it, the unusual triangle shape played a role in getting the 24 storey model approved. Then, the triangle shape was abandoned but the height remained. 

 

What I'm saying is, unless the 30 storey version is spectacular you will likely see Council pull out their tiny violins when told Townline needs even more height.


  • nagel likes this

#278 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:12 PM

30 floors...now we're talking! :thumbsup:

 

Victoria city council can take any concerns about height and stuff them...it's time for the powers that be to acknowledge that this is a growing and dramatically changing (for the better) downtown. We need taller, thinner buildings and less of the all the buildings should be the same height nonsense that is going on around here (i.e. Cook/Johnson).


  • Nparker and shoeflack like this

#279 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:19 PM

...unless the 30 storey version is spectacular you will likely see Council pull out their tiny violins when told Townline needs even more height.

But truly, what IS the issue with more height in this location?



#280 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:24 PM

^Probably both. 

 

Merrick first designed the triangular towers. As I understood it, the unusual triangle shape played a role in getting the 24 storey model approved. Then, the triangle shape was abandoned but the height remained. 

 

What I'm saying is, unless the 30 storey version is spectacular you will likely see Council pull out their tiny violins when told Townline needs even more height.

 

The Merrick design was unfortunately not representative of the density that the City approved. And the unusual shape of the towers was something that was in vogue at the time, when Vancouver saw several towers rise with odd shapes and interior layouts, but those experiments failed as buyers were displeased with the layouts.

 

Just to be clear here, Townline doesn't need the height, but they feel they can one-up the overall design by adding extra height. If they are told to go home with 24-storeys in their pocket they will, but it's been over a decade since the original design was approved and since then we've already seen buildings approved at ~23-storeys in Vic West.

 

We also have to keep in mind that we can't have both some semblance of affordability and expect some sort of a monumental, earth shattering design. We need to keep things in perspective that despite the few extra storeys this is still Victoria and not Hong Kong or Manhattan.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users