Jump to content

      













Photo

[Sidney] The Pier | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2007


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,735 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:04 PM

Let's get serious. Sidney needs highrises like I need a swift blow to the solar plexus. Anything over 8 or 9 storeys would be completely ridiculous there.

Personally I like the Pier. Though I don't know too much about it.

Sidney has been doing a great job adding building is the 4 and 5 storey range and it works there. I would be the first to freak if anyone proposed even a decent sized midrise in Sidney.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#22 Scaper

Scaper
  • Member
  • 1,262 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:09 PM

HAHHAHAHAAHAAA........

I am just making a case...if Sidney is going to propose something like that monster at the end of the town on the ocean side, they would have been better off building midrises....two twelve of 14 slender buildings...I don't think Sidney needed to build such a monster like this....

unless density bonus money went to build a walkway or some public amenity for the sea side maybe.

hmmm???? I don't know.

#23 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,690 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:28 PM

We're talking about that section that bridges the two halves. How many units would you lose if you didn't have that section? So add one floor on top of one building and two floors on top of the other and cut that middle section down to the ground or maybe down to one floor. It'd look a million times better.

#24 Scaper

Scaper
  • Member
  • 1,262 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:46 PM

Completely agree!!!!

#25 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,249 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:37 AM

Here's an idea of what the Pier currently looks like:


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


#26 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,735 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 09:59 AM

I think it looks great.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,690 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:16 AM

Oxford's pictures are more recent than that one.

#28 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:32 AM

I'd be OK with it, if it was in the middle of nowhere. It's a lovely looking resort building. As a piece of urban architecture, it's crap.

#29 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,690 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 12:18 PM

I don't know, I like the fact that it's so close to the waterfront. That seems pretty urban to me. In a resort the buildings would be set way back from the water. That's how the Songhees did it (for the most part). That's also what the View Royal crowd demanded of the Thetis Quay project.

#30 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:47 AM

I was just up in Sidney last week and I checked out the Pier. I think it the most gorgeous piece of lowrise architecture u/c in Greater Victoria, and it is too bad it's in Sidney where it isn't generally appreciated.

The detail on the facade and the slate going up the sides of the building are perfect. I would suggest a drive up to take a look at this beauty if you haven't already.

#31 rayne_k

rayne_k
  • Member
  • 170 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:58 PM

A cute building, perfect size for the community. I don't think anyone would disagree.

Now if we could extrapolate this being the perfect size of a new 'large' landmark building for that community based on the population and needs, I wonder what the size would be for a similar project given Victoria's population.



I think it's a monstrosity for Beacon Street, a sore thumb that blocks the vista looking towards the ocean. Totally agree with a previous post that the business to one side will suffer. Of course I don't live there, but to me it is totally contrary to the character of Beacon Street.

It's a nice building (could use a cut in the centre), but the siting just *doesn't* work.

#32 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 11:11 PM

you guys are making me really curious to see this beast

#33 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 11:22 PM

I think I'm with rayne.
It's pretty nice looking, but it is out of scale - off the chart.
It may be a prime example of how height restrictions will backfire. Would something three times as high, but a fraction of the existing footprint exude such as imposing feel? Probably not.

I just wonder how the developer managed to swing this building.

#34 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,249 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 11:47 PM

^because it was short, of course 8)

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


#35 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,690 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 09:48 AM

...a sore thumb that blocks the vista looking towards the ocean.


Does it really do that? I thought it was on the north side of the street, behind that older residential building of about the same size. Wasn't this vista you mention already blocked ~25 years ago?

#36 Number Six

Number Six
  • Member
  • 261 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:47 AM

The only vista I know is now blocked is the one from the Landmark Building (the older residential building). My dentist is located there and for the last 20-25 years I've enjoyed one of the best views from a dentist's chair you could hope for. Everyone in that office assumed something would be built in front some day but it's still gotta hurt if you owned one of the water-facing condos.

Sidney has done a lot to improve it's street-scape over the past 10 years but I'm not sure if it's got a lot of "character" to lose. That's not meant to be a dig at Sidney, it's just that most of the architecture is of the uninspiring but cost-effective post-war variety. I agree that it is a bit out of scale but I'm not sure if that's because of it's height / footprint or if it's because it's a luxury resort-like complex at the end of a middle class street. There's so much money in North Saanich I would guess there will be a lot of changes in Beacon Ave. over the next 10 years.

#37 rayne_k

rayne_k
  • Member
  • 170 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:21 PM

The only vista I know is now blocked is the one from the Landmark Building (the older residential building). My dentist is located there and for the last 20-25 years I've enjoyed one of the best views from a dentist's chair you could hope for. Everyone in that office assumed something would be built in front some day but it's still gotta hurt if you owned one of the water-facing condos.

Sidney has done a lot to improve it's street-scape over the past 10 years but I'm not sure if it's got a lot of "character" to lose. That's not meant to be a dig at Sidney, it's just that most of the architecture is of the uninspiring but cost-effective post-war variety. I agree that it is a bit out of scale but I'm not sure if that's because of it's height / footprint or if it's because it's a luxury resort-like complex at the end of a middle class street. There's so much money in North Saanich I would guess there will be a lot of changes in Beacon Ave. over the next 10 years.


Well I don't much care for the Landmark either,.. the shops in there all seem somewhat dark (but I'm sure the views upstairs are awesome) and you didn't actually get the open view of the water until you were standing next to it.. now even that is gone, you've got to actually be practically at the water to see it.

I think Sidney's post war-stuff has a certain charm - especially with the variation and "individualization" that buildings go through over time - and the streetscaping has added to it. They've done great job of attractive residential infill at high densities too. It's approachable and friendly feeling, easy to relax in, it works . (c'mon do you think sophisticated and modern Sidney would be the same Sidney most of us know and love?).

Now considering that most of Beacon Street as we see it today (from 5th street down) was likely built in a decade or two -guessing-, I was trying to picture what a modern and sophisticated waterfront community might look like if we built one from scratch today, and the commercial side of Selkirk springs to mind (some nice and some ho-hum stuff).. It needs more ground-floor amenities, but I still like it anyhow, but if we were to multiply selkirk by 6 or so to mix'n'match Selkirk with Beacon street, it wouldn't work for me.. too different... and that's what I feel the Pier is trying to do (and the sheer size feels threatening and aggressive).

Having said all that I think that a few larger and substantial structures closer to the Pat Bay Highway would be nice, a gateway of sorts.. and a modern building would be tempered by the newer shopping plazas and the Mary Winspear Centre out that way.. helll since I'm dreaming lets plunk it right on top of the Safeway (keeping Safeway tho).

#38 rayne_k

rayne_k
  • Member
  • 170 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:28 PM

I just wonder how the developer managed to swing this building.


I've been asking myself the same question since I first saw it..

#39 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 07:58 AM

Speaking of Safeway. That complex will always be the worst blight on the street. Period. As as long as complexes like that exist, developments like the Pier can be forgiven slightly.

#40 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 04:31 AM

seeing the pier in this photo it really does look like a beast. though now I think it would be alright to build another largish building behind it



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.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users