Jump to content

      













Photo

[James Bay] Royal British Columbia Museum redevelopment | 14-, 12- & 10-storeys | Proposed

Civic Office Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#21 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:57 PM

When I first heard about this I assumed they would be renovating the tower and maybe adding some floors. I'm surprised to learn they want to get rid of it completely.

So if they go ahead with this, wouldn't that be the tallest building ever demolished in Victoria? Taller than the Permanent Loan or the Willows Exhibition Building. Quite a bit taller than the second Christ Church Cathedral.

#22 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 02:12 PM

I think it would be wrong to increase the density on the Belleville side of the museum, just to provide some some new buildings with a view of the harbour. A better location would be to add density on the Superior Street side with some much needed underground parking.

The carillion needs to be designatated as heritage if it isn't already, and it needs to stay where it is. I think we can get carried away with seismic risk of everthing, and upgrading the Carillion would change the look. What would you do, encase it in steel plating?

As for the 40 year old architecturally fine Fannin Building, why would you consider tearing it down it down? This could be the building to convert into residential.

The BC Archives Building with it's water garden entrance could be the logical destination for the Maritime Museum.

I like the open courtyard feel of the entire area as it is. This would become lost and shaded if density was dramatically increased.

#23 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,260 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:33 PM

For the archives it would be very useful to bring everything under one roof, right now more and more stuff is stored off site.


Theres a myriad of reasons for that. Apart from the obvious lack of space, theres also the cost of housing material in extremely prime real estate that is rarely if ever accessed. Archives are not a fixed commodity, they grow exponentialy and they dont know from one year to the next what they will inherit, by using space off-site there is significant cost savings.

#24 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:08 PM

I'm sorry I wasn't able to upload this photo earlier to go along with the article. It shows an architectural massing model. Like the pencil crayon sketch in the article it is only intended to show the possible density massing. It doesn't represent the final design.




The wood pieces are the existing museum.

You can see the art-deco Douglas Building at the lower left (this view is looking north toward Belleville). At the top, the carillon is moved to the right (east) a little bit. If it can't be moved safely, it will be rebuilt. That might be a good idea anyway since the carillon is not seismically safe. You can see the cube-like IMAX in the upper left quadrant of the photo next to the original exhibition building. Surrounding it are the clear plastic pieces that represent the new additions.

The IMAX can't be rebuilt because of the leasing arrangement so they will have to build around it.


Cool, Rob. where is this display?

The three bottom wood pieces aren't museum, they are Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Advanced Education buildings (plus, a steam plant for both in between, IIRC).
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#25 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,918 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 07:34 PM

I will bet 50 bucks that there will not be ANY new residential on the site. Government doesn't want more people living right in the heart of their campus.

#26 manuel

manuel
  • Member
  • 595 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 08:20 PM

best thing to happen to James Bay would be for the province to build 2 5 story buildings with underground parking along both Superior and Michigan, add this building, move everyone out of the decrepid existing bunker buildings, turn the parking lots into parks and add a lot of green space. Could mix in some residential along Michigan near the James Bay project.
"I know nothing"

#27 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 09:32 PM

Why would those lots need to be green space? The legislative lawns and beacon hill park are right next door. Under-used green space is a blight rather than an amenity in an urban context. I'd much rather see that block turned into housing as there's a lot of transit in the area.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#28 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,375 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:24 PM

There are no plans to add residential buildings. The reference to residential was specifically referring to the Glenshiel seniors building (which is still zoned hotel!). Sorry if I made it sound like condos were being contemplated; I should have investigated further. I was pretty sure Board Chair Donald Hayes said no condos at the time but the museum's handouts seemed vague on the topic.

As far as timelines go: Museum construction is much more complex than standard office construction. A lot of financial and architectural groundwork has to be done. So a realistic goal for groundbreaking would be about five years from now, providing fundraising and government funding comes through. Full buildout could take 15 years I'm told.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#29 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,375 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:35 PM

Learn about the Royal BC Museum rezoning

What: Information session on the Royal BC Museum’s plan to rezone their property as part of their long-term plan to expand and enhance the museum property. Museum reps and the architect will be on hand to answer your questions.

Place:
Silver Threads auditorium, 1728 Douglas (across from the old Bay building)

Date:
Wednesday, April 7, 7 pm sharp

More information is at the RBCM website.

I encourage you to come down and learn about this interesting vision for our cultural future.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#30 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,375 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 09:38 AM

Learn about the Royal BC Museum rezoning

What: Information session on the Royal BC Museum’s plan to rezone their property as part of their long-term plan to expand and enhance the museum property. Museum reps and the architect will be on hand to answer your questions.

Place:
Silver Threads auditorium, 1728 Douglas (across from the old Bay building)

Date:
Wednesday, April 7, 7 pm sharp

More information is at the RBCM website.

I encourage you to come down and learn about this interesting vision for our cultural future.


A reminder about this meeting. I hope you can all attend and view the plans and ask questions.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#31 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 09:09 AM

From today's TC:

Museum's tower plans a step closer to approval
A plan to redevelop the Royal B.C. Museum site -including construction of three towers as high as 14 storeys -will go to a public hearing, taking it a step closer to winning city approval.

• Read full article here -: http://www.timescolo...8614/story.html

#32 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,795 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:55 AM

Museum's tower plans a step closer to approval - A plan to redevelop the Royal B.C. Museum site -including construction of three towers as high as 14 storeys -will go to a public hearing...


Note Pam Madoff's "generous" allowance of high-density towers for this worthy project. Just what is her fear of density and height anyway? Did a tall building fall on her sister or something, and Pam didn't get to the ruby slippers in time?

#33 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:05 AM

"I think, for me, it's very important we send a very clear message to the development community at large that this is not a change in direction. This is simply a recognition of how important and well regarded the function and work of the RBCM is in the city, in the province and in the country as well," she said.


So, what is their direction? When will the new Downtown Plan get approved so everyone can know what it is? Hopefully when it is revealed, enough people will realize that well-planned density is good and vote those who oppose it out of their jobs.

#34 ZGsta

ZGsta
  • Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:07 AM

Oh god, when can Madoff and her suburban-sprawl enabling stupidity just go the hell away?

#35 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 01:13 PM

Oh Gawd … here we go again … more skyscraper proposals … please save us from this … can’t the city just develop and enforce a bylaw once and for all banning buildings over two floors … and why don’t developers take their beautiful modern building proposals out to Langford where vision driven thinkers would welcome them with open arms and they would not have to put up with the grief Victoria puts them through hoping they will go away …

#36 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 02:45 PM

Two floors??!! Some of us prefer human scale buildings thank you very much. Take your oppressive towering 2 stories to vancouver. I prefer human scale, ie no higher than a human, that's what it means right?

In seriousness I'm kinda excited about this development, but at the same time absolutely ready for it to be butchered and turned into a blight by city hall. "well we like your development, but can you halve the density and add some unsafe useless open space to it?"
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#37 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 03:19 PM

In seriousness ... I am excited about this as well ... I am excited about any development in the city ... and when I say "here we go again" ... I mean, like you, I'm waiting for the city councellers to ... well you know! ... as I have said before, could you imagine if the Empress was propossed today ... I bet anybody dollars to dog-nuts ... it would not happen. So ... the y-lot buildings ... a bit of a cluster in that area ... is there a problem there ... NO! ... everytime I drive around that cluster of "tall" buildings, I always chuckle ... ever notice there are always parking meters available ... go figure eh!

#38 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 09:08 PM

I think it's a shame that the Fannin tower is planed to be torn down. I find it's a decent looking building.

#39 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:15 PM

I think it's a shame that the Fannin tower is planed to be torn down. I find it's a decent looking building.


I agree, and I like the native plant garden and pond at the entrance. The taller building would be fine on the south parking lot. The Parliament Buildings need some breathing space around them.

#40 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 12:04 PM

Well if this comment does not typify the Victorian attitude I don’t know what does … sad, sad, so sad.

Re: "Museum's tower plans a step closer to approval," Feb. 18.

News that Victoria city council has sent the Royal B.C. Museum's redevelopment proposal to a future public hearing is welcome, but the fact that the council did this "with very little debate" is troubling.

The museum's plans are insensitive and grandiose, including three high-rise towers of 10, 12 and 14 storeys each, projected costs unknown. This is a museum staffdriven project of dubious public benefit during this difficult period of our history, with unsolved homelessness on our streets, high unemployment, falling real estate values, and ever-increasing residential property, HST, carbon and other taxes.

Museum staff and city council should have enough brains and sensitivity to realize that this is not the right to time to be proposing such an expensive and unnecessary empire-building project. I am confident that a significant majority of informed Victorians will participate in the public hearing with an urgent message: Council and the Royal B.C. Museum should both reprioritize and operate more frugally, within existing budgets, until such time as the homeless are properly housed, local employment figures improve and counterproductive tax increases are halted.

I don't know a single person that is clamouring for the museum to expand its operations. Victoria council should not approve the rezoning application which would allow these unnecessary high-rise towers to be built.

Gregory Hartnell Victoria



Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1Ecoc5zis

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