1740 replies to this topic

[aastra]

I think the plan to have a restaurant/bar overlooking the water and bridge should be a winner for that area if done right...

Is it just me or is that area's potential as a waterfront pub/restaurant district just about as screamingly obvious as it could possibly be?

Imagine how big a draw it would be, for both residents and tourists alike. Just fill in the gaps and link them up.

[jonny]

Is it just me or is that area's potential as a waterfront pub/restaurant district just about as screamingly obvious as it could possibly be?

Imagine how big a draw it would be, for both residents and tourists alike. Just fill in the gaps and link them up.

Nah, I think it's better suited for thrift stores, homeless shelters, parking lots, and abandoned buildings...

[aastra]

I think it's a conceptual error to consider this one little project as some sort of stand-alone district along the lines of the Selkirk or the Songhees. It's a proposal for a lot on the west side of Wharf Street in downtown Victoria.

Granted, the lot in question is the final lot before the impenetrable snarl of pavement at the entrance to the bridge, which means it marks the end of the line for northbound pedestrians on Wharf Street's west sidewalk. However, as we all learned during the replacement debate, the current bridge is absolutely teeming with pedestrians and cyclists, and the new bridge will only increase the flow that much more.

If the pro-replacement people are anywhere close to accurate in their estimates of pedestrian/bicycle traffic on the bridge then there's no reason to think the right sort of businesses couldn't succeed on the ground floor of this new building.

Anyway, a pedestrian passage beneath the new bridge and across to Store Street would mean the Northern Junk lot would no longer mark the end of the line on the west sidewalk, yes?

[Bingo]

When I mentioned Sam Bawlf a few postings ago I neglected to mention Nick Bawlf. Two of their big projects were Market Square and the Conference Centre. Here is an old posting by VHF dated 05-28-2007. I believe this is still relevant today.

Almost 20 years later the project still opens old wounds for Sam, who now lives on Saltspring Island. "The Eaton Centre was a boondoggle," says Sam, adding the project damaged the vitality of Old Town "because there's only so much economic power."

While Sam worked the backroom, Nick stayed closer to the drafting table.

A project Nick is particularly proud of is the Victoria Conference Centre he designed with an eye on contemporary architectural movements but with sympathies toward the iconic and adjoining Fairmont Empress Hotel.


Len Volpnfjord, a retired director of planning who worked for the city when the project was done, said "that was an amazing challenge to have something that was new, complementary and in fact attached to The Empress." The project earned Bawlf a Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia Medal for Excellence.

Volpnfjord called Sam "a big-picture guy." While some projects, such a plans for the Inner Harbour around the foot of Wharf Street never flew, "he had some great ideas and it was always fun to bounce ideas around with Sam Bawlf."

Today Sam talks about the link between conservation and the economic health of Victoria.

Without early conservation efforts and the subsequent international attention Victoria's heritage has garnered, the city might not be as economically healthy as it is now, says Sam.

But back in 1969 when Sam moved to Victoria, no one saw that.

"When I came to Victoria ... the whole of Old Town was essentially fossilized. There was a question whether any of it would be preserved. There was talk of demolishing buildings along Wharf Street to make a more grandiose highway."

The two brothers, as time has shown, had their ideas that with the benefit of reflection proved to be equally grandiose but little to do with bigger roads and newer buildings.

Sam says they were the first to use the phrase Old Town now officially used on city documents and public banners. Most recently the city has developed "Old Town" design guidelines to pilot new construction in the area.

Nick, who uses a walker after breaking a hip in a fall, says he's not actively working on projects these days because he's not nimble enough to be climbing around in old buildings.

Is there a project he's still keen to do.

"Yes." An addition to his cottage perched on a cliffside on Texada Island to give him easier access to it. It's there Nick fosters another interest, collecting modern Danish designed furniture.

Sam, meanwhile continues to work as a consultant and on projects he's not prepared to discuss. "I expect I'll die with my boots on."

On the side of his desk he continues to drum up support for a theory he's outlined in a detailed book suggesting that Sir Francis Drake was the first European to chart B.C.'s coast.

If true, it overturns much of what everyone believes about who first explored the coast. But that's hardly the first time the brothers have made people see things differently.

Volpnfjord said the Bawlf brothers set the stage for other developers, including Michael Williams, who is also credited with saving many of the buildings in Victoria's downtown, to follow.

"It must have opened a lot of eyes in the '70s that you could do something on that kind of scale."
__________________
TALK about Downtown Victoria on FaceBook: I ❤ Downtown Victoria

[gumgum]

^I don't understand your point.

[aastra]

Preservation is important (we wish we had done some of it with the Eaton's Centre, but now we have an opportunity to do some of it with the Northern Junk buildings), and it's acceptable to build new buildings on parking areas adjacent to historic buildings (like they did with the conference centre).

The Conference Centre is an excellent example for our consideration, really. Some people think it's a wonderful fit and some people think it's all wrong for that site. I lean toward the latter. The roof is very large and bland, and although I don't mind the faux-historic design of the street-level facade, I have a difficult time understanding the recessed retail spaces and the little flights of stairs that connect them to the sidewalk.

It's impossible to come up with something that will please everyone, nor should you want to please everyone.

[aastra]

I suppose there's also a lesson for us re: traffic issues. They replaced the surface parking behind the Empress Hotel with a two-level parkade beneath the conference centre. How do we feel about its impact on traffic levels around there?

[ryleyb]

TC Letter to the editor:

This charming, open part of downtown with its refreshing green spaces and character buildings will be irrevocably lost, dominated and effaced by a huge modern building.

Winner.

This TC reader obviously only drives past the area on her daily commute from Sooke. The derelict buildings, so charming... and the HUGE building (which she also calls an "out-of-character behemoth"). Oh god!

Seems like a positive letter to the editor might be nice.... I'm not much of a letter writer, and what would you really say in support of this proposal? It's good enough? I'm happy someone might do something useful with this area? Not exactly ringing endorsement

[Bernard]

The more I think about the site, the more that what I feel should be the core values that need to be considered above all else is street level vibrancy and access to the water

[gumgum]

^Yes!

[Marilyn]

I've said it many times: opposition tends to be generic whereas support tends to be specific. Not always, but most of the time.

Support can be specific because you can discuss the plan in detail; opposition is usually about the space and that is intangible.

"They'll ruin the neighbourhood" - doesn't matter if the proposed building contains tiny bachelor pads or large, luxurious units, the new residents will ruin the neighbourhood (there are plenty of genuinely appalling social ills on the streets of Victoria... this popular insinuation that middle-class and upper-middle-class condo dwellers are the scourge of decent society is absolutely ridiculous and, dare I say it, a diversion away from Victoria's legitimate problems)

That is not how I think. I have seen the "donut effect" in LA, where there are few condos downtown therefore few residents so it's very beneficial to have people living downtown. Furthermore, condos are very good land use for obvious reaons, much more so than single family homes. I live in a condo on Yates Street.

I really think waterfronts, green spaces (however small) and heritage areas should be protected. Protecting the pathetic Northern Junk buildings is not that important to me. I am more interested in the space the new condo would occupy. It's an intrusive building which is not in harmony with the buildings around it. This particular condo is not good land use, imo.

[Marilyn]

This is what I was trying to write. Wish I could write like this:

The biggest problem is the visual barrier created by the building's bulk. The view of the Inner Harbour from Pandora, Johnson and a significant stretch of Wharf would be sharply limited. The connection with the water -- one of the most distinctive and valuable aspects of the downtown -- would be further reduced. The view across the harbour from the Songhees side of the bridge would also be affected.

The building -- at least based on the initial model -- also seems a questionable fit with its Old Town neighbours. It has a competent, standard brick and glass street facade that could fit comfortably in the Selkirk development or the Songhees.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz12vd6lxZB

Hear! Hear!

[aastra]

The biggest problem is the visual barrier created by the building's bulk. The view of the Inner Harbour from Pandora, Johnson and a significant stretch of Wharf would be sharply limited.

I'm a rather short person (I'm less than 35 feet tall), so I'm not quite sure I understand this "visual barrier" thing. How exactly would a new building create any more of a visual barrier than what's already there?

View from Pandora:



View from Johnson:



View from Wharf (affected portion):





View from Wharf (unaffected portion):

[Holden West]

Those damn green spaces are interrupting the view of those green spaces.

[aastra]

The connection with the water -- one of the most distinctive and valuable aspects of the downtown -- would be further reduced.

This is not correct. The connection would most likely be improved quite significantly, as shown in the architectural models.

I have to ask, do we think the walkways and public spaces along the Songhees waterfront reduced or improved the Songhees' connection with the water? How about the walkways and public spaces along the Selkirk waterfront? Obviously the connection to the waterfront was improved significantly in both areas. So why would we think the walkways and public spaces in this development would somehow have the opposite effect?

The view across the harbour from the Songhees side of the bridge would also be affected.

This is true. Views of the Salvation Army's building would be affected. So who cares? I'll take a view of an attractive modern building over a view of an ugly modern building any day of the week.

The red box approximates the presence of the proposed building (if anybody thinks I'm way off with the size or position, please provide details):

The building -- at least based on the initial model -- also seems a questionable fit with its Old Town neighbours.

Folks, a thousand years from now Victorians will still be debating what sort of architecture is appropriate and what sort of architecture is inappropriate. We need to understand that it's impossible to build a brand new old building. And even if we COULD build a brand new old building, you just know we'd botch it because some people would insist that old buildings must be short, or that they must be really wide, or that must have short ground floors, or that they shouldn't have tall windows, or that they shouldn't have large windows, or that they should be covered in cheap siding instead of expensive marble or terracotta or whatever else, etc.

Do we really want a city full of weak architectural attempts to satisfy popular misperceptions about what buildings in Victoria are supposed to be like? We've got a bunch of modern buildings like that already. Enough is enough.

[jklymak]

Do we really want a city full of weak architectural attempts to satisfy popular misperceptions about what buildings in Victoria are supposed to be like? We've got a bunch of modern buildings like that already. Enough is enough.

I agree with all your other points, but I disagree if you think this building as-is would be a good idea. There are ways, using colour schemes, and massing, that this could be modern, yet much less starkly Songhees/Selkirk large windows with full wrap balconies. Note, that none of this need increase the expense of the building, and there is no need for a pastiche. I just don't buy that this is the best design that could have been put in here.

Yes, this is completely aesthetic. But just building a building for the sake of having one doesn't make any sense to me.

[ZGsta]

Shhhh, don't try and bring stuff like facts and pictures into this.

[aastra]

The location, kitty corner to Market Square, should require a more sensitive approach.

That doesn't mean some forced attempt to mimic the design and construction of the 19th century. But the building needs to relate to its neighbours in a clear and meaningful way.

There are solutions....

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz12vrCZGMk

Yes, there are solutions, even though we weren't able to offer any in our editorial. But we were able to make good use of some popular weasel-terms.

[Bernard]

The City needs to also address the issue of the failure of Market Square and how it is not adding much to the area. Looks nice, but is not achieving much.

[yodsaker]

Songhees dwellers will now have visua blight to add to their harbour ***** list.