1740 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...Note that ADP requested changes to the material, so we may be seeing more tweaks

Perhaps it can be made to look more like the approved Ironworks project. That's about the only thing I can think of that will make this project uglier than what it has become.

[Rob Randall]

Maybe they should take a chance and resubmit the initial design, as I think anyone who saw that plan has since died of old age.

[Gary H]

...

 

Next step is Heritage Advisory Panel - May 8th.

 

And what happened at this meeting?

Edited by Gary H, 09 July 2018 - 12:36 PM.

[jstovell]

The project will advance to Council to request referral to Public Hearing. Currently October 4. The site is not more clearly deleted by the interim completion of the Bridge South East Plaza. 

[Mike K.]

Sorry Jon, can you elaborate on the not more clearly deleted comment? Did you mean more clearly delineated?

[jstovell]

*deliniated

[jstovell]

*delineated

[Mike K.]

Gotcha, thanks.

Is the latest info package that we referenced some months back still reflective of the latest changes?

[Bingo]

Maybe they should take a chance and resubmit the initial design, as I think anyone who saw that plan has since died of old age.

 

I think the traffic is worse at the bridge with much longer wait times at the lights. 

I would wait a few more years until after they rip up the roads and put in a roundabout.

[jstovell]

There is a slightly updated one on the City Development Tracker Web Site. Different exterior materials. Minor massing and facade revisions.

[Brantastic]

Can you provide a link? Either I can't find it or haven't yet figured out how to use the development tracker website.

[Nparker]

Latest plans (August 3, 2018) as per Development Tracker: https://tender.victo...825093140920000

[Nparker]

From the above link.

 

I must say this is definitely not my favourite proposal for this site. I don't see how it jives with the Old Town guidelines and I don't like its connection (or lack thereof) to the heritage structures. I certainly can't see Pam supporting this.

[aastra]

There are a lot of things to like but I have to note how massive it is as compared to the very small/short early concepts. Consider the "opened up" view at around the 50-second mark of this video, and then try to visualize a new building about the same size as the Regent Hotel right there in the middle foreground (see also the harbour context images in Dialog's document, or the view down Johnson St. image). I'm not saying it would be a tragedy, it might be perfectly fine (it might even help to enclose the intersection & bridge approach more and thus create less of a gaping intersection feel and more of a "room" feel around there)... but I just can't help to observe how Victoria's stinkers tend to manufacture the very scenarios that they claim not to want.

 

(But... by making the building taller and eliminating the section that wrapped behind the old buildings along Wharf Street they preserve a massive wide open space from the old buildings through the little park. So there's that.)

 

 

On the plus side, it's sort of odd and unconventional, which I like. No doubt it will be criticized for being yet another cookie-cutter condo building, but it sure isn't yet another cookie-cutter condo building. And I also really like the mix of stone cladding, although I think they need to be careful for the lighter shade and choose something that has a bit of pop, maybe a nice gloss or a slight colour cast or whatever. You don't want it to end up looking like plain grey concrete, is my point.

Edited by aastra, 05 September 2018 - 09:56 AM.

[Nparker]

 

 

...by making the building taller and eliminating the section that wrapped behind the old buildings along Wharf Street they preserve a massive wide open space from the old buildings through the little park...

In other words, nothing like the historic street front would have been like.

[Jackerbie]

... by making the building taller and eliminating the section that wrapped behind the old buildings along Wharf Street they preserve a massive wide open space from the old buildings through the little park. So there's that.

 

In other words, nothing like the historic street front would have been like.

 

But it does mesh with the "general characteristic" of having street ends terminate with a view of the harbour (and Sooke foothills!) listed in the Old Town Design Guidelines

[Nparker]

But it does mesh with the "general characteristic" of having street ends terminate with a view of the harbour (and Sooke foothills!) listed in the Old Town Design Guidelines

But doesn't Reeson Park already fulfill this purpose?

The height and mass of this proposal certainly isn't going to provide much of a view at the terminus of Johnson Street.

It's all sort of a moot point, because I don't believe anything this tall will get approved along Wharf Street.

[jonny]

My sense is that any renderings of proposals at this location look unnecessarily big due to the empty space around this site with the harbour, bridge, roadways and park nearby. This latest rendering does not depict a large building.   

 

I like it. I think I like it a lot. I like the colours and textures. I like that the Northern Junk buildings will stand alone. I love the view from Johnson. I like its triangular shape. It’s large enough that it will be impactful, but not so large that it’s out of place. I hope they get on with it already.

 

The old Northern Junk buildings have been built up with this magical mystique to a ridiculous level. Really, we’re talking about a small, underutilized, derelict piece of land on the edge of downtown in an “up and coming” neighbourhood.

[Nparker]

...The old Northern Junk buildings have been built up with this magical mystique to a ridiculous level...

Which is probably one reason I preferred early proposals that didn't give them such prominence.

[nagel]

Definitely too tall for old town waterfront.

 

...and now I need to go into hiding from the VV hit mob.