Jump to content

      












CANCELLED
Johnson Street Gateway
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 1314-1324 Wharf Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 8
Condo units: 103 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR, 3BR, penthouse, live-work)
Sales status: in planning
The eight-storey Johnson Street Gateway/Northern Junk condominium and ground floor commercial development is c... (view full profile)
Learn more about Johnson Street Gateway on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Johnson Street Gateway (Northern Junk) | condos; commercial | 7-storeys | Cancelled in 2019

Condo Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
1740 replies to this topic

#1661 threePs

threePs
  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:42 AM

Playing devils advocate here. Maybe this is never meant to be a residential site, maybe the only option here is to restore the buildings and create a public square with commercial amenities surrounding. Something you might see in Grandville Island? I'm only spit balling here but no matter how hard Reliance tries here, I cant see them putting forward a proposal the community or council likes.


  • Jared likes this

#1662 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,566 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:43 AM

Thanks Mike. I need to check Citified more often.



#1663 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:46 AM

Playing devils advocate here. Maybe this is never meant to be a residential site, maybe the only option here is to restore the buildings and create a public square with commercial amenities surrounding. Something you might see in Grandville Island? I'm only spit balling here but no matter how hard Reliance tries here, I cant see them putting forward a proposal the community or council likes.

That is already the plan for the parking lots further down Wharf.  How much of that do we need?


  • aastra and tedward like this

#1664 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:48 AM

Yup, just flip through the images for the concepts that go back to the 12-storey tower: https://victoria.cit...n-junk/#gallery

 

That would be redesign three, I believe, and now we're onto six. Seven if Reliance comes back with another design following this morning's Committee of the Whole pullout.

Looking back through the designs, the 12 storey mini tower design was SO good.  Massing was perfect and it would have been a real landmark building on the harbour


  • On the Level likes this

#1665 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,566 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:49 AM

That is already the plan for the parking lots further down Wharf.  How much of that do we need?

Fewer than we already have. Many of the newer public plazas and "green spaces" are dead zones much of the year.



#1666 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:56 AM

 

...we can look forward to several more decades of watching the sad demise of the 2 heritage structures.

 

No worries there. Check it out:

 

 

The rationale to support the sale of a significant parcel of public land on the waterfront in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the heritage buildings is not compelling. If the City chooses not to sell public land to the developer, the existing heritage buildings would still be rehabilitated in some form as a stand-alone project (though not necessarily by the current applicant).



#1667 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,566 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 09:09 AM

...the existing heritage buildings would still be rehabilitated in some form as a stand-alone project (though not necessarily by the current applicant).

Yeah we've seen people lined up for years now to take on this task for zero return.  :whyme:



#1668 Citified.ca

Citified.ca
  • Administrator
  • 1,953 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 04 October 2018 - 09:29 AM

Developer pulls Northern Junk proposal from council meeting; further community consultation planned

https://victoria.cit...tation-planned/


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

#1669 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 09:32 AM

 

Maybe this is never meant to be a residential site, maybe the only option here is to restore the buildings and create a public square with commercial amenities surrounding.

 

Why? Residential is working just fine all around this site. And why should there be new public space? There used to be commercial buildings in this area, how many times do we need to be reminded of that fact?

 

I think this saga has drawn out the very worst of those familiar anti-everything Victorian-isms:

 

  • Nothing is ever quite right no matter how many versions you go through and how wildly different the concepts might be;
  • There's zero room for compromise on the sticking points, despite the fact that the sticking points were invented out of thin air and had never been mentioned prior to the development proposals;
  • Victoria's heritage and historic built form is best honoured and celebrated by giving the proverbial middle finger to Victoria's heritage and historic built form;
  • Surface parking lots don't detract from the old town milieu, busy traffic lanes don't detract from the old town milieu, abandoned and decaying buildings don't detract from the old town milieu, but the prospect of some new apartments and a pub or cafe represents a grave threat
  • etc.

  • Baro, Nparker, tedward and 2 others like this

#1670 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,566 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 09:41 AM

Well said aastra.  :thumbsup:



#1671 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 10:22 AM

 

If Council proceeds with this sale of public lands, 100% of the proceeds should be committed to the purchase of other public open space within downtown.

 

Why? Seriously, can we dial down this delusion that there isn't enough open space in the downtown frickin' core? There's no crisis. It's downtown. So let it be downtown, for crying out loud. It's an essential element of that "downtown" character, that open spaces should be few and far between, and that the open spaces that do exist should be special or otherwise justified (Centennial Square and some other open spaces that were introduced long ago are still struggling to clarify their identity/purpose, lest we forget).

 

City people everywhere should understand it very well by now, that open space for the sake of open space tends to be a solution in search of a problem, and that it often backfires.


  • Nparker likes this

#1672 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,158 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 10:32 AM

Here’s a link to the T-C article: https://www.timescol...nute-1.23452400

#1673 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,258 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 10:37 AM

 

The rationale to support the sale of a significant parcel of public land on the waterfront in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the heritage buildings is not compelling. If the City chooses not to sell public land to the developer, the existing heritage buildings would still be rehabilitated in some form as a stand-alone project (though not necessarily by the current applicant).

 

Though not necessarily before the year 2050. I hate to be a stinker about this and I know people will say (as they always do) that there's no rush, we've been waiting for decades already so we can wait decades longer... but I mean, come on. Procrastination and stubborn indecision shouldn't rank so highly on our list of urban planning principles.

 

Before now there hasn't been a whiff of positive action for decades. If selling (not giving away, selling!) some traffic islands is what it will take to make something good happen then the rationale to sell the traffic islands is extremely compelling. How could a reasonable person conclude otherwise?

 

It's like when you've been trying to get rid of the same stinky old goalie pads at your annual garage sale for 15 years running. No takers, no interest at all from anybody. But now somebody finally appears and says he'll buy the goalie pads, if you also agree to sell him that stinky old blocker, too (that stinky old blocker that you don't need and hadn't even bothered to try to sell because you just assumed nobody would ever want it). No deal, bud. That stinky old blocker isn't for sale. It's the pads or nothing. And if you walk away it's no skin off my nose. There's always next year, next decade, next century, etc.


  • Nparker, sdwright.vic and RFS like this

#1674 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 17,007 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 02:43 PM

 

Developer pulls Northern Junk proposal from council meeting; further community consultation planned

https://victoria.cit...tation-planned/

 

 

Stovell says the project will re-appear before council but not before voters have had a chance to partake in this month’s municipal election.

 

Read the Mayor and council didn't want to risk upsetting anyone two weeks before an election.



#1675 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 743 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 04:00 PM

Ffs even Downtown is full of loony NIMBYs. Unbelievable this one suffered death by a thousand cuts. These people will not be pleased until the property is full of overgrowth and piss stains.

#1676 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 3,362 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 04:05 PM

I'm not impressed by the Downtown Residents Association position on this. Who are the residents that prefer walking through that area in its current state on their way to the bridge and West Bay? I live downtown and I see this as the most important piece of property to be developed at this time. For one thing, the whole "David Foster" Harbour Walkway is essentially a joke until this section is completed. I'm a bit surprised by their opposition.


  • Mike K., Nparker, AllseeingEye and 5 others like this

#1677 JanionGuy

JanionGuy
  • Member
  • 772 posts

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:03 PM

Stovell says the project will re-appear before council but not before voters have had a chance to partake in this month’s municipal election.

 

Read the Mayor and council didn't want to risk upsetting anyone two weeks before an election.

 

 

wouldn't you be disappointed with current council in their inability to accept, at it's earliest renderings, an awesome project?  I'd pull the plug too...


Edited by JanionGuy, 04 October 2018 - 08:04 PM.


#1678 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,297 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 04:50 AM

I'm not impressed by the Downtown Residents Association position on this. Who are the residents that prefer walking through that area in its current state on their way to the bridge and West Bay? I live downtown and I see this as the most important piece of property to be developed at this time. For one thing, the whole "David Foster" Harbour Walkway is essentially a joke until this section is completed. I'm a bit surprised by their opposition.


If you live downtown I would advise you to join the DRA and make your opinion known. I actually find this s interesting, The DRA was for years one of the more open minded of neighborhood groups. Guess the leadership has changed.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#1679 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,224 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 06:52 AM

Ian Sutherland has been Chair for quite some time.

He is also, apparently, not happy with the firehall project 🤷‍♂️

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


#1680 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,566 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 07:52 AM

Has the NPNA madness spread to the DRA?



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