1740 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

Thanks for fixing the corresponding thread ID, Mike, I had just noticed that.

So what do you think? I'm not sure of the roundabout idea; I'd like to hear what the City Engineering department thinks of it.

[jklymak]

I'm dubious about a roundabout here. Doesn't seem to do anything to alleviate the wasted space.

The proposal looks good. To get over the height guidelines, I hope the developers pitch this as a real landmark building with the finest materials and finishing. The sketches look promising to me, though maybe a bit like Shutters...

[Mike K.]

Paul Merrick's designs rarely, if ever, disappoint in terms of design and materials.

Thanks for fixing the corresponding thread ID, Mike, I had just noticed that.

No probem

[G-Man]

I am sorry to hear that no liquor primary licenses are going to be considered. The water front stroll would be ideal for a nice pub or upscale wine bar. The Regent people bore me. Why dont they just figure out they are living in a city. Air conditioning would help too.

[Peter_S]

What we said is that we would not have a night club. That does not preclude a licensed establishment such as a restaurant or brew pub being a consideration. Jon Stovell. Reliance Properties Ltd.

[Rob Randall]

Another picture of the model for you. This one shows more of the north side and the surrounding context. Again, if a new bridge is built there will be more land next door.

[D.L.]

Hey John, do you think there is any chance of the building being approved by the city at it's current height, or will Pam Madoff prevent it? I am unsure about the approval process. If it would help, I am willing to support the project at a council hearing. Getting mundane buildings simply to obey a height limit is not something I want to happen.

Also, being a tall person (6' 4") I am in full support of any residential units with high ceilings.

[aastra]

Interesting model. There's a lot to like about it. I'm not quite sure what I'm seeing on the north side's ground floor. Are those carports?

[D.L.]

Awnings.


Looking at the waterfront walkway in that photo, I guess where it ends and goes up the stairs (at the bottom of the photo) would be where the connection to the new bridge would be, so the walkway would then extend underneath the bridge.

[ryleyb]

This looks really interesting... Is there any existing residential in the area that will have sightlines impacted by the extra height?

How does this work with the Bridge proposals, were any of the approaches supposed to be through that Johnson/Wharf median area?

[gumgum]

Anything shorter would just not look right.

Interesting that we're all worried about the one councilor that might vote against this one in the interest of the heritage of Olde Town, when she voted to replace a heritage landmark beside this development.

[G-Man]

What we said is that we would not have a night club. That does not preclude a licensed establishment such as a restaurant or brew pub being a consideration. Jon Stovell. Reliance Properties Ltd.

Really? A brewpub would be awesome. They are however liquor primary.

[VicHockeyFan]

Robert Randall, chairman of the Downtown Residents Association, said members like the idea of restoring the old buildings, adding something new to the area, and welcome residential use. They want to make sure new residents realize that they are on a working harbour, which can be noisy, and they would not support a nightclub in the buildings. Stovell said a conventional nightclub is not in any plans.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz12R2SEB6a

[AllseeingEye]

Go Pam Go! What a joke. Love the "have to get it right comment". Since when has she ever "got it right?" The only thing Ms Madoff is dedicated to is ensuring Victoria remains in the Dark Ages.

I will bet my next paycheck, my dog, and my next meal, that thanks primarily to her and a few like minded individuals, that the finished site will not look like that rendering; that it will be shorter (of course!) because only in Victoria would 3.5 meters be an issue , and above all - again - we willl completely - again - pooch an opportunity to greatly improve a sad sack area that has sat in an inexcusable state for decades.

Finally an architect proposes to do something about that and - again - its obvious the small minds running this city will - again - put them through the ringer to the point that whatever ultimately emerges will be so watered down, such a shadow of what it could have been that - AGAIN - Victoria will reaffirm its commitment to mediocrity. Great. Just great.

Why is it that cities like London or Paris, with HUNDREDS of years of history and "heritage" can happily build modern contempory structures - often parked right beside those older heritage structures - but poor little backwater Victoria, in its infinite obstinance, remains afraid of the "modern"? Seriously, what the hell is the matter with this town? And people like PM have the temerity to claim this place is 'world-class'. Riiiiight. In a pig's eye.

[gumgum]

Very frustrated.

[aastra]

Wow, I'm really confused now.*

I thought the city and the local politicians were all about boldly going forward, heritage and history be damned? Isn't that what they were force-feeding everyone during the bridge replacement saga? The future is more important than heritage and history? Don't be a stick in the mud?

So when the city wants to destroy history and heritage we should love it because the destruction of heritage and history is progress and we all want to be progressive and forward thinking, but when a developer wants to restore heritage and history and re-purpose it and add a little something new along with it we should all be deeply concerned?

When did the word "restore" become a bad word in Victoria? Why do the powers that be deem outright destruction to be safe and fine and good while deeming cautious restoration and revitalization to be so contentious and risky?

*Not really. Many of us called this about-face back when the bridge-replacement saga was just starting up.

[aastra]

Unlike plans for the new building, existing Old Town buildings are not curved.

Are we talking a big sweeping curve like the curves on Shutters or are we talking about a curved corner? The Adelphi and the Imperial Bank both flaunted a curved corner, and they were two of old Victoria's finest buildings.

Oh, right. The Adelphi and the Imperial Bank no longer exist. We destroyed them a good long time ago. Hence the inclusion of the word "existing" in the above.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm so frustrated by the stranglehold death-rattle grip that people like Madoff have on Victoria, I could scream.

Height? Again? Why? An under-4-meter height variance is a big deal? What ridiculous universe is this?

As for curved structures - make me laugh out loud, Councilor Madoff. You're backing the new bridge boondoggle (built with public money, and which will undoubtedly end up costing double the estimate), a new "21st century bridge" that will certainly introduce all curves into Old Town. Somehow, that's ok, but a lousy 5-story building (built with private money, no risk to the public) is an issue?

This is so ridiculous.

Only in Victoria.

This city is truly deadsville. Rip down a unique artifact of industrial archeology (i.e., real heritage), but preserve some idiot perspective on what Old Town "needs." I think I need a barf bag.

[tedward]

This is so ridiculous.

Only in Victoria.

This city is truly deadsville. Rip down a unique artifact of industrial archeology (i.e., real heritage), but preserve some idiot perspective on what Old Town "needs." I think I need a barf bag.

I don't have to write a response, you have said everything I would have so well.

Now where's my barf bag...

[yodsaker]

Go Pam Go! What a joke. Love the "have to get it right comment". Since when has she ever "got it right?" The only thing Ms Madoff is dedicated to is ensuring Victoria remains in the Dark Ages.

I will bet my next paycheck, my dog, and my next meal, that thanks primarily to her and a few like minded individuals, that the finished site will not look like that rendering; that it will be shorter (of course!) because only in Victoria would 3.5 meters be an issue , and above all - again - we willl completely - again - pooch an opportunity to greatly improve a sad sack area that has sat in an inexcusable state for decades.

Finally an architect proposes to do something about that and - again - its obvious the small minds running this city will - again - put them through the ringer to the point that whatever ultimately emerges will be so watered down, such a shadow of what it could have been that - AGAIN - Victoria will reaffirm its commitment to mediocrity. Great. Just great.

Why is it that cities like London or Paris, with HUNDREDS of years of history and "heritage" can happily build modern contempory structures - often parked right beside those older heritage structures - but poor little backwater Victoria, in its infinite obstinance, remains afraid of the "modern"? Seriously, what the hell is the matter with this town? And people like PM have the temerity to claim this place is 'world-class'. Riiiiight. In a pig's eye.

"get it right" means G.I.R. in her eyes and god knows what is behind them!