Jump to content

      













BUILT
Midtown Court
Uses: office, commercial
Address: 740 Hillside Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Midtown Court is a six storey office and commercial development in the 700-block of Hillside Avenue in Victori... (view full profile)
Learn more about Midtown Court on Citified.ca
Photo

[Burnside/Gorge] Midtown Court (Andrew Sheret office building) | Office | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2014

Office Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
233 replies to this topic

#21 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,552 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:35 AM

Well, they have all of that now less the daycare. They have been able to use (legally or otherwise) the public street of Westbourne Plc. for very short-term storage of big loads coming in by trailer.

I would think they'd need that surface parking at the back near the loading dock(s) to load up incoming plumbers' trucks.


I think the real issue here will be the building costs. Building 175 underground parking spaces isn't going to be cheap and I am hearing numbers between $30 and $35 sq/ft being tossed around for the office space. If that is correct, that would make it some of the priciest space in the area and there is lots of inventory available.

#22 Dennis Carlsen

Dennis Carlsen
  • Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:31 AM

It's silly, ain't it? We've raised this issue so many times over the years and the city's largest newspaper continues to incorrectly label structures.

However, and perhaps someone can confirm this, the City of Victoria's definitions of building heights states that a building of 7 or more storeys is a "tower."



The 1995 OCP refers to high profile rather than a tower as a building more than 11 storeys in downtown and more than 8 storeys outside downtown.

There is much discussion regarding the "Victorian" attitude to height which I think can be attributed to the fact that Victoria is a small city with small town attitudes. It is what it is, so I would prefer to focus on well designed buildings particularily at the street level and up to the fourth storey. Honestly, most people in this town, including myself, can't crank our necks up to look much higher.

#23 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:57 PM

Looking at the aerial photo of the site it appears fairly large. Lots of room for a tower on the south side of the site along Hillside Avenue, plus lots of room at the north side for a lowrise structure and loading bay and parking.

--> http://www.bing.com/...66, -123.365601

I wonder, is the vacant lot behind Long & McQuade part of this development as well?


Those boats will have to go.

#24 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 01:41 PM

Here's the property lines from the CRD's Natural Area Atlas



#25 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,244 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 09:20 AM

The developers of the proposed 8-storey office building at 740 Hillside (site of defunct motel) have modified their proposal to 6 storeys (along with the removal of one level of underground parking).

City planners are recommending the rejection of the application for a development permit as they deem the proposed parking to be inadequate.

This will be discussed at Thursday's Planning & Land Use Committee meeting; details are at https://victoria.civ...40 Hillside.pdf

#26 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,932 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 09:57 AM

That's odd, last night I bumped into the one of the individuals involved with this project and he mentioned that it was going forward as 7-storeys. :confused:

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


#27 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,244 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 11:32 AM

That's odd, last night I bumped into the one of the individuals involved with this project and he mentioned that it was going forward as 7-storeys. :confused:


Perhaps he was counting the underground parking as one of the storeys? ;)

PS : Thanks for moving my comment, I didn't realize there was a unique thread for this development.

#28 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,932 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:10 PM

You're welcome :)

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


#29 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,552 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 05:29 PM

Perhaps the Sheret group is just looking for a graceful way to back out of this project. I can't believe that they expected the City to relax parking requirements to the extent requested.

#30 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,789 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 08:50 PM

Why does it need parking? It is office.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#31 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,552 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 05:58 AM

Why does it need parking? It is office.


For people working there!

#32 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 06:06 AM

yeah, don't forget there's THREE levels of underground parking under the 8 story atrium
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,932 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 06:59 AM

Parking will be that much more of a requirement for a building outside of the downtown core. Parking, especially free or cheap parking, is what sells suburban office space.

In any case, immediately across the street there is a massive parking lot behind the Columbia Fuels building at Hillside and Douglas. Obviously it won't be a parking lot forever, but there are no immediate plans to redevelop that property. Perhaps the Andrew Sheret team thought they could make use of what's already available?

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


#34 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,798 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 07:56 AM

I think too much of the frontage along Hillside would be given over to surface parking, and the main building would be set back too far from the street. If a building has parking access around back, why does it need surface parking out front at all?

#35 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,497 posts

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:36 AM

If a building has parking access around back, why does it need surface parking out front at all?


To give it that wonderful suburban industrial park look that downtown offices are missing.:P

#36 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,244 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 08:03 AM

High Costs, Small Plans at Motel Site
Carla Wilson, Times Colonist
August 17, 2011
http://www.timescolo...6154/story.html

Higher-than-expected development costs for the old Holiday Court motel site on Hillside Avenue prompted owner Andrew Sheret Ltd. to revisit design plans [...]

#37 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,497 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:27 AM

A needless delay on this project for a public hearing over parking spaces...
http://www.timescolo...9562/story.html

I'd rather the public had a say in the aesthetics, 'cuz I get the feeling this is going to be one cheap-ass, bow-wow of a building. :confused:

#38 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:58 AM

Technically, the new plan falls 66 parking spaces short of what is required. According to city zoning bylaw, the proposed development should have 174 parking spaces. The proposal is for 108 stalls, said city senior planner Kevin King. But a consultant pegs the actual parking demand at 123 spaces and the city’s analysis of that is that 126 stalls would work best.


I think we pay too many people to overthink things sometimes.

The planning staff report pointed out that without enough parking on the site, motorists would park on nearby streets.


In that area, who cares? All those streets are used by employees of various businesses and offices anyway. Put a two-hour limit on the streets and employees of this new building you might find will be resourceful enough to find monthly parking somewhere.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#39 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,552 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 01:46 PM

There is very little monthly parking in that area and the on street parking is always full with or without a 2 hour limit. I don't see anything wrong with council enforcing the land use decisions that have been on the books for a while and which Andrew Sheret knew were applicable when they purchased the site.

#40 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 20 August 2011 - 09:49 AM

There are two major bus routes within a block of this building. Why demand so much parking if public transit is so readily available?

Aren't we also spending a billion dollars on LRT which will go right by this place?

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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users