591 replies to this topic

[AllseeingEye]

I think the challenge that Gateway Green had was that they just couldn't compete with Jawl Office to line up tenants.  This isn't due to anything nefarious on Jawl's part:  Jawl simply has long-standing relationships with many major office tenants in town, and their buildings are well-run and highly regarded (even the retail tenant mixes on the ground levels tend to heavily favour local businesses and cafes).  I believe Jawl likely has an anchor tenant lined up for its planned office redevelopment of the Capital 6, and that building is still in its initial planning stages; Gateway Green had approvals in place years ago but failed to line up any tenants.  Tri-Eagle seems to have had more success in its suburban office buildings as these generally don't compete directly with Jawl.

 

My assumption is that this site will be redeveloped as rental apartments unless it's bought by Jawl.

 

I was the IT director at the LTSA back when GG came onto our radar as the org was planning to move from the old HO location on Davidson St in Saanich.

 

One of the primary reasons LTSA never signed on and eventually moved to the Atrium - in spite of its hefty price tag - was that the Jawls had a definite vision and more critically a concrete timeline for its construction. The GG folks never could provide much if anything in way of substantive info re a construction framework never mind an actual schedule,and like any org needing more space "now" the LTSA wasn't prepared to sit around waiting forever......

[Mike K.]

And that's just how it goes. Huge sums of money spent on proposing the project, getting it approved, and marketing it to tenants. Lots of time, lots of effort, lots of investor capital gone.

 

It doesn't matter how big or small you are as a developer, every project is viewed through the lense of its immediate financial pros and cons. Zoomer gave us the example of the Winnipeg project, but he won't tell us how much Starlight spent pursuing that proposal which it will never recover following the proposal's collapse.

 

There are more skeletons in the world of development than there are shining examples of perfectly executed projects. This is not a pursuit for the faint of heart, and vilifying those who have the ability and experience to deliver housing/commercial spaces is only going to hinder the provision of what we need, even if our intentions are good by propping up one type of developer over another.

[aastra]

In May 2024 we now have a ~23-story residential proposal...
 

[Nparker]

It looks great...if it happens.

[aastra]

It looks pretty decent considering the site. Much better than the west face of Hudson Place 2. I'd say the height is just about right re: the view from the JSB. Dare I say it, but it would also seem to create more justification for the CoV's Blanshard St. park space. Not so sure about that corner treatment on the podium levels.

[Nparker]

There is NO justification for the Blanshard Street park, but I still like this proposal.

[aastra]

As always, we might be inclined to wonder how much of that window space would actually be windows as versus panels.

[aastra]

Nah, I'd say a new park somewhere in the north downtown area could* be justified and even at a fairly high price tag, if* the intention were to surround the park with residential development. Obviously any park space fronting onto that stretch of Blanshard Street is going to seem less than ideal, but if* the vibe of the area is going to be transformed to feel more cozy and residential-focused and if* the traffic flow is going to be strangled calmed then I think it could* be made to work.

 

*conditionals

[aastra]

Does anyone know of a forum or message board where people like to discuss development projects such as this one?

[aastra]

 

The tower facade is broken up and articulated through the introduction of strong horizontal bands, running around the perimeter of the building at each floor level.

 

Always with that emphasis on the horizontal...

[aastra]

Any bets as to whether the elements that give this design a bit of distinction (the implied verticality of the taller top level and also of those exposed pillars in the open corners here and there) will get watered down somewhat as per the CoV's suggested "improvements"? Does anyone remember the early design of Hudson Place 2 and how it ended up going in the wrong direction?

[Mike K.]

Here's the thread for the new development proposal: https://vibrantvicto...ial-22-storeys/