Jump to content

      













UNDER CONSTRUCTION
The Jukebox
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 1000-block of View Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 9
Condo units: 215 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: pre-sales
The nine-storey Jukebox condominium development consists of 215 residential units and a ground floor commercia... (view full profile)
Learn more about the Jukebox on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Jukebox | Condos; commercial | 9-storeys | Under construction

Condo Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
804 replies to this topic

#21 LittleMagellan

LittleMagellan
  • Member
  • 72 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:50 PM

To be honest, I didn't even notice the vacant lot behind the place until I moved in and opened the blinds in the bedroom. So it's my own fault for not being aware of the surroundings...

At least it's only going to be 6 stories tall...

#22 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 06:31 PM

I wouldn't be tempted to sell at this point if it's at all on your mind. I doubt it will affect your property value once it's built. But put it on the market now and you're screwed. People are always more put-off of the unknown versus bricks and mortar.
I remember reading your decision to buy here. I would have mentioned the lot behind, but I just assumed you knew.
As for the agent that helped you find the place, I wouldn't work with him/her again. He/she shouldn't have assumed anything. Likely the person just didn't care.

#23 LittleMagellan

LittleMagellan
  • Member
  • 72 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 09:52 PM

No, I'm definitely not going to sell. I actually quite like it here, it's a nice location. And it's actually not that noisy either, considering it's wood frame. I can hear a bit from the unit above me, but like I said it's hardly noticeable. Hear more noise off the street than from other people in the building.

Yeah I can say I'm not too impressed that the realtor didn't mention the development of the lot. I'm almost more surprised that I didn't notice it.

#24 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,506 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 11:32 PM

I have a rendering of this project. It's quite substantial looking for a six-storey building.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#25 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 06:48 AM

I think you know what we're all thinking now, Rob.

#26 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,506 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 06:58 AM

I will post the rendering here on one condition. One VV reader and Downtown resident (between Belleville, Cook and Chatham) signs up to become a member of the DRA. Send your contact info to victoriadra(a)hotmail.com to get on our e-mail list and become a member. There is a voluntary $10 membership fee.

Yes, this is extortion. :)

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#27 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,069 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 12:56 PM

Does the proposal conform to existing zoning? I know that it is definitely *shorter* than what is allowed, I'm just not sure if the density exceeds the allowance for the lot.

If it conforms to existing zoning, then I suppose the developers need only to apply for a development permit?

#28 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,506 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 08:29 PM

Congrats to our newest DRA member from the beautiful Humboldt Valley. As promised, here is a rendering:



There will probably be some changes to the exterior, including a slight setback in the middle of the building (the City wants the building facade to be broken up so that it kind of looks like two buildings).

Does the proposal conform to existing zoning? I know that it is definitely *shorter* than what is allowed, I'm just not sure if the density exceeds the allowance for the lot.

If it conforms to existing zoning, then I suppose the developers need only to apply for a development permit?


The building is under the height and density limits. No rezonings or variances are being requested.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#29 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,670 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 08:37 PM

I really like it. To further support the DRA I am moving this thread to where it belongs - Downtown!

#30 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 08:40 PM

Who's the architect?

And those dark squiggly things hanging at the top of the blank west-facing wall: they are...? iTunes Gargoyles? (Just curious - being a sculptor and all...)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#31 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,466 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 09:10 PM

Is it just me or do I count 7 stories?

The form/esthetics are much too solid and bulky. It's as if we're rejecting a west coast vibe for an Ontario/Quebec thing. Why so little glass?

Hard to tell what's going on with the ground floor. Tall windows & tall main entrance = good but what's with those little flights of stairs?

The curved bit is interesting but again it looks too solid. All in all it strikes me as a wider, cheaper version of this building:
http://maps.google.c...,82.27,,0,-0.94
(a building in Vancouver that was plenty wide and not particularly fancy to begin with)

Fatscraper rant:
So is the plan to turn View Street into one solid wall of incredibly long buildings? We still haven't learned anything from View Towers or the Tara Place Apartments?

You could build two Corazons on this site and space them out nicely from one another AND from Tara Place and STILL preserve decent view channels through that block to the towers across the street and beyond.

#32 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 09:23 PM

Hard to tell what's going on with the ground floor. Tall windows & tall main entrance = good but what's with those little flights of stairs?

There's a TON of BS in that rendering, if you ask me. Check out what I assume is the u/g garage entry on the right: it is TINY. We're supposed to believe it'll actually be that petite when built? Would be nice, but somehow I doubt it...

But then again, maybe it's not the entry to an u/g parking garage. From the scale, I'd say the dumpsters are behind that door.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#33 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,466 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 09:28 PM

That raises the question as to where the vehicle entrance really is. At the far left (east) end?

I just think it's a case of a building trying too hard. Sort of like how Castana tried too hard, or how this building in Langford tried too hard:

picture from http://www.suitehome...cent_Sales.html

#34 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,165 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 September 2010 - 10:10 PM

It's one of those buildings which we'll stand in front of in 15 years and say "I wish they'd tear it down and develop that site".

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#35 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,466 posts

Posted 01 September 2010 - 10:44 PM

We've talked about if before re: the proposal for the parking lot beside View Towers but I'll say it again: Harris Green needs lighter, glassier buildings, and a lot of them.

The older residential buildings around there are just so heavy. View Towers, Chelsea on View, the Manhattan, SVDP...

New buildings should be encouraged/required to mitigate the bunker esthetic. Where's the city's design panel when you need them?

 

Edit looking back in 2019: Legato ended up working out well as a lighter, glassier building in Harris Green. And the Jukebox itself ended up looking much more colourful and much more interesting than your typical wide/long apartment building. Which I suppose proves that bulk isn't necessarily bad if the architecture isn't bland.


Edited by aastra, 17 January 2019 - 06:28 PM.


#36 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:15 AM

Aastra, that would go against the heritage of the neighbourhood, which is wide buildings with tiny windows. Attractive glassy dense residential neighbourhood?? Take that to Vancouver. We need a Victoria solution, which is clearly a cheap brick-facaded east-coast looking fatscraper.

Also it's UNDER the current limits?? Build to the max, go over, or go home.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#37 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,069 posts

Posted 02 September 2010 - 09:43 AM

If the latest proposal calls for seven storeys then the building will (obviously) be built of concrete.

Also, since that the building conforms to zoning/density regulations (thanks Rob for that information) we can assume that the developer probably won't ask for a variance re: parking requirements (one stall per suite).

#38 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 02 September 2010 - 09:57 AM

1 unit per suite in a small-unit building with 200 units?? On this size lot that would be two and a half levels of underground parking, so it's doable just very expensive. With the small size of units in this building, expect 25% of your purchase cost going towards your parking.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#39 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 September 2010 - 11:58 AM

1 unit per suite in a small-unit building with 200 units?? On this size lot that would be two and a half levels of underground parking, so it's doable just very expensive. With the small size of units in this building, expect 25% of your purchase cost going towards your parking.


Maybe they can buy the Radius or Silkwood hole on the cheap.
<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>

#40 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 02 September 2010 - 03:46 PM

There will probably be some changes to the exterior, including a slight setback in the middle of the building (the City wants the building facade to be broken up so that it kind of looks like two buildings).


But it already does look like two buildings. Why is the city so insistent on setbacks all the time? Didn't we learn our lesson with the Wave on Yates St?

Anyways, I like this building. What I don't like though is the inconsent streetscape around it caused by the Tara apartments and the Regent towers across the street. But the streetwall formed by this building is good.

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