254 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

This is my point.
Waking up to a blank wall is bad enough. Waking up to the janitor switching on the lights, vacuuming and dusting the blinds, and it's 3AM is worse. At least with a blank wall as your view you can leave the blinds open all the time. With an busy, running office in your face, you might as well have the windows filled in cuz you ain't ever gonna want to open those blinds.
Bin dere, done dat.

The developer is thinking of the buyers. Fair enough.

[Scaper]

[m0nkyman]

So, the blank wall faces a blank wall, and the balconies face a window.... :oops:

[Scaper]

That wall is only two stories tall, the blank wall on the proposal is six stories. I have no problem with matching the two story wall, but I am sure the people in the Ministry of Attourney General won't be happy with looking at blank Concrete.

[m0nkyman]

That wall is only two stories tall, the blank wall on the proposal is six stories. I have no problem with matching the two story wall, but I am sure the people in the Ministry of Attourney General won't be happy with looking at blank Concrete.

Unless I've completely lost the ability to read plans, the side view of the proposed six story shows a two story blank wall, and four stories with balconies placed well to stare at the goings on in the AG's offices...

[Oxford Sutherland]

This is my point.
Waking up to a blank wall is bad enough. Waking up to the janitor switching on the lights, vacuuming and dusting the blinds, and it's 3AM is worse. At least with a blank wall as your view you can leave the blinds open all the time. With an busy, running office in your face, you might as well have the windows filled in cuz you ain't ever gonna want to open those blinds.
Bin dere, done dat.

The developer is thinking of the buyers. Fair enough.

So what view do you think the current planned units are going to have?

[Scaper]

That wall is only two stories tall, the blank wall on the proposal is six stories. I have no problem with matching the two story wall, but I am sure the people in the Ministry of Attourney General won't be happy with looking at blank Concrete.

Unless I've completely lost the ability to read plans, the side view of the proposed six story shows a two story blank wall, and four stories with balconies placed well to stare at the goings on in the AG's offices...

You are right....for some reason I never saw this part of the rendering...

I still don't like the project though...The site is being completely under acheived.

[Holden West]

It would be great if they could use the Sussex building parking entrance and link the two parkades. Probably a legal and engineering nightmare.

[m0nkyman]

I still don't like the project though...The site is being completely under acheived.

On that, we agree...

[Scaper]

[G-Man]

So no one has yet to tell me why they can't do a single lane garge entrance like the condo on Chatham. Anyone think of a good reason?

[D.L.]

I still don't like the project though...The site is being completely under acheived.

Scaper, this project appears to be looking for a 5:1 density ratio. No highrise in the city can claim that level density.

[gumgum]

I guess I didn't look at the plans closely enough.

Basically had the sussex not had the tower set way back from douglas, there wouldn't be an issue here. A prime example of how developers should think of a building's future surroundings when designing.

[G-Man]

I like it except for the garage door.

[Rob Randall]

The building will have a 3:1 density ratio, which is what the present zoning allows. There wil be 13 underground spaces. I don't know why the entrance is double wide.

[gumgum]

^Maybe it's an underground airplane hangar. Maybe John Travolta is going to buy a unit.

[Mike K.]

...this project appears to be looking for a 5:1 density ratio. No highrise in the city can claim that level density.

Juliet is 6:1 and the Falls is 5.85:1 (or something like that?), I believe. Executive House is 5.35:1.

[D.L.]

Ok so this is only 3:1.

[Galvanized]

13 spaces and a double wide entrance, that can't be correct. Can it?

Every time I look at a building in Victoria (and this includes ones under constuction) I think what if it was 2 stories taller? And then I think why the hell didn't they make it 2 stories taller, it would look so much better. I'll have to add this project to this list. Too bad.

[Scaper]

I guess I didn't look at the plans closely enough.

Basically had the sussex not had the tower set way back from douglas, there wouldn't be an issue here. A prime example of how developers should think of a building's future surroundings when designing.

Originally the Sussex tower was to be built right up to Douglas street. But the Hallmark society got the original facade of the hotel saved so they were told to move the tower as far east as possible away from the heritage facade.