168 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

^ Agree, nice to have you on here again by the way NParker!

[SP!RE]

There is nothing "ultramodern" about this design. In fact, it looks like something that could have been designed in the 1930s. So please stop using the term "ultramodern" because it makes you sound like you have no grasp of architecture.

[G-Man]

I believe that modern architecture had its origins before the 1930's.

[aastra]

Which takes us full circle back to this:

And what constitutes ultramodern?

[Mike K.]

I believe that modern architecture had its origins before the 1930's.

That's right. Early 20th Century beginnings and popularized in the 40's and 50's.

[SP!RE]

Exactly-- I was being conservative. The Bauhaus or the other early players could churn something just like this out. Thus, it's not a new style-- it's not a question of if we want the latest in architecture in this space-- it's about choosing a likable style and good design, even if it's one that's been around for decades.

Old and new are always pitted against eachother when actually, we could build a modern structure here that would only be moderately different (from an aesthetic standpoint) from something designed in the, say, 1920s. Every building ages.

I think the issue here is that Victoria doesn't have a respect for modernist architecture, and thus it can't place it. It can't picture modernism done well or as part of a future streetscape. Unfortunately, by attempting to turn it away all the time, the city is actually going to keep ending up with watered-down, injured proposals that actually showcase the worst of modern architecture for the city.

I think there needs to be dialogue that reinforces the idea that these "modern" buildings will also be historical one day. Do we want a missing piece of architectural history? Etc. etc.

I think there should be more focus on GOOD architecture (of any style) and GOOD planning, and creating vibrant streetscapes, even if they DO include modern buildings or not. I hear a whole lot of anti-modern attitudes vibing from Victoria and I feel like when I arrive from Ontario (I move this summer) I'm going to be in shock. I will fight that attitude though-- I think it's very unsophisticated to channel one's aesthetic angers all towards "modern architecture" (which encompasses a VAST array of styles) as opposed to working towards better architecture of all types.

/end rant from an outsider's point of view.

[Mike K.]

Spire, looks like you'll fit in well here

Most individuals participating here would agree with your take on the built environment.

And having said that, you will notice when you move here that the quality of architecture is a step above architecture in other similarly-sized North American cities. Take a look at the construction projects list for a good rundown of major projects across the CRD.

Where Victoria fails is streetscape design. Architects seem to have a hard time with streetscapes, although that could be a case of too many chefs in the kitchen (City Hall, design panel, community organizations, etc, etc, each having their say and impacting the design).

[D.L.]

Spire please, move here as soon as you can!

[G-Man]

There are some good examples IMO of modern architecture such as the old Monday Mag Building and Central Middle School. There are a couple modern commercial buildings on Quadra that have merit as well. I can see the merit slightly in the Royal Bank Building on Pandora and Douglas too.

I think that modern works in this location thought I still think this specific building needs some tweaks particularly with the wall facing Government. Other than that though this would be a nice modulation in the street scape.

[SP!RE]

Thanks for the welcome guys, hehe. I promise that I will get involved as much as possible when I move out that way .

As for the way streetscapes form-- that was one of my concerns, and as I said, instead of fighting modern architecture, the people of Victoria need to be fighting bad streetscape design. I imagine the bureaucracies of the design approval process are what churn out poor streetscapes and fed-up architects.

Anyways-- I so look forward to coming to the city and bringing a little bit of an Ontario attitude with me, hehe-- or the best parts of one.

[Mike K.]

The developer for this project, Jurgen Weyand, has provided VV with updated information on this project.

Mr. Weyand writes:

We have submitted plans for a rezoning and development permit for this building: 51 rental apartments above commercial. Every unit has a secured bicycle storage locker in the basement.

The commercial would be about 25 ft high because of the 25 ft concrete podium wall of The Sovereign in the back, with 4 floors of residential above.

The commercial can be split into 2 levels (making this a 6 storey building) or it is a 5 storey building with a very high retail space. Either way the proposed building height is 20.5 m.

The building has now no setbacks from Fort Street (as suggested by City Planning) and was mirrored so that the entrance is now on the East side of the building.

[Baro]

"The building has now no setbacks from Fort Street (as suggested by City Planning) and was mirrored so that the entrance is now on the East side of the building."

Am I in bizaro-Victoria? Planning not just allowing but outright asking for a proper streetwall??? They didn't ask for a 10m setback with a paved open space or landscaping?

This building is small and simple and gets the job done nicely. No architecture is perfect to everyone, but this building does not offend me with blandness, it has some style albeit subdued style. I approve of it! (I know the architect was very concerned about my personal approval)

[D.L.]

Wow, this design is 100 times (two orders of magnitude) better!!!

[Nparker]

This looks like a good, contemporary design, appropriate to it's setting; therefore City Council will never approve it.

[jonny]

Looks good! I like the black on grey...or is it grey on black? Or is it gray? Anyway, hopefully City Hall approves this as is and doesn't dipsy doodle around so the developer can get on with it.

[aastra]

Looks pretty good. I like the ground floor. I think I'd like to see a slight setback on the top floor.

[gumgum]

I like it too. I agree a slight setback would improve it more.

[Holden West]

^Yes, without the setback it seems to elbow aside the grand Yarrow Building. With a setback the two fit well together. Plus, a setback on the west side would lessen the visual impact of that nasty blank wall facing Government Street. I realize the planning department likes no-setback streetwalls here but in this case I'd like a second opinion. I'd like to hear what the Advisory Design Panel thinks of it.

[SP!RE]

I love this! I just feel like (from a distance... I haven't moved out there yet) the city council is going to shoot it down for being too modern.

Anyways, to my eyes it looks like a very polished little proposal. I hope we see it get built.

[gumgum]

I don't want to jinx this, but I see no reason why this won't pass.