CANCELLED Speed and Frances, west tower Uses: condo, commercial Address: 606 Speed Avenue Municipality: Victoria Region: Urban core Storeys: 12 Condo units: (loft, 1BR, 2BR) Sales status: in planning |
Learn more about Speed and Frances, west tower on Citified.ca
[Burnside/Gorge] Speed and Frances towers | condos; commercial | 12 & 12-storeys | Cancelled
#21
Posted 30 January 2011 - 11:43 AM
2,316m^2 Commercial, 16,738m^2 Residential = 19,054m^2 total. Site is 5349.4m^2
26 Studio + 42 1BD + 74 1BD&Den + 72 2BD = 224 units
2 level parkade, 235 standard and 13 non-conforming
#22
Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:57 PM
#23
Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:30 PM
You know, all things considered, it actually looks pretty good. So what's the mood on Speed Ave.? Do people think it's just too much?
I'm not sure. I think it's safe to say we're all in favour of continued redevelopment of the street.
I put a note up on our board letting people know about this forum, maybe we'll get some more opinions?
Speaking for myself, I'm worried that it's too much and will negatively impact the area. What's it going to do to my property value? How will it affect the quality of life in the neighbourhood?
#24
Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:06 PM
#25
Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:10 PM
#26
Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:39 PM
http://www.bing.com/...557926033&sty=b
http://maps.google.c...71.51,,0,-17.39
I've been ranting about the massing but from the POV of the apartments on the north side of Speed I don't think changing the massing is going to make the situation much better. The edge of the proposed tower is already facing them. How can it improve beyond that? I suppose they could make the edge even slimmer, but probably not by much, and if they do that they'll probably want to build out the width even more (by filling in those terraces on the upper floors on the south side). Meanwhile, things can get worse quite easily, if they redistribute things so that 8 or 9 stories are stretched east-west along the south side of Speed Avenue itself.
As far as the rest of us are concerned (including potential future developments in the area), the massing could be more appealing, for sure.
#27
Posted 30 January 2011 - 04:07 PM
Is this the sort of thing that the city wants? Are the developers going out on a limb when they propose something like this? Maybe it doesn't have a chance in hell? Or maybe it's a slam dunk?
I really have no idea.
#28
Posted 30 January 2011 - 06:35 PM
Aastra is it just me or does density outside of downtown upset you.
I think for the developer to make rental work this is the size they will need to go. If people want a market four storey walk up condo building it will be many many years before that is viable again.
#29
Posted 30 January 2011 - 07:04 PM
Where will these people shop for their groceries if they don't have a car? Save-On is a 15 minute walk, which isn't too bad I suppose - not ideal but doable, particularly if RT goes in.
So, I echo Aastra's question. Is this area slated for high density? If so, is it a good idea?
#30
Posted 30 January 2011 - 08:19 PM
My other beef is also something that I've mentioned before: what are people supposed to expect? Are we saying it serves somebody right for choosing to live in a 3-story building on Speed Avenue because it should have been obvious to them that a 14-story wide-rise would eventually be built across the street?
How come Victoria is so counterintuitive about such things? Whatever an area happens to be like, you're supposed to expect the opposite? If you live in Harris Green or the Humboldt Valley you're supposed to expect lowrises? If you live on Speed Avenue you're supposed to expect highrises?
If the folks who live on the north side of Speed Avenue were expecting the south side of Speed Avenue to be redeveloped along similar lines as the north side, is that really so outrageous and ridiculous?
#31
Posted 30 January 2011 - 08:38 PM
How many of these sorts of projects are we expecting/hoping for on the west side of Douglas, along Douglas in general, and along Burnside?
What's the height limit, if any?
What are the guidelines re: architectural styles, setbacks, and ground floors (townhouses, commercial units, etc.)?
Are Victoria and Saanich on the same page re: the vision for this area?
#32
Posted 30 January 2011 - 09:08 PM
Where will these people shop for their groceries if they don't have a car? Save-On is a 15 minute walk, which isn't too bad I suppose - not ideal but doable, particularly if RT goes in.
There are plenty of bus routs that run up Douglas to uptown. From there you have either Walmart or Save on. It really is not that bad, I lived 25 minute walk from the closest grocery store without a car last year. I survived, although I could have killed Calgary Transit on some of those really cold days.
Maybe we will even see the loblaw's get finished
#33
Posted 30 January 2011 - 10:09 PM
There are plenty of bus routs that run up Douglas to uptown. From there you have either Walmart or Save on. It really is not that bad,
Right, its not that bad, but its still not very "walkable", and thats 240 units that could have been somewhere we want to have density.
I'm not saying I'm dead set against this, but it does seem an odd place to build this.
#34
Posted 30 January 2011 - 10:15 PM
#35
Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:32 AM
First there is Lifestyles one block from here and theorhetically a super store going in a block in the other direction. There is lots of shopping and many busroutes seems a car is not even necessary. I live about four blocks away and only use my car on weekends. The only thing that would make the neighbourhood better would for it to be less suburban and the way to that is through high density development.
i agree, there are multiple reasons for this area to become a density node. shopping, access to transit, access to near by parks(topaz and even selkirk walk way), access to employment centers(nature of this development, target market most likely is employed in the service sector). I would love to see that vacant car dealership redeveloped into a mixed use development.
While it is easy to balk at being "20" minutes from a place, I have lived in areas that were not very accessible without a car. Given the choice between walking 20 minutes and using portions of my tiny budget for gasoline/transport, I'll take the exercise and fresh air.
#36
Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:48 AM
#37
Posted 31 January 2011 - 10:27 AM
#38
Posted 31 January 2011 - 11:56 AM
#39
Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:39 PM
See the Planning agenda at http://www.victoria....2_03_agenda.pdf ...
#40
Posted 31 January 2011 - 03:24 PM
On the grand scheme of things though, I don't see how this project is a negative at all. But then again, I don't consider 14 storey buildings massive. IMO this development would be a massive improvement over that ghetto blue motel and the just as ghetto looking KFC...
It's not downtown, but it is along the main north-south corridor right next to a shopping mall and pretty close to Uptown. This is not in the suburbs. I don't think higher buildings around Mayfair Mall would be out of place at all. That 'Ross Place' building is not located downtown, but it's 10ish stories (going from memory, might be less). There are buildings in Oak Bay that are taller than this.
This is an 'affordable' complex in a region that suffers from a shortage of housing.
I like the mix of it being more than just one stand alone building.
It's an excellent location as far as transit is concerned.
Keeping in mind that the target market for this building is different than the Falls, Corazon, Juliet etc, what I have seen so far actualy looks pretty good. I'd like to see more renderings though.
The economy is still in a somewhat precarious situation, yet this developer has come up with a pretty decent proposal. Considering the region's housing needs, the construction slowdown and the proposal itself, I think this should be seriously looked at and not quickly rejected on the basis of size.
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