Jump to content

      



























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
Speed and Frances, west tower, is a 12-storey residential building with 83 condos, six townhomes and ground fl... (view full profile)
Learn more about Speed and Frances, west tower on Citified.ca
Photo

[Burnside/Gorge] Speed and Frances towers | condos; commercial | 12 & 12-storeys | Cancelled


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
255 replies to this topic

#61 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 05:38 PM

Various different shapes and sizes:

ROSS PLACE:



GIANT ROSS PLACE:



JAMES BAY:



SANDPIPER:



MANHATTAN:



THE WAVE:




METROPOLITAN:



I have to say, the Metropolitan doesn't look half-bad there.

#62 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 06:22 PM

*Like*

#63 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:37 PM

Not bad, but your histogram in the blue channel should have been around 38% instead of 39% for those images.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#64 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:42 PM

Seriously, that's genius. I'm sure the planners at City Hall are looking at this saying, see now, this is why we recommend it be declined.

Compare upper Douglas with the Shelbourne corridor, which is in the midst of an extensive long-term planning exercise.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#65 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:49 PM

Are you kidding me?? I've got 7,000 plus posts on this board and another few thousand on SSP!


I wasn't asking for your general ideas about buildings. You compared this building to view towers and it appears that the only similarity is the width of one of the buildings in this project. What else is wrong with this project that is so much like view towers?

#66 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 09:15 PM

As far as I'm concerned the width/shape of the larger building is the only aspect* that's similar to View Towers (or Harbour Towers, or whatever other wide building we want to reference). That's why I posted the following on page 1 of this thread:

If the mere mention of "View Towers" rubs people the wrong way then I'll use the Wave on Yates as my measuring stick instead. The proposed building seems to be at least as wide as the Wave, and probably a little bit wider.

So is that really the format that we want?

I'm sure I've said at least a few things in favour of this project. The elevation drawings looked pretty decent to me.

*not to overlook the other obvious similarity, namely the sheer number of residents, but as I also said earlier, I don't really have a problem with the density itself but rather the form that it takes.

#67 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 09:53 PM

I will concede the building is indeed wide. ;)

#68 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 11:11 AM

Various different shapes and sizes:

I have to say, the Metropolitan doesn't look half-bad there.


Nice work aastra.

It's actually pretty close to a giant Ross Place with a Manhattan next to it.

#69 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 25 May 2011 - 02:05 AM

The recent issue of Douglas magazine says that this project is still alive and the proponent is hoping to start construction later in the year.

#70 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 04:52 PM

Has anyone heard any more about this? Is it still on hold?

#71 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:02 PM

Revised plans?

http://www.praxisarc...ects/speed.html

#72 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:19 PM

I'd say that's quite a bit better than before. No more widescraper issues.

If I had my way I'd stagger the heights by a couple of stories (11 and 13 instead of 12 and 12). I always prefer staggered heights to perfect twins.

#73 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:44 PM



Here's the image Robb and aastra are referring to.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#74 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:07 AM

The newer design seems more appropriate in terms of size and massing than the first design we saw (below).


picture from http://www.timescolo...1456/story.html



#75 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 06:49 AM

I never like cookie cutter towers when one is simply rotated. In this coastal rainforest climate, the direction the facade faces should take into account the unique climate. For instance, the Advisory Design Panel questioned why a north-facing Fort St. building needed a large sun-blocking overhang. A lot of us know what it is like to attempt to cool down a sweltering east-facing unit or bring light and warmth into a dank, dark north-facing unit.

That said, I like the overall concept although the design is somewhat plain.

#76 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:54 AM

It looks pretty good. I might not mind the design if they went with a more contemporary colour scheme.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#77 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:19 AM

I hate the podium. The colours and design remind me of some 70's senior's or affordable housing. I love that they actually have a lot-filling podium with town houses, but the design look pretty bad. Towers don't bug me though. If using rotated copies saves them money needed to bring down the prices or even get the damn thing built then oh well.

What are we looking at between the two towers though? I see the parkade ramp but what is behind that?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#78 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:30 AM

Given the lackluster design does anyone get the feeling the proponent is merely trying to rezone the property then flip it?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#79 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

I think that this is planned to be affordable housing that the design is limited so that it can be built and that they can still have a razor thin profit.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#80 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:45 AM

The design is not high art but then again it's no worse than buildings like the Manhattan or the Metropolitan, and those are right downtown whereas we're talking about the Douglas Street strip here.

It's better than Ross Place.

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.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users