Uses: condo, townhome
Address: 83 Saghalie Road
Region: Urban core
Condo units: 177 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR, penthouse, townhome)
Sales status: sold out / resales only
[Vic West] Promontory at Bayview | Condos | 21-floors | Built - completed in 2014Condo
Posted 25 March 2011 - 06:06 AM
Posted 25 March 2011 - 08:56 AM
Coun. Madoff was on CBC this morning going about her concerns about the height.
I beseech all those with ANY hope for the future of this city, to vote this woman out of office in Novemeber.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 09:21 AM
I have a bad feeling we're going to see a situation similar to the marina, where despite zoning existing public sentiment will "force" city hall to de-zone. Then a lawsuit, then a huge cash settlement with the developer...
Aside from poor planning and terrible management, I don't understand why a City would do stuff like this. Seems to me like a lawsuit would be a slam dunk for the developer. I know I'd be pretty choked if I spent all that time, money and effort into acquiring land, getting it re-zoned, investing in preliminary concept designs, etc. only to have the City pull the rug from underneith me just when I'm ready to put shovels in the dirt.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 10:27 AM
Blocking views of the Sooke Hills. Which kind of illustrates my issue in that a good building is the view.
Are the Sooke Hills really that beautiful anyway? They're hills for christ's sake. Besides that, if you can't see them, move a little bit and then you probably can. The anti-development crowd will pull just about any excuse out of their asses to oppose new buildings.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 10:38 AM
Posted 25 March 2011 - 10:45 AM
^ Well I like the Sooke Hills but also like nice buildings either can be a great view. Coun. Madoff specifically said that it will block her view "while driving around the city" which is one of my big pet peeves. Views are not for drivers. This is the same argument against building on Wharf Street.
While driving shouldn't one be focussed on the task at hand and not so much on what their view of the landscape is, especially in a city?
Posted 25 March 2011 - 10:50 AM
For example, it would be so easy to put buildings back on the Wharf Street parking lots without blocking the view. The Wharf Street sidewalk would merely need to be extended around the west side of the new buildings. As a result, the view (and the potential to enjoy the view) could be improved significantly.
Same thing for the Northern Junk proposal. There would be a walkway and public spaces along the harbour on the west side of the building.
Who the hell cares what you can or can't see from your stupid car? Park your car and get out and walk and actually experience the damn city.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 10:58 AM
This is the thing. The hills aren't getting taller. It's not like they'll soon be sticking up above the existing Songhees buildings. Would a new highrise behind the existing buildings even affect the view of the hills at all? We need pictures.
Besides that, if you can't see them, move a little bit and then you probably can.
Edit: earlier in this thread I posted a link to this picture from the roof of the Atrium:
A new tower on the Songhees would definitely impact that view of the hills. So is that the sort of view that we're worried about? The view of the hills from office buildings or apartments in the Juliet or the Falls?
Edit: another picture from the roof of the Hudson:
The view of that low section of the hills between Sitkum Lodge and the existing Bayview building might be blocked. What is that area, anyway? It appears to be covered in houses. Is that Triangle Mountain?
Posted 25 March 2011 - 11:46 AM
Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:17 PM
I think Madoff tends to greatly exaggerate the significance of the hills and their relevance to the downtown/harbour scene.
Sometimes I wonder if the Sooke Hills thing is "North Shore envy". The big city on the mainland is embraced by towering wilderness, it's in your face every moment of the day, whereas the little city on the island has a lazy backdrop of wilderness-lite in the far distance. (Overlooking for the moment the fact that Victoria actually has a legitimately spectacular mountain backdrop to the south... but a mountain range in the USA can't really belong to Victoria or represent Victoria, can it?)
Here's a good picture of the hills. I'm glad that they're there but I'm not really worried about putting a new building here or there in front of them:
Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:20 PM
My guess is that it is an excuse to keep taller buidings out of the core.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:26 PM
I love the Olympics but you don't really look up at them the way you look up at the North Shore. They're not right there, in your face, towering over the city. They're too far away.
But they're still 1000x what the Sooke Hills are.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 01:03 PM
That said I am getting off topic. The Sooke hills are nice but I don't think we should be forming our city arounding ensuring that you can see it. It would be like ensuring views of Little Mountain or SFU in Vancouver.
Posted 25 March 2011 - 01:13 PM
Councillor Madoff has referred to the blocking of views towards the Sooke hills for over a decade. It's nothing new.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
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