3253 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Wasn't that one of the cornerstones of the pro-replacement argument? The superstructure of the old bridge was obscuring the spectacular view into Vic West?

http://maps.google.c...,264.41,,0,2.02

The buildings up on the hill (Bayview, Sitkum Lodge, the Edge) are pretty much all you've got there in terms of a view. So if we're opposed to a new building up there does that mean we think the view is perfect as is?

[jklymak]

While its fun to poke fun at Pam, I do think this will stick out pretty egregiously. The Sooke Hills aren't really the point - its a tall building on top of a hill surrounded by smaller buildings at the bottom of the hill. It will be as displeasing as Camosack Manor.

This is on the inner harbour - its not like it will only be seen by people driving down Esquimalt Road.

http://maps.google.c...305.27,,1,-1.64

[LJ]

. What is that area, anyway? It appears to be covered in houses. Is that Triangle Mountain?

Wouldn't that be Mill Hill? Triangle mountain is futher away and taller, I believe.

[gumgum]

I don't think it'll be nearly as displeasing to the eye as Camosack Manor and I hate Camosack.

Camosack sits atop a higher hill surrounded by one and two story single family homes.

This one will be taller, but it will be surrounded by shorter buildings, but highrises nonetheless. And the hill is less than half the height of the base of Camosack.

I do agree however that it aught to be a much more special looking building that what's planned. It is a very prominent spot that's for sure.

But ultimately I don't think this building is the problem though, it's what's surrounding it - or, more importantly, what's not surrounding it - that's the problem.

[aastra]

Yeah, but look at that Google picture:
http://maps.google.c....05.27,,1,-1.64

The top floor of the first Bayview building is just barely visible.

So we're talking an additional ten stories, right? But situated a bit further back. Would the foundation of the tower be any higher/lower than the foundation of the first Bayview building? Probably not much either way, you think?

A tower would constitute a departure from the current flat-top format, for sure. But the final phase of Bayview and the Roundhouse will eventually add a few more towers, so it's not like this building will be standing alone forever.

Sitkum Lodge once seemed like it would be standing alone on the rocks there forever, too. But it's got company now, and more to come.

I don't know, I'm just not sure that it's anything to worry about.

[Nparker]

I am sure we have all seen pictures of the beloved Victoria of a century or so ago. Practically every new structure built back then that wasn't a one-floor shanty stood out on barren landscapes. I imagine some pristine views were obliterated then too. Strangely enough in the years that followed all the spaces filled in. Worrying about this one tower destroying all that is good about Victoria is quite frankly a waste of time and energy. Ms. Madoff needs to get herself a life...preferably in another city somewhere.

[Baro]

Don't be disrespecting the Camosac, GumGum. That monster is my beacon home from just about anywhere. I also don't mind it for some reason and actually think the nest of antennas at the top is cool...

[Phil McAvity]

http://www.michelle-...ria-Harbour.jpg

In that last picture, someone clearly needs to get rid of those nasty sailboats in the foreground since they block the view of the oh-so-beautiful hills in the background.

I think Phil agrees with you.

I do. The Sooke hills are hardly a view worth protecting.....even if G-Man likes them.

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.

I've thought that about the Coast mountains in Vancouver too and since we don't have something actually worth looking at, we'll just pretend to have something as beautiful.

My guess is that it is an excuse to keep taller buidings out of the core.

EGGzactly. The sad thing is, that many people take opposition to development seriously even though it is usually for the most absurd reasons and they overlook all the benefits.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Yep. That's more of that auto-oriented thinking that still holds sway in Victoria. The most important view/experience is the one from your car. It came up often during the bridge debate.

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.

Hear, hear. Madoff makes me cry. From GMan's comment: "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." She has been on about the Sooke Hills being "blocked" from view several times. I don't understand it. Is she seriously suggesting that we build nothing that will block any view (partial or whole) of them? And from her car??? Is she kidding? Why does she get to say stupid stuff like this?

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm with Baro. I like Camosack Manor.

[aastra]

I have no problem with Camosack Manor's presence. I like the fact that it's there and that you can see it from a lot of places around town. But I'm not crazy about the design of the building itself.

[2F2R]

>>>Hear, hear. Madoff makes me cry. From GMan's comment: "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." She has been on about the Sooke Hills being "blocked" from view several times. I don't understand it. Is she seriously suggesting that we build nothing that will block any view (partial or whole) of them? And from her car??? Is she kidding? Why does she get to say stupid stuff like this?<<<

This make me sick to my stomach … I’ve been hearing this block the view crap for 30+ years … it is ridicules and only self serving to the likes of Pam Madoff … thank goodness our truly grand buildings were built so long ago. These people like Madoff have not got a single clue, sadly sadly sadly. Personally I find this entire VV discussion forum thing as frustrating as Madoff … it is rife with complaints … I discovered VV a few years back when there were more construction cranes of the horizon at one time then I ever remember seeing … building after building were also being approved and Victoria actually seem Vibrant … then of course the wheels fell off and we have spiraled back into the usual disappointing Victoria. I wish all these whiners would move to Holberg or somewhere similar … no development what-so-ever for them to complain about.

[Mike K.]

A blimp was hovering over the Bayview site over the weekend snapping photos for elevation views that will presumably be used for the project's marketing.

[Kapten Kapsell]

A blimp was hovering over the Bayview site over the weekend snapping photos for elevation views that will presumably be used for the project's marketing.

I suppose that the project's marketing plans must be - literally - 'up in the air'.

On a more serious note, is it possible that the next phases of Bayview will be named differently, instead of just 'Bayview 2 and Bayview 3'? I would imagine that the Bayview brand name is now associated with a project that featured larger units that took a long time to sell out (I'm not sure that the initial tower is 100% sold yet...)

[Mike K.]

The new project marketing site refers to the tower as "Prestige Residences." The tagline reads "Prestige Residences coming to Victoria's Inner Harbour." There's no reason to capitalize the word "Residences" unless its referring to a name.

[aastra]

I like the look of the towers but the tall tower seems to be situated awfully close to the existing wide building. For me the city view would be the most valuable view but it looks as if the city views won't even begin until the 11th or 12th floor or so. Which is quite amazing when you think about it.

That first Bayview building is a heck of a widescraper, it really is.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The new project marketing site refers to the tower as "Prestige Residences." The tagline reads "Prestige Residences coming to Victoria's Inner Harbour." There's no reason to capitalize the word "Residences" unless its referring to a name.

This property is now being called "Promontory at Bayview Place" per a full-page ad in today's T-C. The 21-storey building will likely have smaller units than the original Bayview (the ad touts studios as well as 1- and 2- bedroom units).

[Mike K.]

...and here is the website.

I really hope this doesn't fizzle. The remainder of the Bayview property is begging for completion.

[MarkoJ]

The condo market is hurting badly in terms of sales - I am curious to see what the pre-sale prices are going to be.

Marko

[sebberry]

The condo market is hurting badly in terms of sales - I am curious to see what the pre-sale prices are going to be.

Marko

Who would have known that the tiny place/high price combination would one day be unappealing