960 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

I like how they've concentrated renderings on street level so we can see street level interaction.

[Nparker]

Street level interraction will be the key to the success of this project, so I am glad to see the developer emphasizing this aspect. I really hope this one is approved and moves ahead as soon as possible.

[aastra]

I don't know, it just seems like they've gone overboard trying to present a discontinuous face on the ground floor along Cook Street. I don't understand what that's all about. It seems like a pretty serious challenge to the prevailing format around there (and to the existing building):





Is it just me or does that look like the ground floor of an office complex? Does it look like it belongs in a cozy Cook Street neighbourhood? Normally I complain about ground floors downtown being too short but in this case I find myself wondering why the ground floor of a building on the edge of downtown should be so tall. Does this ground floor really fit the neighbourhood? Maybe I'm just not reading it as intended.

[Baro]

That's exactly what I thought, it looks like the ground floor of a downtown office tower, not a little 4 story residential/retail.

[aastra]

Yeah, but looking so grand and spacious doesn't seem to make very much sense in this location. I don't get it. It's not as if you need a mini-plaza outside the main entrance because there are going to be large volumes of employees coming through there three times each day. I see the "Market on Fort" sign in that one image. Maybe they're thinking they can get a fairly large tenant on that corner? I just don't get it.

You need big bright windows that meet the streets with an inset front door. This was figured out well over a hundred years ago. It works! People like it!

It just makes me wonder, would some architects today disagree with this? I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary complexity with this ground floor (the rest of the building seems fine to my eye, I should say). I just think the ground floor along Cook Street is working way too hard. It doesn't need to work so hard. Take it easy with the pillars, setbacks, and recessed spaces. Relax and fit in with the neighbourhood a little better.

So are the pillars gone from the Fort Street side? In an earlier image the frontage along Fort Street was set back behind pillars. It would appear that this has been remedied in the new image.

[Mike K.]

Can we spot the differences between the current and earlier designs?



As for the tall groundfloor, I don't mind it at all. Groundfloors should be lavish and exciting and I'm seeing a similar design to that of the Atrium.

[G-Man]

Yeah if you think of the tall ground floor on the Mondrian and you see these as the bookends for a new urban stretch then it works. Also the old Royal Bank building has a tall first and only floor across the street.

That said I do agree that especially the Cook Street side seems a little broken up and I am concerned about that.

[aastra]

...I'm seeing a similar design to that of the Atrium.

So am I. That's what concerns me. It just doesn't seem to jibe (not jive) with the neighbourhood format that tends to prevail around there.

I like tall ground floors, don't get me wrong. The ground floors in old Victoria tended to be very tall. That's why I'm always *****ing about new buildings downtown that have ground floors that are shorter than their older neighbours. But if an 18-foot ground floor makes sense at Cook and Meares then would an 18-foot ground floor also make sense on the opposite corner of Cook and Meares where those other little shops are now? Is that what Cook Street means to Victorians? Very tall ground floors and lots of setbacks behind pillars? Since when? Since now? Why?

"Lavish" is a good word in this case. The Cook Street side just seems to be overdone to me. Ground floors don't need to be complicated. They need to be functional and approachable and comfortable.

Edited by aastra, 25 October 2016 - 03:58 PM.

[aastra]

I'd like to see more images from different angles.

[Mike K.]

Compare https://maps.google....,94.93,,1,-0.21

With

[Nparker]

...As for the tall groundfloor, I don't mind it at all. Groundfloors should be lavish and exciting...

+1

[aastra]

It makes me wonder if all of those people who think the Falls makes for a bad fit on Douglas Street in the heart of downtown would think it makes for a good fit on the corner of Cook and Meares.

[dasmo]

I like it.
On the set backs, I wouldn't be against them "in general" it's how it's done that matters. We have some bad applications downtown for sure but this looks like it will work for a few reasons.

1. It's off a busy street with a narrow sidewalk increasing the pedestrian buffer to traffic
2. It enables more potential patio space for restaurant's, coffee shops, flower shops etc. Patio space is one thing this town lacks. Why do you think Canoe is so packed in the summer?
3. It's not a subterranean setback.

And the atrium experience is pretty good. Especially the Habit side ;-)

[Mike K.]

This project has been approved!

 

Building Overview
• Mixed-use development consisting of 88 residential units set atop 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space
• Six-storey wood-frame building designed by renowned D’ambrosio architecture + urbanism (also worked on the Atrium) and built by national award-winning Abstract Developments
• 88 Residential condos situated on floors 2-6
• Two live/work townhomes located on Meares Street
• Commercial space consists of 5 strata-titled CRU units 3 facing onto Fort, one at Fort and Cook, and  café/restaurant designated for Cook and Meares

 

Transportation Amenities/Access
• Underground secure parkade containing 46 parking spaces and storage for 59 bikes
• Surface parking for retail and visitors (9 spaces) off Meares Street , and additional surface bicycle lockup for 52
• Covered bus waiting area with seating serving the two bus bays location on Fort Street
• Building has a 97 Walk Score and 100 Transit Score for its close proximity to local amenities; shopping, restaurants, schools, parks, transit routes, etc.

 

Landscape Features
• Landscape Architect - Murdoch  de Greeff
o Large planters containing rainwater collection and large native and non-native ornamental plantings
o Two large chestnut trees on Cook Street (existing tree at Cook and Meares to be preserved)
o Green Roof consisting of native and non-native plantings for residents on the upper levels to enjoy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[G-Man]

I really like those awnings. My only question is where Tooks on Cook will move to? Their name kind of hems them in

[gumgum]

Looks really good too.

[D.L.]

Nice to see it's not riddled with balconies

[Bingo]

Lots of glass to clean.

[thundergun]

A welcome addition the neighbourhood!

I'm curious as to what type of restaurant may set up shop there as it's just far enough off the main drag of Fort to miss valuable visibility. Maybe Bubby's will make the move kitty corner across Cook and Meares?

[Nparker]

A welcome addition the neighbourhood!

I second this sentiment and I hope ground-breaking can begin soon.