Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Downtown Victoria] The 834 | Condos | 40.7m | 14-storeys | Built - completed in 2011


  • Please log in to reply
799 replies to this topic

#41 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,398 posts

Posted 16 June 2007 - 04:04 PM

I'm just glad to see they aren't planning to build anything taller than that ugly Telus communications tower thing. That means there will still be plenty of fine views to be had of that ugly Telus communications tower thing. The tourists should be pleased about that. We all know how much the tourists love that ugly Telus communications tower thing.


And seeing as it is more than 25 years old it is probably a heritage ugly Telus communications tower thing... I am thinking a 500m radius should be sufficient, perhaps more. It many mean taking down a few of the structures currently around downtown, but it will be worth it to preserve the view of this magnificent piece of Victoria's rich architectural history - n'est-ce pas?

#42 hungryryno

hungryryno
  • Member
  • 79 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 08:24 AM

maybe Victoria should remove a traffic lane on Johnson Street like they do everywhere else in the city to view that ugly ridiculous Telus Tower Thing!!!

#43 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 03:22 PM

A new rendering for this project has been made available:


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


#44 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 04:11 PM

Nice except the elevator housing is terrible. God can't they do something about the roof? I will scream from the rafters in support if they just fix the roof.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#45 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 04:30 PM

It'd sure be nice to add more colour to the skyline. How about putting neon lighting underneath those horizontal slots on the elevator shaft?

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


#46 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 04:49 PM

Just wrap the damn thing in glass and illuminate it by some cool but otherwise cheap & simple means. It'd look like a little penthouse or something, even though it isn't.

#47 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,398 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 08:33 PM

Just wrap the damn thing in glass and illuminate it by some cool but otherwise cheap & simple means. It'd look like a little penthouse or something, even though it isn't.


I like it.

#48 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 06:26 PM

Council gets its first look at this project on Sept. 6, at the morning Commitee of the Whole meeting.

#49 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,398 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 08:30 PM

Reminder that this meeting is tonight (June 14) at 7 pm. All DRA members, neighbours and members of the general public are encouraged to attend to view the proposal and talk to the developer.


You mean the public got to see this proposal on June 14 and it only makes it to Council on September 6? I can't believe long it takes things to get through the local bureaucracy -- and this from a Provincial bureaucrat! LOL

#50 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 08:33 PM

You mean the public got to see this proposal on June 14 and it only makes it to Council on September 6? I can't believe long it takes things to get through the local bureaucracy -- and this from a Provincial bureaucrat! LOL


How do you mean? Which provincial bureaucrat? Chard Development isn't from the province...? <?confused?>
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#51 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 10:57 PM

^Nparker.
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#52 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 06 September 2007 - 08:20 PM

This morning at Committee of the Whole the rezoning was approved unanimously, however, the request to include transient acccomodation zoning (vacation rentals) was turned down at the recommendation of the Planning Department, meaning it will be a regular condo with owners and renters, unlike a building such as Corazon which also has some short term month to month rental suites for visitors.

Next, it will go on to Design Panel and Public Hearing.

I don't know why it took so long to get to Committee of the Whole. Sometimes the developer takes extra time to arrange financing or tweaking design details, arranging contractors etc.

#53 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 06:38 AM

Perfect, so I guess Chard wasn't banking on the vacation rentals after all.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#54 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 09:25 AM

Great! We need more true residents!

And I was going by the wave last night around 8 and noticed about 30% of the windows were lit up showing fairly cluttered "lived in" looking units. Doesn't look tooooo bad.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#55 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:51 AM

Looks like this project is going for a density of 5.76:1 and a height of 40.7m.

#56 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:54 PM

those renderings look good. oh no, there goes the neighbourhood!

#57 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:54 AM

At the Oct. 3 meeting of Advisory Design Panel it was moved "That the application be approved with the following comment:

- The applicant should consider the architectural treatment of the top two floors, in particular, the massing and the windows."


This project goes for its Development Permit at Thursday's Committee of the Whole meeting at City Hall (9 a.m.)

#58 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 08:36 AM

No public hearing? Or is this project within the height guidelines/zoning for the area with the exception of density?

#59 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,398 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 01:43 PM

I am excited by this project and I am hoping that it turns out as well as the Juliet down the street. I think that this developer has proved himself with the latter project and I have confidence this new one will be another landmark for downtown.

BTW, does this one have a name (other than 834 Johnson?). If it's SoMA II or JOeBL (Johnson East of Blanshard) I'd rather not know. Then again, are there any more variations left on Park or Chelsea?

#60 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 02:05 PM

Here's the address again.



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