799 replies to this topic

[concorde]

It sounds like this job is moving along nicely and might break ground before the end of the year.

[Ms. B. Havin]

There was just an article in one of the papers -- Vic News? -- on the gym in the space behind the Juliet Presentation Ctr. Any ideas if that will move to a new location once ground-breaking starts, ...or will it just fold? (Hope not -- it sounds interesting: it's some kind of specialty physio for spinal cord and paralysis victims.)

[Nparker]

It sounds like this job is moving along nicely and might break ground before the end of the year.

Even with the downturn in local residential real estate market? Have pre-sales even begun?

[Mike K.]

If 834 Johnson is indeed going ahead, then why all the negative sentiment towards other projects like Silkwind, Capella, etc.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Perhaps because 834 Johnson is better-suited for buyers looking to save on commuting costs during this era of higher gas prices ...?

[Nparker]

If 834 Johnson is indeed going ahead, then why all the negative sentiment towards other projects like Silkwind, Capella, etc.

That's easy. The latter are high-density urban-style projects being built in the suburbs. IMO a very 20th century way of thinking. Neither of these reflect the reality of the new urbanism and laugh in the face of sustainability, in that they are entirely car-centric. I suspect more people would support them if they had been proposed for the urban core (or at worst the Town and Country area). As it is they simply reflect a variation on suburban sprawl. That being said, both present a pretty decent aesthetic, but are in the wrong locations to offer anything else laudable.

[Mike K.]

I'm referring to the housing stock rather than urban or suburban setting.

People are still buying plenty of homes in the western communities so it's not only a matter of urban setting vs. suburban setting. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we haven't seen such large projects out west (or anywhere in Victoria, for that matter)?

As we champion 834 Johnson during a softening of the market all the while insisting other projects won't get off the ground, what exactly are we using to gauge the perceived success of one project over another? Lest we forget, Radius is as deep below ground as Bear Mountain's Highlander is above ground.

[Zimquats]

I'm referring to the housing stock rather than urban or suburban setting.

People are still buying plenty of homes in the western communities so it's not only a matter of urban setting vs. suburban setting. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we haven't seen such large projects out west (or anywhere in Victoria, for that matter)?

As we champion 834 Johnson during a softening of the market all the while insisting other projects won't get off the ground, what exactly are we using to gauge the perceived success of one project over another? Lest we forget, Radius is as deep below ground as Bear Mountain's Highlander is above ground.

Without getting into the issues of urban vs. suburban settings and how those differences are reflected in the housing market (because I don't really know much about it), I do think there are a few litimus tests to determine the perceived success of a project; being 'can it feasibly be built' and 'if it is feasible, how is it going to look'.

Nobody wants to see unattractive multi-residential towers being built. The days of simply coming up with drawings, a few dollars to build, and a peice of dirt are in the past. Comunities are being ever more insistant, for good and bad, about the types of large building that can be built in their neighborhoods (take Crystal Gardens for example). This, combined with precedents set for, at least what I feel is, some outstanding architecture have set the bar for new projects in the future. Developers are being forced, rightfully so, to build nice, well functioning, non cookie cutter buildings or they won't be approved by municipalites, and even worse, not sold if they do get approval.

This upturn in the quality of the projects filling the market of late has sparked a trend to place architectural elements above the bottom line. This worked well over the past few years, as developers were able to charge enough to cover the costs for these features. Market demand meant that these units would be sold, and everyone would walk away satified if not enthusiastic.

Now however, with a slowing real estate market and no forseeable downturn in construction costs, developers need to be much more cognisant of the costs to produce their goods. I don't feel that the design teams can carry on as they have; with asthetics taking priority over budgets. This is by no means to say that aesthetically pleasing buildings can no longer be built, it does mean that these designers need to work more closely with the builders in order to determine the best ways to meld the two constraints. Buildings recently designed, but unbuilt (such as the Radius), I feel might have missed this key element to success; possibly having been designed for a market where the thinking was 'if we build it, they will come'. Then, when the shovel hits the clay and they realize that this may not indeed be the case, something has to give, and that something will almost always be the endeavor as a whole.

That said, new projects might be pushing ahead with the understanding that tighter controls need to be kept, and some very small changes can result in some very large cost incentives for the developer. Enough of these, and we have a feasible project. Ensuring these do not adversely affect the look of the building, and we have a feasible, nice looking building. And then, you have success.

[Nparker]

...what exactly are we using to gauge the perceived success of one project over another?

See my points above re new urbanism vs. suburban sprawl. I reiterate, I like Silkwind and Capella; it's their locations that makes them failures in my eyes.

[Mike K.]

This upturn in the quality of the projects filling the market of late has sparked a trend to place architectural elements above the bottom line.

Right, that makes sense. But I would argue that Silkwind is more iconic than 834 Johnson (urban necessities, like ground level retail, etc, aside).

See my points above re new urbanism vs. suburban sprawl.

I'm the first the champion urban projects, but why does the location impact the collective sense of a project's success? If buyers are still willing to pay top dollar for suburban homes, why is Silkwind's or Capella's future in doubt when either of them have no less or no greater chance of being built than 834 Johnson, yet for the latter few question its viability.

I reiterate, I like Silkwind and Capella; it's their locations that makes them failures in my eyes.

So they'll be failures because you wish for them to be failures, not because of economics. I think that's what I was getting at. It's not so much that suburban projects are not economically viable, they are perceived to be inappropriate and therefore criticized.

[Zimquats]

Right, that makes sense. But I would argue that Silkwind is more iconic than 834 Johnson (urban necessities, like ground level retail, etc, aside).

I wouldn't argue with that statement at all. Provided Silkwind actually has the feasibility to become 'built' I completely think it will be a more iconic and successful project than than 834. Otherwise, it's simply a more iconic set of drawings.

[Nparker]

So they'll be failures because you wish for them to be failures?

No. They ARE failures because of their location. Highrises should NOT be built in the suburbs. Capella is especially revolting in this regard becuase not only is it being built in the 'burbs, but it is also being perched on top of a small mountain, accessible only by automobile. The carbon footprint for this one is off the map.

[Mike K.]

I'm not talking about subjective opinions on a building's location.

I'm talking about financial viability.

Why is 834 Johnson more economically viable than Silkwind?

[Zimquats]

No. They ARE failures because of their location. Highrises should NOT be built in the suburbs. Capella is especially revolting in this regard becuase not only is it being built in the 'burbs, but it is also being perched on top of a small mountain, accessible only by automobile. The carbon footprint for this one is off the map.

I agree that more should be done as a society to improve the environment. But in looking at a project as a whole in terms of success or failure, I disagree that this should be the only standard upon which to judge it.

That said, I do completely agree that you yourself could judge it solely on those merits, and have every right to do so. It's just that not everyone will agree with you, as I think most people have a broader sense of how or why projects could be classified as failures.

[Zimquats]

I'm not talking about subjective opinions on a building's location.

I'm talking about financial viability.

Why is 834 Johnson more economically viable than Silkwind?

I don't think that we know that it is right now. In my opinion, Silkwind shows more promise of being completed then 834. At least there's a hole in the ground and a show suite up (I know...Radius, but we'll just ignore that). 834 is just a couple pieces of paper.

If indeed 834 is more economicly viable, it will likely be do to it's design. The silkwind isn't an inexpensive building to build. There could be aspects to the design of 834 that would make in way, way less costly to erect. Then again, I've never seen drawings for it, so who knows...

[Mike K.]

You can take a peak at the design here.

[Zimquats]

Thanks Mike, but I meant blueprint drawings, even if just DP stage ones. Can't tell alot about the costs of things from a redering. It is square and relatively symetrical though, I can tell you that helps a LOT, as it will likely mean uniform column placements making the podium far less costly, tables more uniform and increasing overall productivity. Can't say much more than that about it though....

[Mike K.]

Ah, gotcha.

[Mike K.]

Project website is up at www.the834.com

[jklymak]

Wow - it says "Coming in Spring 2009"? What is "coming"?