1984 replies to this topic

[sdwright.vic]

The comment is fair... since it is actually pointed at both sides. You either want to save the church, have a smaller building, but not both... and now we seem to hear people commenting on not liking it because the church is not there... thats more my point.

[G-Man]

^ What park space?  The boulevard on Pandora?

Yes especially East of Cook. There is also Central Park, the park by Vic high. One next to George Jay too. Go a bit further and there are about five more.

[G-Man]

I would expect the larger plaza is due to the developer needing to meet FSR requirements.

[jonny]

What's so special about the old church? I'm not trying to be a dink, I'm seriously wondering why it should even be saved at all. I always thought it was ugly and uninteresting.

[Nparker]

And it's never been a church...it has always been an educational facility.

[lanforod]

^ kind of funny that, as it sure looks a lot more like a church than a school, especially with the cross on top.

[HB]

.

Edited by HB, 18 November 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[Nparker]

...The McDonalds Property across the street is also owned by the Catholic Diocese of Victoria.The Diocese just signed a new 30 year lease with McDonalds in 2013...

Would people think McDonalds was also a church if the Diocese placed a cross on top of it?

[HB]

.

Edited by HB, 18 November 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[HB]

If you have a look at the top of that McDonalds it does have a cross on the roof This can not be a pure coincidence can it?

Edited by History Buff, 26 February 2014 - 09:27 AM.

[jonny]

And it's never been a church...it has always been an educational facility.

 

It's ugly either way.

[D.L.]

I liked the way that the tower of the old school building was to be incorporated into the new building under the previous design.

If there is a public hearing then we can tell city council that the extra mass on Mason St. that the previous design had is worth it in order to retain the tower portion of the old school building.

[D.L.]

Here is how the two versions of this project that we have seen compare and constrast

[Nparker]

Cool effect and I prefer the newer version.

[D.L.]

The cavernous corner of the newer design seems so empty and void when compared with the older design which has the delightful tower of the historic structure to fill it in

[G-Man]

I definitely like the new rendering better. While the tower itself is a nice piece. The lack of any ground floor interaction with the building at that point makes it seem a bit lifeless and boring. Perhaps if the original plan had included putting some windows in the sides of the tower it would have been better. 

 

The new design seems very open and engaging from a pedestrian point of view.

[Holden West]

The tower is not the problem, the half-hearted attempt at integrating into the overall massing was.

[D.L.]

I think it's a pretty good integration. The proportions feel good to me, although there is that small blank wall at the bottom of the tower but something could be done there. The empty space of the new design is what seems wrong.

[Mike K.]

If you look at the rendering closely you start to see what may be an angled commercial frontage that then runs parrallel to the street starting behind the second column. It's almost as though the corner is an overhang supported by those columns. And notice the sidewalk behind the columns.

[NinVic]

The Form Retail site has a site plan and has new renderings and was in their March 2014 mailing.. so should be fairly recent/up to date... 260 apartment units and 65000 sq.ft. of retail including large grocery store brochure says.

http://www.formretai...1008pandora.pdf