685 replies to this topic

[aastra]

This is exactly what was envisioned for Harris Green back in the late 1990s with the design charette that was done.

True, but there's one major problem with that vision: nobody actually wants it to come to fruition because it would be terrible. People (especially people in Harris Green) want something approximating a view and they want at least a bit of daylight coming through their windows. And I'm sure they also want at least a smidgen of variety in the building heights and forms that they're going to be looking at every day. I'm not reading minds here. This is the sort of stuff that they complain about endlessly, and for pretty good reason.

And yet their vision calls for the opposite. It makes no sense.

[G-Man]

Well charettes are done by residents and business owners of course one could argue that the population has changed significantly from then.

I would hope that people's expectations are even as reasonable as you suggest.

I will go back to what I have said over and over again about Harris Green. This area should not be touted as a place with a view. It is plain ridiculous that anyone would buy a place in a flat low lying area of the downtown core not bordered by a park or water and expect a view to exist in perpetuity. The city should not cater to that.

The only view that anyone should expect in this area of town is a city view or in other words a view of other buildings. If you want water or mountains try Shoal Point or Swallow's Landing or the Promontory.

[D.L.]

Sure, but no one deserves a view of a 10 story blank wall 20 feet from their balcony, which is what the residents of the west side of the Mondrian would receive.

[G-Man]

^ agree

[Baro]

If we want to be like paris or prague we need to zone for it and encourage that urban form. I actually prefer that form to the Vancouver model, but we're not building either. I'd love to see some zero-setback street-wall style 5-8 story high density buildings, but we're not building that style at all, we're building short fat buildings with windows on all sides, only to get blocked by their neighbours.

Either build tall slim buildings with enough upper setbacks all around to preserve some tolerable views, or build dense wall-to-wall euro-blocks. We end up getting the worst of both worlds though.

[Mike K.]

The problem with the Harris Green charrette from the 1990's is it obviously wasn't envisioned by the people who would be most impacted by it's lack of a density cap together with a height limit.

If there was ever a recipe for the "fatscraper" designs that have plagued development in Victoria, Harris Green's guidelines are it. And if I were to find that a unit I had just purchased at Mondrian will likely face directly onto another building some 15 meters away I would be fuming.

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened to people who bought into 8xx View (across from The Metropolitan). The Wave boxed in virtually every north-facing unit. What we're seeing with 1075 Pandora is even closer proximity to Mondrian.

[G-Man]

^ Well what we have seen beginning to come into existence is the actual idea behind the charette and subsequent design guidelines. If we are saying that they are fundamentally flawed based on a couple of examples then this needs to expressed strongly to the City. That said perhaps it is hard appreciate a cake before you ice it. I personally wouldn't buy into an area where I was unfamiliar with what the plan was for the area. I mean I have read those guidelines a dozen times. They are available from the city and are at the public library and most likely still online... (checking)

Everyone knows they have to check with the City before building a new deck why would a buyer of the largest purchase of their life not do their due dilligence.

I personally have not seen a large public backlash to the Harris Green design guidelines. If people are frothing at the mouth they should be speaking up.

[G-Man]

Forget everything I just said. It would seem the Guidelines are no longer in force and it has moved to the new Downtown Core Area plan.

Will have a look and see what has changed...

[Mike K.]

Good.

I think the biggest issue with the guidelines as they were was the ability to completely enclose a neighbouring building with no recesses to allow for views. That's just terrible urban planning.

[G-Man]

So the density on the two lots is 5.5:1 if the developer takes them up on Bonus Density. So they would have to have some sort of ammenity package to get there otherwise they are stuck with 3:1 which this project could not possibly have.

Here is the plan:

View the Plan | Victoria

[G-Man]

^^I don't think that has changed.

[G-Man]

Page 35 on gets into the density bonus scheme.

[G-Man]

Appendix 6 says if a building is over 45 metres, which the taller one would likely be, they need to have a 10 metre seperation between building face and property line however decks can extend from this point to 5.5 metres from property line.

For the shorter building it is 5.5 metres for either building face or extent of balcony. Hard to think that the 10 storey portion would meet this requirement as it would require that inset on both the West and East sides and that is 11 metres. How wide is this lot?

[G-Man]

A little OT but reading this plan makes me feel good. This was well done. Anyways as I said above I do not think the Johnson Street building meets the guidelines the other building does appear to if they are using bonus density.

[Lover Fighter]

The site of the 10-storey building seems extremely awkward. Restrictions aside, wouldn't it make more sense to add a few more floors to the 14-storey building, and use the site of the 10-storey building for a park... or at the very least, a 2-storey townhouse building with rooftop gardens?

[Mike K.]

I have a feeling they're hoping to get 10-storeys on Johnson but will eventually settle for much less.

[G-Man]

Something along the lines of the proposal that was put forward next to View Towers might work. I think that was 18 and 4.

[jklymak]

If we want to be like paris or prague we need to zone for it and encourage that urban form. I actually prefer that form to the Vancouver model, but we're not building either. I'd love to see some zero-setback street-wall style 5-8 story high density buildings, but we're not building that style at all, we're building short fat buildings with windows on all sides, only to get blocked by their neighbours.

Agree, and of course units in Paris and Prague usually have a huge courtyards between the buildings.

[Downtownguy99]

Those are both condos. Yes, there are lots of rentals in there, but they are individually owned. I had a suite in the west building, my first-ever apartment after moving out of the parent's home, circa 1987. Nothing like the 120v 18"w dryers to take 5 hours to dry a pair of white jeans.

Funny to hear how these units used to be, I currently live in Sutton East and have been watching the Mondrian come up, and quite excited about it....not so sure about a building that I can just about touch in the space between us though - probably the same if I had just bought in the Mondrian.

Regarding the number of rentals here, mostly owner occupied now, around 70% , not like they used to be......btw we have regular driers now

[Mike K.]

Was it both Sutton towers that were rentals before they were sold off as condos several years ago, or just one?