Jump to content

      













Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Capitol Six building | Sold - October 2015

Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#21 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,035 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 08:42 PM

^and I see no reason why we need to keep the church steeple the highest point...
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#22 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,478 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

^and I see no reason why we need to keep the church steeple the highest point...


I agree 100%, blanshard could be pretty boring if that were the case

#23 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,785 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:11 AM

The lot should be used to build a swimming pool and bowling alley.
Recreation.

That is an interesting idea. Certainly more interesting than just another condo/office tower.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#24 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,486 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:09 AM

^ Not with my tax dollars thank you.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#25 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,785 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 02 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

^ So we should not be building recreational facilities now?

I suppose you think we should sell the Crystal Pool to developers?

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#26 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,486 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:09 PM

^ No we should, but not on prime real estate. Just as we should not build shelters and subsidized housing on prime real estate. Make the developer pay into a fund to help rebuild Crystal Pool which I own, which is a far better return on my money than buying new private property and then building a new public facility.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#27 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,785 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:05 AM

^ What limited thinking.

I find the idea of never using "prime real estate" for public purposes unacceptable. Services need to be located where people can best make use of them. A downtown recreational facility would serve the people who live downtown and would be accessible to the rest of the city.

That said, why do you think it would JUST be a rec center? Have we not got the capability to do something better than a stand-alone facility?

Options for the site could include a mixed development. We could build a recreational facility at and below street level and homes or offices above.

Or how about the idea of the YMCA swapping sites and building a much-needed new facility. No net loss of "prime real estate" in the downtown core.

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#28 HB

HB
  • Banned
  • 7,975 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:13 AM

There are more and more condos being built downtown and the city population is rising

There are no real recreation facilities in the city other than the Lawn Bowling Greens and the Crystal Pool which sounds like it is at the end of its life.

This corner would be a great place for a big rec centre.

It would be at a heaight acceptable too that would not block the view of the Cathedral which is a Natural Historic Site of Canada .
They wont be able to block the view with some huge thing

#29 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:17 AM

There are more and more condos being built downtown and the city population is rising

There are no real recreation facilities in the city other than the Lawn Bowling Greens and the Crystal Pool which sounds like it is at the end of its life.

This corner would be a great place for a big rec centre.

It would be at a heaight acceptable too that would not block the view of the Cathedral which is a Natural Historic Site of Canada .
They wont be able to block the view with some huge thing


I don't know that we need a downtown rec centre, we have the Y. The downtown population is rising, albeit very slowly, but the "family" (with kids) population isn't increasing, and I see that and seniors most in need of public rec centres. Us middle-aged singles can, do and should use private health facilities.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#30 arfenarf

arfenarf
  • Member
  • 322 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:34 AM

I don't know that we need a downtown rec centre, we have the Y. The downtown population is rising, albeit very slowly, but the "family" (with kids) population isn't increasing, and I see that and seniors most in need of public rec centres. Us middle-aged singles can, do and should use private health facilities.


What?!

Where's the private 50m pool? And why *should* I use a private facility? So as not to mingle with the Masses? I delight in my public rec centres and (most of the time) being part of a broad community in motion instead of immured with the same people I see in the office all day. The old Chinese ladies are a riot. The kids are cute and noisy in a way that helps me be glad mine are launching. And I can guarantee you that the lanes are *loaded* with middle-aged midpackers.

The poor Y has so outgrown its facility. The land-swap is a brilliant idea. Would love to see a partnership between the City and the Y to replace the Crystal and the Y's terrible, terrible pool with something that anchors the downtown area. Add a youth-oriented evening programme (they're going to hang out downtown anyway, let's help them find something to do) - parking beneath - and [residential|office] above and there's a huge winner here.

#31 HB

HB
  • Banned
  • 7,975 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:38 AM

The Y downtown has been saying for some time that they need to be in a larger facilty, that they have out grown thier current building.
Private faciliies are great for those who want what they offer.
There are lots of kids in town and one needs to not just think of the downtoan core but of total catchment area.
The people who use Crystal pool ....where do they come from. I think they come from all over.
If the yuppies awant to have their quiet place with a coach thats fine and if they want to pay huge price that too is fine.
Do any of these private clubs have diving towers or diving boards? Do they have swimming programs? A public recreation centre if far more healthy in more way than one ...for a community than an office building.

#32 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,771 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:09 AM

There are more and more condos being built downtown and the city population is rising

There are no real recreation facilities in the city other than the Lawn Bowling Greens and the Crystal Pool which sounds like it is at the end of its life.


I am assuming by recreation facility you mean some place like Oak Bay Rec Centre? In that case, then yes, Victoria does not have that, but I think most Victorians are happy to make the short trip out to Oak Bay or Saanich to use one of their facilities.

As it stands, there are many places in the City of Victoria where one can exercise in almost any manner imaginable. There are many gyms, at least three basketball courts, several tennis courts, two public swimming pools (Y and Crystal Pool), Royal Athletic Park (vollyball), SOFMC (hockey), Beacon Hill Park, softball fields, a skate park, squash courts, many walkways...I'm sure I'm missing some things here but you get the idea.

Anyway, I'm not sure Victoria needs a big rec centre like Oak Bay Rec or Pearkes. I would support an expansion and renewal of the Y, but I'm not sure this space on Blanshard Street is large enough for a big facility like that.

#33 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,478 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:35 AM

It would be at a heaight acceptable too that would not block the view of the Cathedral which is a Natural Historic Site of Canada .


how about that I thought it was just a victoria thing:

Description of Historic Place

St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic Cathedral National Historic Site of Canada is an imposing heritage landmark in the urban core of Victoria, B.C. The cathedral’s twin-towered design has a strong vertical emphasis and a picturesque asymmetry that is enhanced by a soaring spire and a bold combination of red brick, pale grey stone, slate and metal building materials. Ornate vaulting, stained glass and galleries contribute to the sense of grandeur within the well-preserved interior. The designation refers to the cathedral on its legal lot at the time of designation in 1990.

Heritage Value

St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic Cathedral was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1990 because:
- it is a fine representative example of the Gothic Revival Style.

Designed in 1892 by Perrault and Mesnard of Montreal, and built by contractor J.H. Donovan, St. Andrew’s was inspired by the medieval cathedrals of Europe, whose emphatic verticality and picturesque asymmetry greatly appealed to 19th-century architectural taste. The influence of French Gothic Revival style is evident in the twin towered façade, centre rose window and the triple entrance portal. Features such as the rich array of contrasting colours and materials created by the red-brick walls with grey stone trim and slate roof were characteristic of the High Victorian Gothic Revival Style.

Character-Defining Elements

Aspects of this site which contribute to its heritage value include:

  • the complex cruciform plan, including the complementary but not identical front towers, single tall spire, narthex, nave, transepts, polygonal apse and two galleries above the narthex, reflecting the influence of French Gothic sources on the design;
  • the use of French Gothic-inspired detailing including triplet entranceway, corner piers and wall buttresses, decorated parapets, the rose window located above the main entrance, polished granite columns and wall surrounds on the main entrance, rose windows on both transept end walls, and trefoil windows on the walls of the nave and apse;
  • the High Victorian taste for rich and varied surface design evident in the use of polychrome in the slate roofing, detailing of red brick wall surfaces with limestone, the use of polished granite details, the diaper-work panels on the front façade, ornate metal eaves and roof ornamentation;
  • interior features including the ornamental vaulting, stained and coloured glass windows, decorative plaster detailing, columns and galleries.

http://www.historicp...?id=13349&pid=0

#34 HB

HB
  • Banned
  • 7,975 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:38 AM

There is a Natural Historic Plaque on the front wall of the Cathedral

#35 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,478 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:44 PM

Also I disagree that height somehow impacts the church. There are numerous examples globally of a church steeple with taller buildings around them and they still stand on their own.


i guess this is what you're thinking of:



maybe it could work here. in the 70s it was the congregation that wanted to demolish it & put the church in a highrise on the same place, but people got together & had it designated heritage, which is the situation we see today. & with capitol 6 here the cathedral is across the street, not right next door.

#36 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,486 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:19 PM

I always think of St. Patricks but same idea in Vancouver except that is not a very impressive church on the outside. The inside is pretty cool though.



Courtesy of: http://www.saintpatrickscathedral.org/

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#37 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,771 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:10 AM

So, Chard owns the neighbouring parking lot at 819 Yates Street. Typically, they have had a bit of an overlap between projects in Victoria, so we could see some activity commencing within the next year now that Sovereign is complete and Duet is underway.

Now that Capitol 6 is officially closing tomorrow, I got to thinking of how great it would be if Chard bought the Capitol 6 site as well and integrated it into the redevelopment of 819 Yates Street.

#38 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:19 AM

Now that Capitol 6 is officially closing tomorrow, I got to thinking of how great it would be if Chard bought the Capitol 6 site as well and integrated it into the redevelopment of 819 Yates Street.


I agree.

That building is iconic and compliments the Atrium, looking North along Blanshard.

#39 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,572 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:31 AM

Times-Colonist now reporting: http://www.timescolo...ursday-1.661353

#40 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,771 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

I agree.

That building is iconic and compliments the Atrium, looking North along Blanshard.


The building may be iconic, but I think it's also hideous and has a 1980's suburban look and feel that just seems out of place. The nearly solid blank brick wall along Blanshard is just awful.

I'd advocate tearing it down and replacing it with a much more urban, multi purpose building. I mentioned Chard because they could buy the Capitol 6 property, and build two larger towers on one larger site rather than the original Emaar proposal which was two towers somewhat squished into the 819 Yates property. A bit more spacing room between the Wave, the Metropolitan and the Chard development, which I assume will incorporate towers, would be welcome.

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