Jump to content

      



























Photo

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

Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#81 attica

attica
  • Member
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:14 AM

Yup :whyme:

 

The site is the length of a block.. still a ton of development potential. 



#82 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:30 AM

I'd like to know what Sobey's thinking is/was on this. Chard is a reputable developer who delivers. It is too bad Chard didn't get to develop both parcels, instead some odd, unintegrated project could result.
  • Nparker and jonny like this

#83 attica

attica
  • Member
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:41 AM

I'd like to know what Sobey's thinking is/was on this. Chard is a reputable developer who delivers. It is too bad Chard didn't get to develop both parcels, instead some odd, unintegrated project could result.

 

Although Chard could of probably integrated this parcel nicely, this doesn't have to be "lost opportunity" lots of great development is piecemeal. It adds needed variety, and helps prevent excessively long/boring street walls. 

Just needs a developer who takes the time to properly consider/compliment the Chard site


  • dasmo likes this

#84 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 10:50 AM

Although Chard could of probably integrated this parcel nicely, this doesn't have to be "lost opportunity" lots of great development is piecemeal. It adds needed variety, and helps prevent excessively long/boring street walls.

Just needs a developer who takes the time to properly consider/compliment the Chard site

+1 this is great news! If I was wealthy I would buy and build a giant kids entertainment zone with facilities to also entertain and feed the adults. Kids climbing wall, craft building zone, crazy play zone, nerf ball battle ground....

#85 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:02 AM

You can't consider and integrate the Chard site without giving something up. That's the problem. Anyone who wants to redevelop this site will block the view for residents in Chard's tower.

Combined the project could have been phenomenal, now we'll likely see two competing, not complimentary, developments.
  • Rob Randall, Nparker and johnk like this

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


#86 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:12 AM

I dunno. I really like the Chard project here and think that something different next to it will be cool. It doesn't have to be a tower. A couple of six storey buildings would be nice.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#87 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:15 AM

You can't consider and integrate the Chard site without giving something up. That's the problem. Anyone who wants to redevelop this site will block the view for residents in Chard's tower.
Combined the project could have been phenomenal, now we'll likely see two competing, not complimentary, developments.

And the Capitol 6 site will be compromised opening the possibility of a less than optimum product.

#88 attica

attica
  • Member
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:22 AM

You can't consider and integrate the Chard site without giving something up. That's the problem. Anyone who wants to redevelop this site will block the view for residents in Chard's tower.

Combined the project could have been phenomenal, now we'll likely see two competing, not complimentary, developments.

 

So in order for a development to be phenomenal it needs to have an entire city block to work with? That is simply not true



#89 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:35 AM

Combined the project could have been phenomenal, now we'll likely see two competing, not complimentary, developments.


that's not obvious at all. any decent architect &/or developer would come up with something complimentary. that's almost the first rule of building, no matter where it is. a bigger project combining both lots wouldn't be any more likely to be done well than two smaller ones imho.

Edited by amor de cosmos, 15 September 2015 - 11:39 AM.

  • attica likes this

#90 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:40 AM

I think it was most certainly a lost opportunity; however, when one door closes another opens. This stretch of Blanshard desperately needs some great ground floors.


  • Nparker likes this

#91 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:48 AM

Ordinarily I'd agree. But what we have here are two thin, long lots, one if which is going to contain a long wall of homes between 15- and 11-storeys. There is no way not to impact many homes on Chard's property unless the buyer keeps the building as is or tears and it down and builds something of identical height.

No matter how you slice it, this will be a very tough project to make play nice with Chard's building. In fact it might even be a very tough sell now that a wall of apartments will completely block the entire site to the east.

If you guys think there's a way to redevelop the Cap 6 site while not affecting Chard's tower negatively in any way, like a cohesive project would have achieved, draw up some visuals. You might be right and I might not be envisioning the two sites properly.

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


#92 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:49 AM

 

a bigger project combining both lots wouldn't be any more likely to be done well than two smaller ones imho.

 

It could very easily end up being too much of the same. See the Waddington Building's block (ponderous?). This would be my major concern about the Pandora office project, especially on the Cormorant Street side, although it seems like there's going to be enough variation in the forms and the heights to make it work. In any event, when smaller lots are developed at different times for different purposes you're *almost* guaranteed to get architectural variety.



#93 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 11:57 AM

I agree. Variety is what makes our downtown interesting so more is good.

#94 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:00 PM

...Variety is what makes our downtown interesting so more is good.

Except when it comes to building heights, for which their needs to be an arbitrary limit and a resulting a table-top skyline.  :whyme:


  • sdwright.vic likes this

#95 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:16 PM

Except when it comes to building heights, for which their needs to be an arbitrary limit and a resulting a table-top skyline. :whyme:


true that. We do run the danger of this but as it stands I don't see that as an issue. There is hope as seen in the NJ proposal and the janion and other buildings. It's just a battle. You know if I was in power I would lift the lid around the Hudson zone... Old town and the zone behind the parliament buildings should have restrictions.

#96 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:21 PM

If I was Supreme Leader, both sites would have been combined into one project and we'd have a 25 floor building going up.

 

In reality, I don't see how the Capital 6 property could be anything more than a mid-rise given the proximity to the church and to the upcoming Chard building.


  • zoomer and Nparker like this

#97 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:46 PM

it's not a case of variety vs sameness, it's a case of not blaming one's tools. it's as if to say "i'm such a lousy developer (etc) that i can only come up with something good if certain hypothetical conditions are satisfied". re: the building next door specifically of course i would hope the impact is minimized but i thought *private* views weren't protected? isn't that what you tell nimbys on here? maybe whatever goes on the capitol 6 site could be partly underground, or have a green roof? or maybe the program won't require a highrise? probably too soon to say until we find out what will go there. if it's an improved movie theatre + ymca or whatever then blocking the views next door won't be an issue.


Edited by amor de cosmos, 15 September 2015 - 12:50 PM.


#98 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 01:20 PM

Vancouver's way of building towers makes sense. Where we have four buildings in Victoria, in Vancouver they would have two with large podiums fronting onto the sidewalks. The situation with 860 View, St. Vincent De Paul and The Wave is a little much, as are the developments on Mason Street and Quadra, Johnson at Cook/Cook at Pandora, Fairfield at Blanshard, and others.

 

819 Yates has no break in the building, it's a continuous wall up to 11 floors with four more floors on the northern half of the lot. This will be very difficult to work with in order to complement 819 Yates and not wall of or block units. Of course the developer of the Capital 6 lot may just opt to disregard 819 Yates completely and do what's best for his property. We've seen this time and time again over the past decade, so why do we think it won't happen here?

 

It's just so darned unfortunate that two or three years ago when Chard was trying to secure both of the properties Sobey's wasn't willing to sell the land. Chard could have pulled off something spectacular there (remember, Emaar had zoning for two towers that shared a podium at 819 Yates -- Chard opted for the single tower fatscraper design).


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


#99 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 02:12 PM

"Of course the developer of the Capital 6 lot may just opt to disregard 819 Yates completely and do what's best for his property. We've seen this time and time again over the past decade, so why do we think it won't happen here?"

Thanks Mike, that's what I was thinking. Its natural, of course, to want to maximize the opportunity but one coherent vision would avoid design conflict and the potential for a mess.

#100 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 02:15 PM

I would love for cineplex to build a proper Scotiabank theatre like they have in other canadian cities on this lot. Multiple storeys of cinemas plus condos on top. Of course this would vacate the existing theatre
  • amor de cosmos likes this

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.
 



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users