Jump to content

      












BUILT
Capital Park Office, building 1
Uses: office, commercial
Address: 500-block of Superior Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 5
Capital Park Office, building one, is the first of two office phases (with ground floor commercial space) of C... (view full profile)
Learn more about Capital Park Office, building 1 on Citified.ca
Photo

[James Bay] Capital Park | Mixed-use office, commercial, residential | 5-storeys | Under construction

Office Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
794 replies to this topic

#101 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 8,260 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 10 March 2015 - 06:24 AM

Just a loophole get out of unionization for a large chunk of their workforce, and partially privatize some of their work.

#102 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 02:33 PM

In Vancouver the overwhelming majority of new Class A space is taken by private sector tenants (just look at the names of some of the new towers coming online soon:  MNP Tower, Telus Garden, etc.).  National Bank and Credit Suisse are both taking large chunks of the Exchange building under construction (the latter institution is co-developer).

 

Capital Park should be a great addition to the James Bay neighbourhood and will definitely be a step up for provincial government workers who have long worked in "temporary" WWII-era structures in that area.


  • tedward, sasamat, thundergun and 1 other like this

#103 Mixed365

Mixed365
  • Member
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 12 March 2015 - 11:01 AM

This goes to Council tonight at 7pm. 

I suggest you come out and support. Bring your armour too...you know, against the JBRA and their pitchforks. 


“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs 


#104 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 4,964 posts
  • LocationGorge-Selkirk

Posted 12 March 2015 - 12:34 PM

Edit: They are still approved and granted access by the government. That's not a private sector system.

LandSure Systems Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Land Title and Survey Authority of BC (LTSA), a publicly accountable, statutory corporation which operates and administers BC’s land title and survey systems. LandSure provides communications, project management, and information systems consulting services to the LTSA and is located in downtown Vancouver near the Burrard Skytrain station.

I never said they were a private sector org or system VHF, my point was they are not core government - there is a great degree of internal flexibility in the provisioning of IT systems or vendor and supplier selection, for example: "core government" must get those services - email, Voice, login credentials, desktop support, from Shared Services BC. Those 'core' agencies and bodies have no option. All of those services come from 4000 Seymour Place.

 

LTSA has no such restrictions, services - with a few notable exceptions - can be provisioned as needed, when needed, by whomever the org chooses. And you don't need to quote verbatim what LandSure is since I was one of the key players that set it up: the point there was that it was, quite by design, set up along the lines of a private entity meaning above all that, unlike their LTSA counterparts, LandSure employees are not part of the BCGEU. They can be and are hired and fired - and, incidentally, compensated accordingly - without having to jump through all the 'administrative hoops' required to run a fully unionized shop.


Edited by AllseeingEye, 12 March 2015 - 12:35 PM.


#105 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 08:21 AM

Passed last night, unanimous.


  • Mr Cook Street likes this
<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>

#106 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,299 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 08:27 AM

Easy peasy.

 

Now onto Dockside.


  • AllseeingEye likes this

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


#107 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 08:39 AM

The only real opposition was the immediate neighbours:

 

https://victoria.civ...perior Mich.PDF


<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>

#108 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,606 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 08:48 AM

...Now onto Dockside.

And the St. Andrew's School redevelopment.



#109 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,606 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 08:51 AM

The only real opposition was the immediate neighbours:...

The very definition of NIMBYism. I'd welcome this project in my neck of the woods.



#110 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,261 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 09:48 AM

It's funny, someone in that document claims that James Bay is a nice neighbourhood because it has large setbacks. A few other people complain that the new buildings will be too tall for James Bay, and thus will ruin the special atmosphere.



#111 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 09:56 AM

The atmosphere around those trashy parking lots and strange dilapidated school and Quonset huts sure is special.

 

It was an old school, wasn't it?


  • Nparker likes this

#112 Mr Cook Street

Mr Cook Street
  • Member
  • 942 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 10:06 AM

The Duet is used as an example of the kind of development they want to avoid.



#113 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 10:08 AM

The Duet is used as an example of the kind of development they want to avoid.

 

Yes, I read that too.  Good grief.


<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>

#114 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,606 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 10:15 AM

The Duet is used as an example of the kind of development they want to avoid.

I can agree with this in part as Duet should have been at least two 12-storey structures, but something tells me that's not the objection the NIMBYs have to this project.



#115 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,261 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 11:10 AM

Normally I place the blame for useless public spaces on naysayers who think it's preferable to replace something with nothing as versus replacing something with something better. But reading through that document it seems like some people aren't thrilled about the large public space.



#116 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 03:31 PM

What property owner adjacent to this site could have ever guessed those temporary buildings were only temporary?


  • Nparker likes this

#117 manuel

manuel
  • Member
  • 595 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 05:35 PM

The buildings have been there for how long? 50 years at least. Could seem permanent to some :)
"I know nothing"

#118 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,299 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 07:17 AM

Luckily they weren't designated as heritage.
  • Nparker and sasamat like this

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


#119 sasamat

sasamat
  • Member
  • 101 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:12 AM

I used to work in those buildings for the government's FOI shop and I won't be sad to see them go! We occasionally worked overtime on a Saturday to finish a big job, but the heat is provided by boilers and they had to pay someone double time and a half to keep the boilers on all weekend (which they didn't want to do), so we'd often have to wear winter coats and gloves and do without heat. 

 

Don't even get me started on the basement. Creepy and dank is the least of it. 


Edited by sasamat, 14 March 2015 - 08:37 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#120 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:21 AM

It's funny, someone in that document claims that James Bay is a nice neighbourhood because it has large setbacks. A few other people complain that the new buildings will be too tall for James Bay, and thus will ruin the special atmosphere.


That big building on the south side of the IH has a great setback. Why can't all new structures in JB have setbacks like that? ;-)

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