Jump to content

      













Photo

Downtown Victoria's Zoning Bylaw


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#41 mcmusty

mcmusty
  • Member
  • 34 posts
  • LocationHarris Green

Posted 17 February 2014 - 06:08 PM

i've always wondered what the water tower looking structure is. I drove up close one day, and i'm pretty sure the tower is on someones private property. 



#42 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 11:19 PM

For all building nerds out there:

 

Camosack Manor has an antanna, not a spire, and as such the height of the building is only to its roof. If it had a spire (like the Sussux building downtown) the spire's height would be added to the building height.

 

The more you know. Because knowledge is power.

 

:)

 

I'm sure glad I'm not a building nerd, but I do think it would be fun to get the real nerds debating the difference between a spire and an antenna (not an antanna), as I see they have done on other Skyscraper Forums.

 

Any how... I think if you try to debate which is the tallest building on the block that was also a hill, and there were two 20 story buildings, the tallest might be the one on the block that was at the top of the hill. But if you put an antenna on one of them and a spire on the other, then what?   :confused:  

 

Just thought I would give the building nerds something to sleep on. :badpc:  

 

 

That 15.2 metre antanna on Camosack Manor really does look like a spire so therefore it must be one. :thumbsup:



#43 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 11:26 PM

i've always wondered what the water tower looking structure is. I drove up close one day, and i'm pretty sure the tower is on someones private property. 

 

The tower is surrounded by private property and it was decommissioned years ago.



#44 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 06:57 AM

The tower is surrounded by private property and it was decommissioned years ago.

 

So who owns the actual property containing the tower?  And if it's surplus, why doesn't the owner (the public?) sell it off?


<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>

#45 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 07:43 AM

So who owns the actual property containing the tower?  And if it's surplus, why doesn't the owner (the public?) sell it off?

 

I found some info at http://vicmap.victor...Viewer=Victoria

 

The address of the Water tower is 1529 Laurel Lane

PID 000-316-580,    Folio 04305152 Legal info - Lot 2, Section 74

Victoria district, Plan 35031 Zoned R1-A

Land Value $284,000   Taxes are $0

 

I wonder why they don't renovate the tower into mini condo's?  Anyone know it could be done?

 

IMG_6262.jpg



#46 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:05 AM

This tower has been discussed elsewhere here. Apparently it was constructed in a shoddy manner and is really unsafe. 

 

As for redeveloping the VanCity site at Blanshard and Broughton for a high-rise, forget it. It's actually in Fairfield, so good luck.


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#47 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,805 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:08 AM

It should be turned into a lookout/attraction something along the lines of the Coit Tower.



#48 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,984 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:08 AM

Totally. But, you know...

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


#49 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:24 AM

This tower has been discussed elsewhere here. Apparently it was constructed in a shoddy manner and is really unsafe. 

 

As for redeveloping the VanCity site at Blanshard and Broughton for a high-rise, forget it. It's actually in Fairfield, so good luck.

 

So the plan is to just let it fall down eventually?  I know it need not be #1 on the radar, but why let it sit forever?  How's the access off a street?  Is there any? 


<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>

#50 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 08:36 AM

Are you reading my lines now? Or maybe we're the same person. Anyway, I made a note of this tendency a while back. People were in a stew because some proposed building was going to be the tallest thing in the area, but in actuality it wasn't even going to be the tallest thing on its own block! I can't remember what building it was, but something from 5-10 years ago.

 

It just goes to show you how silly it is to obsess about a number (15 floors! Yikes!) when nobody really cares about numbers as they're walking around and experiencing a place.

 

LOL. I guess we both talk to way too many native Victorians.



#51 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 09:55 PM

There is no public access to that tower. Private property all around it.

#52 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 01:06 PM

 How's the access off a street?  Is there any? 

 

As I mentioned on Feb 17th

 

The tower is surrounded by private property and it was decommissioned years ago.

 



#53 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 9,044 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:57 PM

There is no public access to that tower. Private property all around it.

There must be an easement for it somewhere, or it is owned by one of the properties surrounding it, otherwise it is totally useless to anyone.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#54 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,984 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:26 PM

It literally appears to be fenced off and one cannot access it via public property. But there very well may be an agreement with one of the land owners that the City has access if and when required, perhaps so long as they give a certain amount of warning prior to arrive on-site.

 

But this is definitely a weird situation as far as public property goes.


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


#55 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 01 December 2014 - 02:33 PM

The McCall lot might just turn out that way, jonny ;)

 

Since I was going through the Downtown Core Area Plan open in reference to Alpha Development's upcoming project on Yates Street, I thought I'd add that the DCAP allows for a maximum height of 50m on this the McCall's parking lot site. The maximum allowed residential and mixed use density is 5.5:1. For reference, the CIBC tower and Chateau Victoria Hotel are 50m tall. The Falls is 54m tall.

 

The allowed height at the funeral home site is slightly lower at 45m, but the allowed density remains 5.5:1. The 834 is 40m tall.


  • Mr Cook Street and Mixed365 like this

#56 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,172 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 01 December 2014 - 02:42 PM

They need to make some zoning changes to allow more 75 meter and some 100 meter heights!


  • Nparker likes this

#57 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 02 December 2014 - 08:32 AM

They need to make some zoning changes to allow more 75 meter and some 100 meter heights!

 

There is a significant portion of downtown that actually allows for 72m buildings, but most of that area already has existing buildings. Notable vacant lots that allow for this height are the Jawl's property on Pandora and Hudson.


Edited by jonny, 02 December 2014 - 09:33 AM.


#58 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,791 posts

Posted 02 December 2014 - 09:29 AM

Also the Hudson lot.
  • jonny likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#59 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 02 December 2014 - 09:34 AM

Also the Hudson lot.

 

That's what I meant. No idea why I said Uptown.



#60 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,984 posts

Posted 02 December 2014 - 09:35 AM

The height limit is so arbitrary and ridiculously short and as a result we're unlikely to see a true landmark tower.

All higrise buildings built here are rather plain and in any other city around the world would get lost in translation. Era, 834, Promontory, etc, these are relatively nondescript, boring and safe designs. The good stuff doesn't come out until you get to hit the 30+ floor mark where you've got the financial leeway to be a little more bold. So thanks, Victoria City Hall, for locking us in to mediocre architecture for the next 30 years with your politically correct and "safe" height restrictions.

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


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