351 replies to this topic

[jonny]

I meant just capping at the level that is already there. Just like the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver.The Coho lot is significantly below street level for much of it already.

 

The terminal spaces are already below Wharf Street. I think doing as you suggest would be viable.

[tedward]

The terminal spaces are already below Wharf Street. I think doing as you suggest would be viable.

 

OK, lets pursue that for a moment. We add a "deck" above to accommodate some sort of buildings. In order to allow for clearance of commercial trucks the first floor would have to start at at least the same height as the terminal building. Assuming more than one floor we have now turned Belleville street into a canyon without any view of the harbour for those two blocks.

 

Yeah, that would really be an improvement.

Sorry, I like a little bit of "working harbour" to be left, thanks.

The other two properties: totally love to see some public development there such as new museums, galleries and performing arts venues. The ferry terminal, could use some sprucing up but please don't take it out.

[Holden West]

Inner Harbour session is on right now, head over and check it out.

[jonny]

OK, lets pursue that for a moment. We add a "deck" above to accommodate some sort of buildings. In order to allow for clearance of commercial trucks the first floor would have to start at at least the same height as the terminal building. Assuming more than one floor we have now turned Belleville street into a canyon without any view of the harbour for those two blocks.

 

Yeah, that would really be an improvement.

Sorry, I like a little bit of "working harbour" to be left, thanks.

The other two properties: totally love to see some public development there such as new museums, galleries and performing arts venues. The ferry terminal, could use some sprucing up but please don't take it out.

 

Umm, excuse me but no part of the working harbor would be taken away. The terminals would still be there.

 

I don't know that many commercial vehicles take the Coho. Tractor Trailers certainly don't fit, and I'm not sure big motorhomes do either.

 

It's hard to tell from Google maps, but to me it looks like the roofs of RVs are quite a bit below Belleville Street. 

[jklymak]

I think its true that anything that is built there would take away views along Belleville.  Presumably it would be compensated for by public space on the water side of whatever might be built there.  Extending the Causeway all the way west to the walkway west of the Clipper would be pretty nice.  

[G-Man]

Just about down there. I have name tag on if anyone wants to chat.

[G-Man]

Very good display and it sounds like in some parts they are farther along then I thought. They done a ton of geotechnical of the lots to see what is underneath. More to come later.

[Nparker]

Sorry I was not able to be there. 

[LJ]

Umm, excuse me but no part of the working harbor would be taken away. The terminals would still be there.

 

I don't know that many commercial vehicles take the Coho. Tractor Trailers certainly don't fit, and I'm not sure big motorhomes do either.

 

It's hard to tell from Google maps, but to me it looks like the roofs of RVs are quite a bit below Belleville Street. 

There were pretty large trucks and RV's on it every time I took it.

[G-Man]

Yeah they fit full tractor trailers.

[rambaldi]

Who owns those properties?

 

[Mike K.]

Thanks for that, rambaldi.

 

Would you be able to note the owners of the corresponding colours? It's a little hard to see.

[rambaldi]

Thanks for that, rambaldi.

 

Would you be able to note the owners of the corresponding colours? It's a little hard to see.

 

Unfortunately, the pic isn't mine but I believe, if memory serves me right, starting from the top colour:

 

City of Victoria

Greater Victoria Harbour Authority

Province of British Columbia

Private

[Mike K.]

Thank you.

[tedward]

Umm, excuse me but no part of the working harbor would be taken away. The terminals would still be there.

 

You are right. What I was trying to indicate is that I have no problem seeing the "working" portion of the working harbour. The argument for some sort of "cover" seems to me to mostly be about aesthetics if the ferry terminal remains.

 

When it comes to aesthetics however I believe that if you tried to build something on top of the ferry terminal it would have to be monstrous in size and very difficult to reconcile with the current views of the harbour along those two blocks. That assumes of course that it makes sense to try and build what would effectively be an indoor ferry terminal to accommodate semi-trailers.
 

The Belleville terminal needs an upgrade for sure. I simply think it does not require a total re-configuration in the same way the other two sites clearly do.

[jonny]

You are right. What I was trying to indicate is that I have no problem seeing the "working" portion of the working harbour. The argument for some sort of "cover" seems to me to mostly be about aesthetics if the ferry terminal remains.

 

When it comes to aesthetics however I believe that if you tried to build something on top of the ferry terminal it would have to be monstrous in size and very difficult to reconcile with the current views of the harbour along those two blocks. That assumes of course that it makes sense to try and build what would effectively be an indoor ferry terminal to accommodate semi-trailers.
 

The Belleville terminal needs an upgrade for sure. I simply think it does not require a total re-configuration in the same way the other two sites clearly do.

 

I agree.

 

The terminal area would have to be the lowest priority, in terms of a massive upgrade. The Clipper building should be upgraded as a gateway to the city, but in terms of a wholesale upgrade I think we're a long ways off from that ever happening.

[Mike K.]

Does the Clipper have to dock where it does now? Why not incorporate it into redevelopment of the float plane piers and just have private industry do what it wants to do.

What's the motivation for tax payers funding a terminal that serves only two operators with virtually nil terminal expansion opportunity/increased profits? Clipper has so much as said they want Victoria to foot the bill for their terminal.

[Rob Randall]

Thanks for that, rambaldi.

 

Would you be able to note the owners of the corresponding colours? It's a little hard to see.

 

I went to the Saturday session.

 

What makes the map confusing is that it's divided into land and sea ownership so anything underwater or built on water (like docks) is likely owned by a different authority than what the dock's connected to.

 

Looking at the three large images of the sites you tend to think of them in isolation--they might as well be on separate continents. But if you look at the area from above (Bing Bird's Eye is the best for this) then it's clear that Ship Point and the Reid Site are really one long strip interrupted by the Malahat Building/Red Fish Blue Fish.

 

Listen, I've been to more of these workshop things than I dare admit, and like most cases, many of the people at the morning session represented some special interest group of one form or another. Nothing wrong with that but it can limit discussion about broader topics and big issues.

 

The City desperately wants to hear some dynamic, visionary brainstorming from its citizens and instead people are saying it's fine as long as I can keep my kayak pathway or yacht race registration table or there should be a bench or a waterfountain or what have you.

 

What I'm saying is, the City really wants to hear what you have to say. If you're on this forum, you're the kind of person that needs to speak up.

[Rob Randall]

Does the Clipper have to dock where it does now? Why not incorporate it into redevelopment of the float plane piers and just have private industry do what it wants to do.

What's the motivation for tax payers funding a terminal that serves only two operators with virtually nil terminal expansion opportunity/increased profits? Clipper has so much as said they want Victoria to foot the bill for their terminal.

 

This is a big topic, especially for the Belleville site. Key will be flexibility balanced with permanence. In other words, being able to accommodate future modes (remember the harbour-to-harbour catamaran proposal?) while concentrating infrastructure (no more cheap portable trailers sprawled everywhere).

[Hotel Mike]

The problem with the Belleville Terminal area, is that it is much more than just some sense of aesthetics or efficiency. I have been told that all of the timbers in use holding up the piers, are past their sell by dates.