Jump to content

      














Photo

Building tall in Victoria


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#141 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 09:59 AM

 

...what does this possibly have to do with having a "right to a view"?

 

It should be self-evident that such notions are absurd. If every view were guaranteed then it wouldn't be possible to build anything, anywhere. Somebody's view would always be impacted, whether building big or small, whether building short or tall, and whether viewed from nearby or afar. And what constitutes a preserved view as versus an altered view as versus a ruined/eliminated view? We've talked about it countless times, how things like the Empress Hotel, the legislative buildings, the RBCM etc. were all massive view blockers that stole harbour views from huge numbers of homes and businesses. So did those buildings ruin the view or didn't they?


Edited by aastra, 16 May 2019 - 10:00 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#142 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 52,466 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 10:01 AM

If you’re looking out from within, certainly not!

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


#143 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,425 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:06 AM

A good illustration as to why no one has (or will ever have) a view in downtown Victoria.

flat top-1.JPG

flat top-2.JPG
 



#144 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,966 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:12 AM

Here's the James Bay mudflats in 1893. Nobody has a view here.

 

13043468_10153395920685740_2768949170865761391_n.jpg


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#145 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,425 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:14 AM

Not even the renters? I hope they were compensated for that.



#146 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:14 AM

Cookie-cutter architecture, too.


  • Nparker likes this

#147 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:16 AM

Hang some towels to dry over your balcony railing today and see what the reaction is.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#148 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:41 AM

Statistics Canada says there are ~46,000 private households in the city proper, and ~28,000 of them are renter households (which is a bit under 61%, so methinks we can assume this is what the writer was referring to).

 

The rental market report says there are ~17,500 rental apartments in the city proper.

 

Edit: Statistics Canada also says occupied dwellings of 1-4 rooms account for 60.x% of the private dwellings in the city proper.

Where I think it becomes misgiving is the amount of illegal basement suites, if a house has one then that entire house is counted as a renter household even thou the owners live there too?

 

17,500 rental apartments still seems high, but I guess I will believe it



#149 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,966 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:05 PM

I know a house that is occupied by the owners and it also has a rental suite and an airbnb room. How is that counted?


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#150 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,425 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:33 PM

The owners are allowed to have a view, but the renters and Air BnB guests must wear blindfolds.



#151 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:50 PM

I suppose we'd need to read up on their definitions re: what a household is, what a dwelling is, etc.



#152 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:51 AM

A comment and a reply re: "The need for granularity in urban design". If developers can't build tall in the air then they'll build long around the ground:
 

 

Isn't course-grained urbanism inevitable when land costs are high and height is limited by zoning? On a high-priced piece of land, a landowner must build a lot of units to make a profit. And height limits prevent the landowner from doing this by building tall,thin buildings- so the only alternative is the kind of long, coarse-grained buildings seen above.
 
*****
 
It may be that our economic functions have scaled to such a degree that granular urbanism is outdated - i.e. the market isn't calling for a bunch of small businesses doing small things, but a bunch of large businesses doing large things. And this inevitably will be reflected in the build pattern. As you say, if these large corporations can't build long, stand-alone entities vertically, they'll do so horizontally.


#153 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 29 October 2019 - 10:33 AM

I'll take a moment again to criticize the very tall towers under construction at Brentwood Mall. They're ponderously repetitive, and they sure didn't hold back with the standard-issue spandrel. Methinks you'd need to be a diehard "tall-for-the-sake-of-tall" skyscraper fanboy to take any satisfaction in stuff like that. I wouldn't say the design is ugly. I'd say the design is plain, unexceptional, etc. But it's the sheer amount of repetition that brings us around to the "U" word.

 

The podiums look like they'll probably be okay.



#154 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,247 posts

Posted 29 October 2019 - 10:44 AM

I don't know... maybe some people think a plain design is improved by excessive height, because the unexceptional thing is now exceptional in at least one aspect? If so, I don't agree with that. Buildings should have to earn that sort of prominence. The very first skyscrapers earned it. They still look great. Many of today's supertalls are mailing it in re: the design aspect.



#155 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 29 October 2019 - 10:58 AM

Here's the Brentwood redevelopment master plan massing

vision-masterplan-cover.jpg



#156 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 52,466 posts

Posted 29 October 2019 - 11:49 AM

It's pretty clear that Vancouver is positioning to become Canada's #1 city.*

 

I watched Candyman the other night (tis the season, right?) and was blown away that I had not noticed when I last watched it that the film had been partially filmed in Vancouver. Back then (early 90s) if you had shown someone Vancouver's modern-day skyline or its rapidly expanding suburban high density nodes you'd have been laughed out of the room. What the next 20 years hold will be nothing short of incredible judging by what has transpired over the last 20.

 

*Montreal is tired, it has no future apart from sustaining its existing industries and organizations, and a growing population. Toronto is the Big City today, but 50-years-ago it wasn't, that title belong to Montreal. Today Vancouver is the trading powerhouse with Asia and its global prominence is exceeding that of Toronto which gets attention because of its size, but Vancouver is unlike it or Montreal. Anyways, just musings, I guess.


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


#157 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 909 posts

Posted 29 October 2019 - 12:43 PM

It's pretty clear that Vancouver is positioning to become Canada's #1 city.*

I watched Candyman the other night (tis the season, right?) and was blown away that I had not noticed when I last watched it that the film had been partially filmed in Vancouver. Back then (early 90s) if you had shown someone Vancouver's modern-day skyline or its rapidly expanding suburban high density nodes you'd have been laughed out of the room. What the next 20 years hold will be nothing short of incredible judging by what has transpired over the last 20.

*Montreal is tired, it has no future apart from sustaining its existing industries and organizations, and a growing population. Toronto is the Big City today, but 50-years-ago it wasn't, that title belong to Montreal. Today Vancouver is the trading powerhouse with Asia and its global prominence is exceeding that of Toronto which gets attention because of its size, but Vancouver is unlike it or Montreal. Anyways, just musings, I guess.

I have a 4' by 3' areal photo on Vancouver circa 1983/4 hanging on my wall. It's almost unrecognizable, 35 years later. (In a good way, imo)

Edit: I'm not sure the exact date, but Canada Place and the Cambie St bridge were in the early stages of construction, both completed in 1985.

Edited by Mattjvd, 29 October 2019 - 12:49 PM.

  • Mike K. likes this

#158 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 4,209 posts
  • LocationGorge-Selkirk

Posted 29 October 2019 - 05:42 PM

It's pretty clear that Vancouver is positioning to become Canada's #1 city.*

 

I watched Candyman the other night (tis the season, right?) and was blown away that I had not noticed when I last watched it that the film had been partially filmed in Vancouver. Back then (early 90s) if you had shown someone Vancouver's modern-day skyline or its rapidly expanding suburban high density nodes you'd have been laughed out of the room. What the next 20 years hold will be nothing short of incredible judging by what has transpired over the last 20.

 

*Montreal is tired, it has no future apart from sustaining its existing industries and organizations, and a growing population. Toronto is the Big City today, but 50-years-ago it wasn't, that title belong to Montreal. Today Vancouver is the trading powerhouse with Asia and its global prominence is exceeding that of Toronto which gets attention because of its size, but Vancouver is unlike it or Montreal. Anyways, just musings, I guess.

Merely curious Mike...Number 1 in what sense?

 

The GTA is and always will be Canada's financial heart; according to a StatsCan study in 2017 TO had 690 head offices, the Vancouver region was a distant third with 233, only slightly ahead of Calgary with 210; and lastly YVR currently sits at ~ 2.65 million people in the metro area, and I can`t ever envision it surpassing Tronna which is around six million `plus` and growing....



#159 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 52,466 posts

Posted 29 October 2019 - 06:16 PM

It’s not solely a numbers game. Location is more important than malleable variables like population and companies.

Just look at Detroit, Winnipeg, Baltimore, Montreal, etc. Those are all old-world centres by North American standards. Today’s Detroit is Seattle. Today’s Montreal is Vancouver. Asia is the future.

In the late 1800s America was the future, despite European dominance for centuries prior.

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


#160 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 30 October 2019 - 03:29 PM

Speaking of building tall (in Vancouver), there are no renderings yet but Pinnacle is planning the tallest building outside Toronto in.... Burnaby. At 82 storeys or 900 ft, it'll be about 240 ft taller than the current tallest building in Vancouver, the Living Shangri-La, and about 80 ft taller than the current reigning non-Toronto tower, the Stantec Tower in Edmonton.

 

via https://urbanyvr.com...sed-for-burnaby


  • Nparker and Victoria Watcher like 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.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users