Jump to content

      












PROPOSED
937 View Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 937 View Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 19
937 View Street is a proposal to build an 19-storey rental complex in the City of Victoria's Harris Green neig... (view full profile)
Learn more about 937 View Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] 937 View Street | Rentals | 15-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#41 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 11:36 AM

Do we know if there have been unit changes, Kapten?

Yes, unit count has decreased from 253 to 251.  


  • Mike K. likes this

#42 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 11:38 AM

It now has all the charm of an Edmonton high rise c. 1978


  • gstc84 likes this

#43 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 921 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 12:42 PM

The ground floor looks better but the tower needs something to break it up a bit.

#44 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 01:20 PM

... the tower needs something to break it up a bit.

Like a wrecking ball.


  • Kapten Kapsell likes this

#45 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 01:34 PM

The way some of these recent projects have been going backwards in the design department is beyond baffling (Chard's Cook St. project and HP2 are some others that worry me).

 

It's almost as if the ugly highrise controversy (which has been on life support in Victoria for ~20 years) is being intentionally revived.

 

 

It now has all the charm of an Edmonton high rise c. 1978

 

The main reason is because of the changes to the lines and the windows. The first version looked like a 21st-century Victoria building. The latest version looks like 1970s Edmonton or Ottawa (or, if you prefer, a 1960s/1970s Victoria highrise). This is exactly the sort of stuff that shouldn't be happening. View frickin' Towers is right next door, just in case anyone needs a visual to accompany the lesson.

 

If something like this doesn't get skewered re: the CoV's design evaluation processes then nothing will.


  • Nparker likes this

#46 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 02:05 PM

Less than 2.5 years ago this was the vision - at least for part of the ground floor.

937 View ground level Aug 2017.jpg

 

You've come a long way baby - just not in the right direction.



#47 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:38 PM

This project is strongly opposed by the DRA: https://victoriadra....er-Feb-2-20.pdf

#48 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:50 PM

...Council needs to decline any height variance that facilitates any configuration that doesn’t comply 100% with DCAP policy for height, setbacks and floor plate sizes and OCP density maximums…period. This application facilitates the undermining of our core planning documents and is a perfect demonstration of the wrong kind of development for our community. It is high time for Council to support liveability for Victoria’s downtown...

https://victoriadra....er-Feb-2-20.pdf

Who would have imagined that some of the worst NIMBYs would be the DRA?


  • DavidSchell likes this

#49 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,258 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 11:24 PM

I would love to know how arbitrary height limits are in anyway linked to livability...

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#50 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,906 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 08:29 AM

Oh my, this is going to be quite the spectacle at the council table.

The DRA is essentially saying that
- 76 storage lockers are insufficient for 253 residences
- 15 parking stalls is well below the 126 stalls estimated by the City to be required for 253 residences
- units as small as 32 square meters (344 sq ft) are not livable
- people who reside there will not be proud of where they live
- the building is too tall
- it doesn’t have sufficient setbacks to neighbouring properties
- the land was blanket zoned by the City some time ago, and the developer does not need to provide public amenities for the variances requested, and therefore is not contributing to the public good

The first home my mom and I lived in up until I was six was around that square footage. We didn’t have a car; didn’t need it. I’m just not sure why, because someone doesn’t like a small residence, others (everyone else) must not like them, and would not feel proud to live in such a home. Here’s the line where this is mentioned:

“All residents, regardless of income level, want to enjoy and be proud of where they live.”

The DRA is stepping over a line here. It is not their role to determine what people should like, and to criticize home sizes. The reality is some people like smaller units for the basic reason that they are small. And the smaller the home, the less stuff there needs to be accumulated to furnish and fill it. These are also not necessarily long-term homes, as the DRA contends they ought to be. Young people need first-time homes, and often they spend far more time outside of the home than inside. The residence is nothing but a place to lay one’s head for the night.
  • Nparker and DavidSchell like this

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


#51 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 09:46 AM

That's the thing about community associations. They start out reasonable enough, giving feedback on proposed developments and a community's needs etc. Then they get a taste of power and suddenly they feel they have carte blanche to dictate the morality/lifestyle for all those who reside within their geographic boundaries. We see this with almost every new proposal; residential, commercial and civic. I am not sure what the answer is, but I think they do nearly as much harm as good these days.


  • DavidSchell likes this

#52 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 10:51 AM

This is 356 sq. ft. and I found it perfectly livable for almost a decade.

 

mosaic.jpg

 

76 storage lockers for 253 residences seems stupid, though. Everyone needs a storage locker.


  • DavidSchell likes this

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#53 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,906 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:04 AM

That’s the biggest issue, IMO. Storage is very important. Half the time the bike rooms in these buildings are these lavish spaces that are full of bicycles that never move, yet take up the room of 20-30 lockers. If it’s necessary due to space, reduce the bike storage and add more lockers.

15 parking stalls for 253 units is incredibly low. I understand there are soil conditions at this site that make the provision of underground parking difficult, but 15 is not enough for hundreds of homes. It’s just not.

Perhaps what the developer should do is enter into an agreement with Starlight to allocate 111 stalls at Harris Green that the City estimates should be provided in addition to the 15.
  • DavidSchell likes this

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


#54 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:19 AM

Or you could just let the market sort it out. Sorry, your unit doesn't have parking. Deal with it. Damn commies.


“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#55 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,906 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:21 AM

Sure. Your unit also doesn’t have storage. Deal with it.

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


#56 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:33 AM

15 parking stalls for 253 units is incredibly low. I understand there are soil conditions at this site that make the provision of underground parking difficult,

The number of parking stalls could be increased if half of them were above ground, but still under the building (like Jukebox?). Of course this might mean the building would have to be even taller, and I suppose that's a non-starter.



#57 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,906 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:34 AM

Yes is can be provided for sure, above ground. But 15, I dunno. That’s going to be problematic.

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


#58 RustyNail

RustyNail
  • Member
  • 203 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 06:58 PM

This is 356 sq. ft. and I found it perfectly livable for almost a decade.

mosaic.jpg

76 storage lockers for 253 residences seems stupid, though. Everyone needs a storage locker.

I really like that unit. Looks great. Was there a small bedroom off to the side? Which building is this located in?

Agree with everyone else though that 76 storage lockers and 15 parking stalls seems criminal.

Edited by RustyNail, 17 February 2020 - 06:59 PM.


#59 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 10,589 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 07:26 PM

Weren't the units at Janion as small or smaller?


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

#60 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 17 February 2020 - 07:30 PM

I really like that unit. Looks great. Was there a small bedroom off to the side? Which building is this located in?

Agree with everyone else though that 76 storage lockers and 15 parking stalls seems criminal.

 

The Mosaic. It is up for rent right now, contact me if you are interested.

 

The point is, that size is perfectly livable if you accept it for what it is. It's not a three bedroom, you can't have a big dresser and armoire. Suites like these are more like living on a yacht and it's perfect for someone starting out, downsizing or just doesn't want a lot of stuff. But my storage locker was essential.

 

mosaic2.jpg


“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


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