147 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

 

I don't understand how can it be viable to build shorter and less dense projects on more desirable sites, but not on this one

Viable? Probably. But I wouldn't would want to live in a 6 storey wood frame building with View Towers looming over me.

[aastra]

So why not build a slim tower like Legato then? 20 stories of Legato would be great there, especially after the London Drugs redevelopment is done. Or go the other direction and do something shorter like the Mondrian.

 

I've never understood how a particular style of project ends up on a particular property. Didn't Corazon or 989 Johnson demonstrate that you don't need to build what people expect you to build?

[aastra]

I always forget, a flashy condo tower was already proposed for this site back in the day...

 

Back in 2009 somebody made an observation about how long it can take for a development proposal to become a finished building:

 

 

That's the thing we have to keep in mind. The proposals of today are the buildings of five years from now.

 

...or the buildings of 11+ years from now, as the case may be.

 

The building on the left was rejected in 2008-09. The building on the right may get approved in 2020-21:

 

Edited by aastra, 27 August 2020 - 01:07 PM.

[LJ]

It's probably just the rendering, but I get a mid-20th century NYC vibe from this latest proposal.

That vibe is from the Projects. Not much to emulate there.

[Nparker]

Yeah it's not a projects vibe that I get from it. View Towers on the other hand...Dy-no-mite!

[RFS]

It reminds me of the Pacifica in Nanaimo

[Rob Randall]

I always forget, a flashy condo tower was already proposed for this site back in the day...

 

Back in those olden times, the DRA floated the suggestion of possibly making the tower close to the height of View Towers, the reason being that it would no longer make VT the most dominant building on the block and that this dynamic and attractive design would now dominate. That idea was quickly shot down by authorities.

 

Now we have a much less attractive apartment block making the same bold claim for height. If this is somehow approved I will slowly shake my head. Even at a lower height that old View/Fort proposal would have been a spectacular addition to the block. It's one of my top missed opportunity proposals.

[aastra]

 

Now we have a much less attractive apartment block making the same bold claim for height.

 

Yeah, it's frustrating but it's also predictable. When a good proposal gets rejected today, some people will call it a victory. But it's very likely that something lousier and just as large -- if not much larger -- will be proposed later on the same site. Property never gets cheaper, development costs never get lower.

 

Methinks something that was clearly taller than View Towers but ultra-slim along View Street could be really interesting here.

[Rob Randall]

The great thing about the previous proposal was it was all one lot, with the townhouse-style lowrise on Fort and the tower on View. Architecturally it was a perfect fit. The tower height was a tradeoff in exchange for the lowrise Fort St. frontage. The two new proposals have no such logic or thought in them. 

[Citified.ca]

18-storey, 267-unit rental tower proposed next to View Towers will not include parking; ample bicycle storage planned

https://victoria.cit...torage-planned/

[Brantastic]

I'm curious about what prices the developer is anticipating renting these out for. Given the small unit size, simple exterior design, and construction costs saved by not having to provide parking, I should hope these units are fairly affordable.

 

[Mike K.]

They aim to make them attainable to individuals earning a minimum of $35,000 per year. 

[Brantastic]

Thank you!

[Victoria Watcher]

They aim to make them attainable to individuals earning a minimum of $35,000 per year.

so $35,000 x 30% is $10,500 per year rent or less or $800 to $900/mo.

[Mike K.]

Right, that sounds like their starting price point. Keep in mind that could be pushed upwards depending on when this thing is completed.

[aastra]

From the architect's letter to council:

 

 

...the building is proposed to be constructed using relatively light-weight modular off-site pre-fabrication methods. This will bring the units to market in approximately half the normal construction period while meeting the seismic and other structural requirements...

The architectural expression of the building takes advantage of the modular stacking of the pre-fabricated modules by rotating and shifting the units to create variation in the exterior wall and massing...

Durable and low maintenance cladding materials (composite aluminum panels, concrete masonry, refinished metal) are proposed for the exterior finishes...

[Kapten Kapsell]

This is going to ADP next week on Feb 24.

[Nparker]

They will probably - and rightfully - eviscerate the current proposal.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Revised plans have been posted as of today.  The design has been modified again...

 

[Nparker]

It looks a bit better. Still vastly better than View Towers.