Jump to content

      



























APPROVED
937 View Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 937 View Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 23
937 View Street is a proposal to build a 23-storey rental tower along the 900-block of View Street in the City... (view full profile)
Learn more about 937 View Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] 937 View Street | Rentals | 23-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
278 replies to this topic

#161 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 10:48 AM

I'm just so tired of seeing every darned project go in the wrong direction re: the design aspect. This one has taken a significant step backward. Even the design of the podium has gone in the wrong direction.

 

The reason why I was impressed with the previous concept is because you normally wouldn't expect a project like this to be worth looking at. It was refreshing that it had some appeals, mainly because of the asymmetry of the stacked forms and the irregularity of the terrace levels, and the way the design of the windows and cladding were further distinguishing those elements. But now everything has been simplified almost to the point of having no flavour at all. There's no asymmetry, there's no articulation. The design has been reduced to an oversimplified blah tower on top of an oversimplified blah podium.

 

I like the fact that the tower is less bulky than before. But methinks there's a much better design to be found simply by merging this concept with the previous concept.

 

 


  • Nparker likes this

#162 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 84,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 10:50 AM

Can't seem to find this new application on the development tracker, will this project also be including the fort Street side of the parking lot?


No, that is a separate parcel, at 930 Fort.

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


#163 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 41,206 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 10:53 AM

...The design has been reduced to an oversimplified blah tower on top of an oversimplified blah podium...

Yes, but now it has zero onsite parking, so all is good.  :thumbsup:



#164 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 84,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 10:54 AM

I'm just so tired of seeing every darned project go in the wrong direction re: the design aspect. This one has taken a significant step backward. Even the design of the podium has gone in the wrong direction.

The reason why I was impressed with the previous concept is because you normally wouldn't expect a project like this to be worth looking at. It was refreshing that it had some appeals, mainly because of the asymmetry of the stacked forms and the irregularity of the terrace levels, and the way the design of the windows and cladding were further distinguishing those elements. But now everything has been simplified almost to the point of having no flavour at all. There's no asymmetry, there's no articulation. The design has been reduced to an oversimplified blah tower on top of an oversimplified blah podium.

I like the fact that the tower is less bulky than before. But methinks there's a much better design to be found simply by merging this concept with the previous concept.


It could be done, but they’d have to go even higher than 23-storeys. The rejected incarnation had the same density at 19 storeys, but the hang up was setbacks and privacy concerns. The City knows it messed up with the Harris Green zoning and admits the setback issue was not taken into consideration in terms of livability.

There are only a few sites remaining that are undeveloped so they’ll just go with the flow and run the zoning through as-is. Maybe if it were to climb to 27-storeys you could see more stacking but would there be an appetite for that height, and no parking? The developer is going to have to hope that council is sincere about their car-lite sentiments, and density, and setbacks expectations, but going to nearly 30 storeys opens up an entirely different conversation.

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


#165 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 11:41 AM

 

Yes, but now it has zero onsite parking, so all is good.

 

Ask any Victorian what the longstanding issues were on the View Towers block, and they'd all say "too much parking".


  • Nparker likes this

#166 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 11:42 AM

Looking back in this thread, I had forgotten all about the very first concepts.

 

First it was not good
Then it was horrible
Then it was not good again, but completely different
Then it was surprisingly good, a thoughtful refinement of the completely different version
Then it was not good again, but maybe slightly better than the earlier not good version


  • Nparker likes this

#167 GaryOak

GaryOak
  • Member
  • 724 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 11:44 AM

Yeah, parking and increased traffic is like the biggest issue for any neighbors of any development usually and by adding no parking. There won't be any increased traffic or cars.

#168 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 41,206 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 11:48 AM

...by adding no parking. There won't be any increased traffic or cars.

:P  :P  :P

 

That's the same logic that suggested making changes to Vancouver Street would result in fewer cars on CoV roads. Instead, the vehicles just moved to Quadra and Cook.



#169 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 01:06 PM

 

I feel like if we build more tall towers around View Towers, it won't stick out as much like the sore thumb it is.

 

I think this is a good point and I agree, but after so many decades of worrying about the impact of tall buildings, doesn't it seem goofy that we've now decided the city's tallest new buildings should be nothing special? Wasn't that the original problem re: the 1960s/1970s highrise buildings? They were nothing special to look at?

 

In the 21st century Victoria has suddenly decided that blah towers should once again be visually dominant, whereas interesting/attractive new buildings should be restricted to ~15 stories, max. It's senseless.

 

I don't want to give this building too hard a time, because it's not terrible. But ideally this current iteration would have been the previous iteration, and the previous iteration would be the current iteration.


  • Nparker likes this

#170 downtownlurker

downtownlurker
  • Member
  • 64 posts

Posted 31 May 2023 - 02:03 PM

Maybe some new cough cough provincial housing targets will impact how this proposal is approached by city and staff...


  • aastra and GaryOak like this

#171 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 53,957 posts

Posted 02 June 2023 - 08:45 PM

A proposal for a high-density rental building with no parking in Victoria’s downtown has been submitted to the City of Victoria for review.

A different version of the proposal was rejected by the city in May 2022, with staff saying the plan for a 19-storey tower at 937 View St. – next to View Towers – had design issues and that the height would have detrimental impacts on shadowing, skyline view and sunlight access.

But the new proposal by Nelson Investments is now even taller at 23 storeys to accommodate 269 rental homes averaging 389 square feet in size.

The new proposal reflects the changes that have taken place in Victoria in the past year when it comes to housing, including the election of a new council. Victoria was also included this week as one of three Greater Victoria municipalities subject to new housing targets as part of B.C.’s Housing Supply Act.


https://www.vicnews....ven-taller-now/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2023 - 08:46 PM.


#172 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 677 posts

Posted 03 June 2023 - 07:57 AM

I'll check back in ten years and see how the project is progressing ...


  • DavidSchell likes this

#173 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 03 June 2023 - 12:20 PM

I'm not so sure this one would be delayed. It has an abundance of plain white/grey cladding and no balconies. In other words, it addresses some of the CoV's major concerns re: sensitive architectural design. If they reduce the size of the windows then methinks it should be a done deal.

 

(anyone who has suffered through decades of architectural design controversies in Victoria will appreciate the absurdity)


  • Nparker likes this

#174 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,924 posts

Posted 03 June 2023 - 12:37 PM

Another point I want to make about the elimination of the differentiated sections and terrace levels: not only does it make the tower portion look very plain, but it also makes the tower portion look much more similar to View Towers than it otherwise would have looked. Is this what the CoV wants?

Methinks the top priority here re: the overall design should be to strongly distinguish this building's appearance from View Towers' appearance. Slimming the tower was a step in the right direction re: the massing, but if the tower has a plain and repetitive look then why the heck was there ever a bitter fight against the second View Towers building that was supposed to be part of the original plan?

 

Doesn't all of this CoV history seem to be especially ironic and ridiculous now?

 

 

Daily Colonist
March 2, 1972

Tower Shrink Not Likely

Developer George Mulek has been asked by the city of Victoria to voluntarily reduce the size of the apartment-store centre, to be completed at View and Quadra, but there apparently isn't much likelihood that he will.

Mayor Peter Pollen said Wednesday that Mulek was "unbending" in his attitude, and seemed determined to stick by his original plan to build a second tower slightly taller than the 19-storey apartment building already at the site. The second building would have a supermarket and other stores.

The grey, unfinished look of the first building, completed last year, has brought considerable criticism from the city.

But appearances, says Pollen, isn't the major issue.

"It's a matter of density," he said. There would be over 500 units on a relatively small piece of land. There just wouldn't be enough open space, or even really enough room to breathe."

Mulek's argument is that the second tower will have to remain as planned to make the whole project economically sound. There is no legal way Victoria can block construction of the second tower.

"We can only say that we have tried vigorously to get Mr. Mulek to co-operate in the spirit of community interest on a voluntary basis," the mayor said.


  • Nparker likes this

#175 Barrrister

Barrrister
  • Member
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 03 June 2023 - 12:49 PM

Would this be built under the new Step Code.



#176 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 282 posts

Posted 05 June 2023 - 12:53 PM

"269 rental homes averaging 389 square feet in size."  If that's the average, I wonder what the smallest units are?


  • aastra likes this

#177 Barrrister

Barrrister
  • Member
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 05 June 2023 - 01:23 PM

I think they should consider approving a taller building here, at least thirty or thirty five floors would be better.


  • Nparker and 2F2R like this

#178 HarrisonGreene

HarrisonGreene
  • Member
  • 67 posts

Posted 29 June 2023 - 06:03 PM

I’m not loving this latest redesign either. I agree with Barrister that a taller building would definitely be sensible here. Regardless, it’s a decaying parking lot that reeks of urine and we need something to draw people’s eyes away from VT, so I hope council doesn’t drag their feet with this one.
  • Mike K. likes this

#179 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 84,035 posts

Posted 03 October 2023 - 10:31 AM

The project website has been updated: https://937view.com/


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


#180 HarrisonGreene

HarrisonGreene
  • Member
  • 67 posts

Posted 03 October 2023 - 12:13 PM

It's funny how they listed "no parking" as one of the project benefits. I guess it's fitting for a building that will replace one of Victoria's largest public pissing lots.


  • Nparker and DavidSchell 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