Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
Duck's Building
Use: condo
Address: 1314-1324 Broad Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 7
Condo units: 108 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: in planning
The seven-storey historic Duck's Building development is comprised of 108-units of condominium residences and ... (view full profile)
Learn more about Duck's Building on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Duck's Block | renovation, redevelopment | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#101 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:05 AM

...I also still wonder if the cladding on the two sections shouldn't be different. To suggest that old town granularity that we've talked about, rather than looking like a modern building has engulfed the old building in the middle.

I think this would be helpful.



#102 SamCB

SamCB
  • Member
  • 599 posts
  • Locationvictoria

Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:31 AM

This is a perfect example of how height restrictions make uninteresting cities. I'd like to see the 3 buildings step-up in height, with one side maybe 3 storeys, the historic building 4 or 5 or whatever it is, and the other side 8 or 9 storeys, or much much taller (and thinner). That would be much more visually interesting IMO.



#103 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:43 AM

...8 or 9 storeys, or much much taller (and thinner)...would be much more visually interesting IMO.

Pam would chain herself to the Ducks Building and declare a hunger strike before she'd ever allow 8 storeys ( :eek:) in Old Town.



#104 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 1,565 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:52 AM

Something like Jameson House in Vancouver would be nice. Obviously not as tall, but I really like how the heritage components are restored and have a rooftop outdoor space, and then the modern addition cantilevers over it.

 

b9884fc55fa2dc3544d67dad80436c57.jpeg



#105 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,855 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:13 AM

Victoria doesn't know how to deal with merging heritage with new. Should the new construction hide like the MEC building where architects worked to ensure the top floor addition would hardly be visible from the sidewalk? Or should it be loud and proud like the above photo? We simply haven't come to terms with how it should be done.

 

And it's at this point in the process when developers are getting competing and conflicting advice from different offices at City Hall and they plead, "just tell us what to do to get this approved!"


  • Nparker, AllseeingEye, jonny and 1 other like this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#106 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 4,655 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:22 AM

I agree that the design is uninspired. Something like this perhaps (rioiggght)
https://i.pinimg.com...d27121f433d.jpg

#107 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:26 AM

...And it's at this point in the process when developers are getting competing and conflicting advice from different offices at City Hall and they plead, "just tell us what to do to get this approved!"

And thus you get the banality of the approved Ironworks proposal.  :whyme:



#108 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:27 AM

...Something like this perhaps (rioiggght)
https://i.pinimg.com...d27121f433d.jpg

Pam just had a stroke.



#109 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,448 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:29 AM

doesn't have to be tall to be interesting

1920px-CaixaForum_Madrid_(Espa%C3%B1a)_0

Edited by amor de cosmos, 03 July 2018 - 10:29 AM.


#110 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:31 AM

Something like Jameson House in Vancouver would be nice. Obviously not as tall...

 

How I wish the concept of "obviously not as tall" didn't have to influence every design proposal in the CoV.  :angry:

 

I am not suggesting the tallest building in Victoria should be built on Broad Street, but why was height such an issue for Hudson Place, the Yates on Yates and virtually every project that comes before council for approval regardless of location?



#111 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:33 AM

doesn't have to be tall to be interesting

And short doesn't prevent a project from being ugly apparently either.  ;)



#112 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Member
  • 1,910 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:17 AM

City Hall is a daily cesspool of mixed messages and lazy, poorly thought out efforts to deal with the numerous serious issues that affect the city.

 

Two things come to mind in relation to the Ducks Block:

  1. I don't really care what Madoff thinks any longer, and although I deeply respect her tenure on Council and service to the COV, her inability to adapt to the reality of 2018 is an anchor around the COV's ankles in terms of moving COV development forward in a positive manner.
  2. UVIC should have refrained from giving Madoff the ammunition they indeed gave her ... UVic's completely B.S. efforts to relate the Ducks Block to UVic grad students living within its walls is 100% as disingenuous and dishonest as Madoff noted it was. Lying about things doesn't really help move development projects forward in 2018, especially if your "lies" are as transparent as a plate glass window.


#113 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 2,989 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 03 July 2018 - 04:31 PM

"Coun. Pam Madoff, a longtime supporter of heritage preservation, said she has not been impressed so far with proposals for the Duck’s Building.

 

'It looks to me like a facade enveloped by new construction,' Madoff said. 'There’s nothing wrong with new construction, but what they are proposing is nothing very new or exciting for Old Town.'”

 

Pam Madoff: advocating faux heritage and unobstructed views of the Sooke Hills since 1972.



#114 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 5,948 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 05:48 PM

Well of course it's "a facade enveloped by new construction".

There is nothing behind that facade worth saving.
  • Nparker likes this
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#115 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,538 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 05:56 PM

doesn't have to be tall to be interesting

1920px-CaixaForum_Madrid_(Espa%C3%B1a)_0

This is awful

Edited by RFS, 03 July 2018 - 05:56 PM.


#116 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 5,948 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 06:01 PM

^+1
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#117 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,448 posts

Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:23 PM

sorry about that, that art gallery is a bit backlit in that photo. here's a better pic that I'm sure you'll like better:

1920px-Caixa_Forum_01.jpg

#118 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,538 posts

Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:26 PM

sorry about that, that art gallery is a bit backlit in that photo. here's a better pic that I'm sure you'll like better:

1920px-Caixa_Forum_01.jpg


Still hate it
  • sdwright.vic likes this

#119 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 5,948 posts

Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:32 PM

^still +1
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#120 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 13,876 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 04:33 PM

Did we talk about this Focus article from September?

 

I'm really disappointed with the left section. The left section looks about as out-of-place as it could possibly be in the old town:

 

- the ground floor is short (unlike other old town buildings);

- the windows and lines are horizontal rather than vertical (unlike other old town buildings);

- there seems to be nothing in the way of distinctive detail or ornamentation, and just a lot of blah brick (unlike other old town buildings)

 

If our spotlight is really going to be on heritage considerations as per the article, then I'd rate the above issues to be hardly any less important than the facadism aspect.

 

The Johnson St. side looks pretty good, although I'm not thrilled about those plain brick pillars along the ground. The mindset should be all about distinctive details and individualizing the old town's modern architecture, as versus obliging modern stuff to be mundane and conventional. The faux modern wing of the hotel is kitty-corner across the intersection. I don't have a problem with two modern buildings facing each other (it wouldn't be a first for Victoria's old town), but I'm sure not thrilled with the prospect of two modern buildings facing each other and also flaunting such a similarly conventional faux vibe. People expect the old town to be charming, quaint, etc. Anything but conventional.

 

When I see the great work that's happening in the old districts in Hamilton and other cities I just feel like Victoria is dropping the ball. It's a special thing to have a legitimate old town area. So treat it like it's special, for crying out loud. If facadism is such a concern then here's an idea: give us some striking new architecture as part of the deal, so that we can feel better about it.

 

It's funny, the modern bank building on the Yates corner has a tall ground floor, it has strong vertical windows/lines, and it has distinctive/defining details. So how come you could get away with a modern building like that back in the day (~1950s) but in the 21st century you can't? I feel like the "real" design for the left section of Chard's project is peeking through at the very top there. Imagine that building stretched from the top all the way down to the ground, with the entire blah brick costume stripped away. Clad it in something that has texture and character. Let it show off some individuality. Allow it to belong in the old town.

 

Anyway...


Edited by aastra, 22 January 2019 - 04:36 PM.


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


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.