830 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

What big buildings are you talking about? You're off your rocker as usual, aastra.

[aastra]

Dude, get real. We're discussing hypothetical* big buildings.

 

* off topic, but "Hypothesis" would be a great name for a condo tower. "Mike K. just bought a fancy penthouse at Hypothesis."

[Mattjvd]

Fair enough, but it's safe to assume the neighbours of this Telus project (the people who live in Aria, Astoria, the Falls, Belvedere) do not like big buildings.

Maybe the Humboldt Valley area should be preserved as a refuge for Victorians who want to get away from big buildings?

Aren't neighbors of this building also neighbors of the Double Tree and Chateau Victoria? My assumption would be that they are fine with large buildings, but that is certainly coloured by my bias.

Edit: by 'big' I mean relatively 'big' for Victoria. Not 'big' in an absolute sense.

Edited by Mattjvd, 10 December 2021 - 11:00 AM.

[aastra]

^I'm pretty sure the guests at those hotels come to Victoria to get away from large buildings. And also to enjoy a highrise view of the Empress Hotel.

[Mike K.]

Dude, get real. We're discussing hypothetical* big buildings.

 

* off topic, but "Hypothesis" would be a great name for a condo tower. "Mike K. just bought a fancy penthouse at Hypothesis."

 

Can we at least agree that Telus is more fitting for Hong Kong, or Dubai, where buildings its size already exist? 

[aastra]

 

Can we at least agree that Telus is more fitting for Hong Kong, or Dubai, where buildings its size already exist?

 

No, I'm not willing to agree to that. I'm not even willing to agree that Dubai exists.

[Hotel Mike]

"Maybe the Humboldt Valley area should be preserved as a refuge for Victorians who want to get away from big buildings?"

 

That ship has sailed aastra. There was a time when there were major discussions about what to do with the so-called "Y lot", that is, the Humboldt Valley. The NDP government at the time was making all sorts of Victoria promises (y'all remember the Victoria Accord?) That included the Humboldt Valley becoming a civic centre with a major arts component. The Art Gallery was interested (I was on the board), the Victoria Symphony, Pacific Opera. It was all just hot air. Now we have two condo towers, and a hotel. And on the other side of the street, more condos. 

[aastra]

I was kidding. The Executive House was already there by the mid-1960s and the Chateau Victoria by the mid-1970s.

 

And I'm pretty sure the Empress Hotel predates both of those.

 

I've mentioned it many times on here but I'll mention it again: Aria was originally proposed to be taller than it is. There was a big uproar about it, including a letter to the TC from concerned owners of a unit in Astoria. They were moving to Victoria to get away from tall buildings, don't you know. But a few astute observers noted that Astoria was still under construction during the controversy about Aria. In other words, people who were planning to live in the yet-to-be-completed tallest building in the district were already complaining about the scourge of tall buildings in the district.

[intheknow]

Why is the assumption that building big is screwing the neighbours? Lots of people, especially around here, like big buildings.

The comment about a big-top hanger was not about the proposed Telus building. It was about the rationale used by the developer to suggest that they are not asking for more volume than what would be supported under the existing zone. What the developer is suggesting is that they could build an abomination under the existing zone that would have more volume than what they are actually proposing- so what they are proposing is not, "in theory" more building. Further to that- the comment about screwing neighbours was based on this logic- i.e. the developer said that they could build a massive building at 43m tall, to the setbacks defined in the zone with no floors - so a low fsr. So by their rationale- they say that the zone would allow then to build a massive, empty airport hanger like building that would screw the neighbours and instead they are proposing this other building which doesn't screw the neighbours as much. So there is a lot is screwing going on- but most of the screwing, I think, is with that logic- which is, frankly- very disingenuous. 

[aastra]

Has the developer ever provided an image from above that shows the building footprint related to the lot size?

[aastra]

If so, can someone please post it again?

[intheknow]

This whole debate- at least for the Victoria City councilors- is the same debate/ conundrum all cities have. How much of their character must they sell out and how far should they bend their values to achieve other- "economic" goals. Its the same conversation when a City wrestlers with allowing a McDonalds on their main street- next to their heritage, built in the same corporate image as all McDonalds. The same conversation when a city wrestles with allowing a big box store in their downtown- that demands a big box form and massing, and the same conversation when a telecom corporate entity wants to build a building that expands their corporate image instead of collaboratively working with a city to advance its character and values too. That's why to me, this proposal isn't some glimpse of the future, and instead is just a cliché played out across cities nation wide. The progressive approach would be to see progressive corporate values that recognize that corporations have social and cultural responsibilities to the communities they work with and in. Instead- this proposal completely misses that third pillar of sustainability- and to the detriment of Victoria. 

[Nparker]

This whole debate- at least for the Victoria City councilors- is the same debate/ conundrum all cities have. How much of their character must they sell out and how far should they bend their values to achieve other- "economic" goals.

I know I'd hate to lose the character of the current vacant lot/car rental outlet.

[intheknow]

I know I'd hate to lose the character of the current vacant lot/car rental outlet.

False dichotomy. Its not either a parking lot or the Telus building. Its just about having a bit more ambition and a set of balls to risk turning away corporate bullies for the betterment of Victoria.  

Edited by intheknow, 10 December 2021 - 12:01 PM.

[Nparker]

Your hatred of this project is a false dichotomy. Ciao.

[intheknow]

Your hatred of this project is a false dichotomy. Ciao.

Well, hate is a strong word- but what is most dislikeable about this project is that it's basically just a big corporation coming to small town trying to develop its identity and dictating to said town what they will and will not do. Add to that, all the eagerness for change that comes from a populace starved of culturally interesting things- and it just makes you sad that there isn't a bit more collective ambition.

[Victoria Watcher]

Other buyers had a chance at the lot. You could have bought it.

[intheknow]

Other buyers had a chance at the lot. You could have bought it.

If my grandmother had wheels- she'd be a tractor. 

[Mattjvd]

Well, hate is a strong word- but what is most dislikeable about this project is that it's basically just a big corporation coming to small town trying to develop its identity and dictating to said town what they will and will not do. Add to that, all the eagerness for change that comes from a populace starved of culturally interesting things- and it just makes you sad that there isn't a bit more collective ambition.

I mean, the builder should always dictate what they will or will not build, no? Unless the city is paying for the building, it's not up to them beyond zoning (and the provincial building codes).

Let the planners decide land use, and the architects design buildings.

[Mike K.]

This whole debate- at least for the Victoria City councilors- is the same debate/ conundrum all cities have. How much of their character must they sell out and how far should they bend their values to achieve other- "economic" goals. Its the same conversation when a City wrestlers with allowing a McDonalds on their main street- next to their heritage, built in the same corporate image as all McDonalds. The same conversation when a city wrestles with allowing a big box store in their downtown- that demands a big box form and massing, and the same conversation when a telecom corporate entity wants to build a building that expands their corporate image instead of collaboratively working with a city to advance its character and values too. That's why to me, this proposal isn't some glimpse of the future, and instead is just a cliché played out across cities nation wide. The progressive approach would be to see progressive corporate values that recognize that corporations have social and cultural responsibilities to the communities they work with and in. Instead- this proposal completely misses that third pillar of sustainability- and to the detriment of Victoria. 

 

I think it's great.

 

It's even smaller than the towers around it, which for a typical city is odd, as usually buildings try to grow taller and bigger.