Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
1010 Fort Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1010 Fort Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 12
1010 Fort Street is a proposal to build a 12-storey, 55-unit purpose-built rental complex with ground floor re... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1010 Fort Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] 1010 Fort Street | Rentals, commercial | 12-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#121 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,964 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 08:38 PM


I attended the CALAC meeting. Kind of depressing, actually. No wonder construction in Victoria is so expensive! I think the building is attractive, will command only modest rents, and is offering rentals that the City really needs.

Interestingly, last year the DRA Land Use Committee supported a 12 story building at 930 Fort St saying "DRA Land Use Committee review of this proposal finds it of a high build quality and design,
fitting for the local area, and technically in keeping with the stated objectives of the OCP." (https://victoriadra....820465087890625). Comments quoted in the letter praised the 930 Fort building as being tall, yet slender, and for building on an existing lot instead of joining several lots together. I'm not sure exactly what changed the character of this meeting. Perhaps rental vs. strata?

Several people at this meeting complained about parking. Personally, I think it's downtown, by the protected bike network, and with good transit options. Avoiding the huge cost of underground parking will help keep the construction costs down, and the lack of dedicated parking will help keep rents down.

My only concern is that there may not be enough bicycle parking provided.


There has been a real shift at the DRA over the last year, and it has caught many people by surprise.

The developers of the 930 Fort project are also the developers of the Jukebox.

Welcome to VV!

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


#122 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,381 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 09:22 PM

You think the setback is too far back? I think it's just right. 

 

The developers of the 930 Fort project are also the developers of the Jukebox.
 

 

No, 930 is Sakura Developments (Dan Robbins). Jukebox is Mosaic Properties (McColl/Charity).


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#123 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,964 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 05:12 AM

Their efforts are intertwined, I believe.

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


#124 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,028 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 12:16 PM

 

You think the setback is too far back? I think it's just right.

 

You may well be right but to my eye the image seems to show more than a meter of setback beyond the line established by the existing buildings. I'm not denying that a bit of variation can work. Sometimes it can. But unnecessary variation can also deliver a gut punch re: the flow and continuity of the streetscape. We talk about the Wave on Yates all the time in this regard.

 

I'm sure we've all seen this faux building in the Cambie Street village many times. Just look at how jarring and inconsistent that big setback is with the cozy neighbourhood commercial feel. The building is short so no problem there, the faux-historic look is actually not half bad (certainly not convincing, but not too cornball, either) so no problem there… but the out-of-place setback is deadly.



#125 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,381 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 12:32 PM

You're right, it is pulled back and if memory serves it is a metre from the lot line. 

 

But unless the Noodle House shack is declared heritage I think you will one day see a wide sidewalk and aligned storefronts. Just because a couple of buildings are too close to the sidewalk doesn't mean you maintain that distance with new construction.


  • Nparker likes this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#126 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,799 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 12:53 PM

It seems to me, where the second level meets the building next door there is no additional setback.

setback.PNG

While it is true that some of the streetfront is pushed back about a meter, what appears to be the main entrance "canopy" is pretty much flush with the existing setback. 

 

Also, it's not as though larger setbacks don't already exist on this block.

setback2.PNG

 



#127 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 19 July 2019 - 01:09 PM

You may well be right but to my eye the image seems to show more than a meter of setback beyond the line established by the existing buildings. I'm not denying that a bit of variation can work. Sometimes it can. But unnecessary variation can also deliver a gut punch re: the flow and continuity of the streetscape. We talk about the Wave on Yates all the time in this regard.

 

I'm sure we've all seen this faux building in the Cambie Street village many times. Just look at how jarring and inconsistent that big setback is with the cozy neighbourhood commercial feel. The building is short so no problem there, the faux-historic look is actually not half bad (certainly not convincing, but not too cornball, either) so no problem there… but the out-of-place setback is deadly.

 

Technically speaking, the setback is consistent (i.e. zero setback), the difference is that new developments have been asked to provide road dedication on Cambie and the rear lane. Long term plan is for a wider sidewalk and a wider lane to accommodate the increased traffic.

 

Capture.PNG


Edited by Jackerbie, 19 July 2019 - 01:09 PM.

  • Kapten Kapsell likes this

#128 dcaten

dcaten
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 10:29 PM

As a non NIMBY, but someone  who does walk this stretch regularly, the building rendering looks quite nice, but not well suited at all to this block, both in scale and mass. This stretch of Fort is a transition stretch into low density / SFD and  heritage housing. The set-backs on this unit are OK 5-6 story build. The Bicycle paths limit the ability to scale out the sidewalk and as more condo's go up, so too will the foot traffic. Would whole heartedly be ok with this on Yates, or even on the 900 block of Fort as a cover up for the eye-sore that is the view towers, but the scale of this building is all wrong for this block of Fort. 



#129 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,919 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 01:43 PM

Seems to match the scale though is smaller than the Mosaic across the street, plus you have the old heritage building and former CIBC building on the corners which are larger. And now past Cook you have the B&W and the old BC Ferries building both much larger.

I dunno I would say they have hit the scale mark dead on or maybe gone a little too small. Either way this is a great looking little building.
  • Nparker likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#130 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,028 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 02:16 PM

I love small-footprint junior highrise buildings and how easily they fit into Victoria's scene (Corazon, Juliet, Sovereign, 834 Johnson, Legato). They supply a decent amount of density without harming the existing urban granularity. Win-win. I'm still hopeful that Victorians will one day realize they've stumbled upon their own unique formula in this regard. But anyway, if we think the height is too high for that particular block of Fort Street then give it the arbitrary chop by a couple of stories. You'd still have some variety in the heights around there (which is also something that I think is essential on a good streetscape).



#131 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,799 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 06:30 PM

... if we think the height is too high for that particular block of Fort Street then give it the arbitrary chop by a couple of stories...

Alas, I am sure this will be the first of many changes that will befall this proposal until it is blanded into conformity.  :(



#132 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 21 October 2019 - 11:38 AM

Alas, I am sure this will be the first of many changes that will befall this proposal until it is blanded into conformity.  :(

 

Off to ADP on Wednesday, Oct 23. We'll see what they have to say...

 

Some slight revisions since July, they're uploaded here: https://tender.victo...410145311036954

 

The bulk of the building is the same, but the most important bit has taken a tremendous beating. The proposed driveway didn't meet the minimum width so it has been widened to 7.0 m, and I'm assuming BC Hydro asked for the LPT to me moved. the building has awful street presence now.

 

Previous (July 2019)

Capture.PNG

 

Current (October 2019)

Capture2.PNG


  • Rob Randall likes this

#133 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,799 posts

Posted 21 October 2019 - 11:40 AM

It's like a series of caves along the street.  :whyme:\

 

Edit: A brick "parapet" appears to have been added above the ground level, resulting in reduced glass on the second floor. This doesn't feel like a step in the right direction either.


Edited by Nparker, 21 October 2019 - 11:50 AM.


#134 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,381 posts

Posted 21 October 2019 - 12:25 PM

Why does BC Hydro insist those things must go there? So many building frontages here are ruined by them. If they think there won't be a big black gate enclosing it they're crazy.


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#135 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,572 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 21 October 2019 - 12:57 PM

^ I'm only assuming that the LPT was moved at Hydro's request, as I can't see either the developer or the City wanting to put it where it is now. I could be wrong though! Hopefully the ground floor and streetscape is improved following the ADP review.



 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users