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 for a 12-storey purpose-built rental complex with ground floor retail space alo... (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
190 replies to this topic

#161 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 01:50 PM

Where is Front Street? If the CoV can't even identify its road network properly how can their opinions re design, massing etc. possibly be taken seriously?


CHEK were the ones who made the Front Street error. The CoV staff report all references Fort Street.

#162 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 22 June 2020 - 01:57 PM

I will say I very much agree with staff that the street wall and street presence is bad. The frontage is dominated by a parade entrance and BC Hydro kiosk. Not exactly the pedestrian oriented design that should be expected on Fort.

 

This would have made it so much better 



#163 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 02:34 PM

If they have little discretion then how do we account for all of the weasel-words*? There's a fair bit of mealy-mouthed language in the report that seems very arbitrary. One little typo could transform many of these supposedly objective assessments from "it doesn't" to "it does" or from "it isn't" to "it is" and no one would be the wiser. I don't want to be too much of a jerk about it, but let's just say the substantiation is lacking in places:

 

 


The proposal does not respond to its historic context...

(aastra asks: which is? and which can be responded to by...?)

--
 

...or conserve the special characteristics and heritage value of the area

(aastra asks: which are? and which can be conserved by...?)

--

The proposal does not achieve a cohesive design or enhance the appearance along an arterial road through high quality architecture, landscape and urban design responsive to its historic context through sensitive and innovative interventions.

(aastra says: do I even need to comment? This is vacuous guff. You might as well say it's overwhelming and inappropriate, too. Heck, they actually DID use one of the most inscrutable buzzwords: "sensitive". Also, wouldn't a massing that we haven't seen before qualify as something of an effort to be "innovative"?)

--

Staff have concerns that the tower would have impacts on shading and privacy, that the street wall would not relate well to the public street and sidewalk, and the building lacks cohesion and does not provide a sensitive response to the Heritage Corridor...

(aastra says: just be more sensitive. What's so difficult?)

--

The OCP encourages the logical assembly of development sites to enable the best realization of development potential for the area. Given the existing context and development potential, land assembly with the adjacent properties is strongly encouraged for a building of this size...

(aastra says: we're super concerned about the special characteristics and heritage value of the area... EXCEPT for the small building footprints that have defined Fort Street going back right to its beginnings. No need to be concerned about THAT special characteristic or its heritage value.)

--

...the multiple staggered setbacks from Fort Street and large slab cut-outs on the south-west corner has resulted in a "wedding cake" appearance that lacks overall design cohesion.

(aastra says: how does it lack cohesion? Why is a "wedding cake" appearance a bad thing? Does a wedding cake lack cohesion? Many times I've referred to the legislative buildings or the old Hotel Vancouver or Winnipeg's old city hall as "wedding cake" buildings, which every city that ever aspired to be anything has had at least one good example of. I'm not comparing this condo proposal to those grand old buildings, but I'm saying the term "wedding cake" shouldn't be a strike just 'cuz. What exactly is the problem with a "wedding cake" look?)
 

 

I'm not saying the entire report is vague. Some points are satisfactorily explained. But some of these other points are the standard-issue unclarified criticisms that we've seen for years in Victoria.

 

*all credit to a former forumer who used to point this out whenever it was evident


  • Rob Randall and Brantastic like this

#164 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 03:13 PM

Heritage? What heritage are they talking about? What history? What is the building lacking that would speak to that history?

 

Not a rhetorical question, I am looking for specific answers.


  • aastra likes this

#165 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 03:18 PM

Needs some faux-tudor details applied, then it will be perfect.



#166 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 03:22 PM

Chop it down to a single storey and give it a backyard. That’ll do it.
  • Nparker likes this

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


#167 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:41 AM

Sure, as long as you consolidate some properties. Gotta consolidate those properties.


  • Nparker likes this

#168 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 08:57 AM

The DRA has sent in a letter of opposition: https://victoriadra....-2020-06-22.pdf

#169 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,328 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:18 AM

i swear these neighbourhood associations should be stripped of their opinion-granting.  host the meeting take notes and then let individuals comment.  no neighbourhood association can even pretend to be the voice of their communities when so few people ever go to their meetings or get involved with their causes and events. 

 

in particular most people that reside downtown do so in nice fairly new modern-style buildings.  like this one would be.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 June 2020 - 09:19 AM.


#170 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:18 AM

The DRA has sent in a letter of opposition...

Quelle surprise. Total hypocrisy, considering they already have their downtown residences.


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#171 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:41 AM

 

While a land assembly would improve the development potential for this site, the building form and character as submitted would still not respond to the context of the Fort Street Heritage Corridor.  As stated in the OCP (DPA 7B Corridors Heritage) the designation includes the objective of "high quality architecture, landscape and urban design responsive to its historic context through sensitive and innovative interventions".

 

So they're also concerned about preserving the established Fort Street atmosphere, and yet they also have no problem with lot consolidation in violation of the established Fort Street atmosphere? What an amazing coincidence that these various parties would all subscribe to the same misconception re: the best way to preserve Fort Street's granularity would be to diminish Fort Street's granularity.



#172 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:49 AM

 

What an amazing coincidence that these various parties would all subscribe to the same misconception re: the best way to preserve Fort Street's granularity would be to diminish Fort Street's granularity.

 

And what an amazing coincidence that this would be happening in the same city where various parties all subscribe to the same misconception re: the best way to preserve rotting & unused 160-year-old buildings would be to let those buildings continue to rot away unused.



#173 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:53 AM

As you know, I said so many times the thing that makes Harris Green/Fort St. so unique and memorable is the crazy anything-goes architecture that you see nowhere else.

 

A tiny castle! Japanese bungalow! Art Deco, Tudor, Jetsons modernism and everything in between.

 

It has no singular history point like you might with James Bay and its Victorian housing, or Rock Bay with its early 20th century industrial vernacular architecture.

 

The only thing you have to do is make it eclectic and high-quality. If you are trying to "fit in" you have failed because it is exactly not about "fitting in".


  • zoomer, aastra, Brantastic and 1 other like this

#174 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:05 AM

For sure. But methinks the lot size aspect is crucial, and I'd cite View Towers as exhibit A (it doesn't front onto Fort Street directly, but in effect it does because of the empty lot). If you truly want to preserve and/or enhance the eclectic Fort Street vibe (which as you say does not obligate any particular architectural style or character) then you absolutely do not want long projects spanning multiple lots. Lot consolidation is explicitly about diminishing the flavours, rather than enhancing them.

 

But aastra! When we require developers to build longer buildings we'll also require them to simulate finer grain in the long frontages! You know, because everything should be senseless, upside down, and backwards.



#175 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:22 AM

I agree, Fort Street is a wonky thoroughfare.

Perhaps the only way forward here is to reduce the height, significantly.

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


#176 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:31 AM

Yes, the height seems arbitrary. It can lose some floors and it would look better. But it's still a boring building.

 

Jukebox is a long lot but it works because it has lots of retail units so you get that granularity and the design is wacky and eye-catching and doesn't have that boring monolithic feel.

 

I'm serious, the architectural solution is for the firm to get their most creative employees in a room with a few bottles of wine and a stack of paper and say don't come out without a design that stops people in their tracks. If in doubt add stainless steel gargoyles.



#177 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:40 AM

I like Jukebox but I wouldn't want it on Fort Street.


  • Brantastic and Victoria Watcher like this

#178 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,328 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:50 AM

i like jukebox too but it would be insensitive if it was west of Vancouver street. Or east of cook.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 June 2020 - 10:51 AM.


#179 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:53 AM

You're saying it was the very first example of the right development in the right place?



#180 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 11:12 AM

Some old articles about the mosaic building. It's interesting how the height of the building (and the potential to add additional levels later on) was being praised. So Victorians in the 1960s were happy to be chopping down old buildings on Douglas Street, even as they were envisioning taller buildings on Fort Street near Cook. Also, everyone seemed to be thrilled about the large parking lot on Meares Street.

 

 

Daily Colonist
July 7, 1963

Mural Marks Fine Building

 

A 250-feet-a-minute elevator whisks visitors up to the fifth floor where they can look out through full-length window panes to take in Victoria's 360-degree panorama.

No pillars obstruct the view... Eight churches, Government House, Craigdarroch Castle, Mount Tolmie, Mount Douglas, the Olympics and Mount Baker surround the building.

"This is a prestige building."

- A 150-car parking lot off Meares to which floors can be added if needed.

- More floors can be added to the Montreal Trust Building, up to three and with an added penthouse to crown the building.

 

 

Other articles:

New Landmark Being Built Here: All This and Mosaic, Too (March 17, 1963)

 

 

...you step into a roof garden restaurant, first of its kind in Greater Victoria.

"I'm especially proud of our huge parking lot," Dr. Patterson says. "There's room for 200 cars, and if there should be more, we can always add floors to it."

Here's another first: Victoria's first drive-in wicket where you can pay any kind of bill -- to your doctor, lawyer, or to any other of the tenants.

 

Horrified: Mosaic Stuns Expert (October 17, 1963)

 

 

"I thought it was an advertisement," said (Scottish sculptor) Mr. Charles d'Orville Pilkington Jackson, here during a North American speaking tour.


Edited by aastra, 29 June 2020 - 11:20 AM.

  • Rob Randall likes 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