Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
979-983 Pandora Avenue
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 979-983 Pandora Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 16
979-983 Pandora Avenue is a proposal to build a 16-storey mixed-use rental and ground floor retail tower in do... (view full profile)
Learn more about 979-983 Pandora Avenue on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] 979-983 Pandora Avenue | Rentals; retail | 16-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,946 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 12:15 PM

1. Very optimistic for a rental building on the 900-blk of Pandora

2. Is this really the image you want to project to Council?

Might be related to Our Place next door.



#42 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,313 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 12:17 PM

I like it's simple blocky massing.  It's mass-housing.


"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#43 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,946 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 12:24 PM

I like it's simple blocky massing.  It's mass-housing.

Would have been cutting edge in 1963.



#44 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 01:42 PM

As some wise commentator on the interwebs once observed, developers will propose this kind of stuff in Victoria because they can get away with it.

 

Call me a grinch if you like, but how many times are we supposed to listen to this same tune without any variation?

 

1) Distinguished lower levels? (yes, but barely so)

2) Distinguished and preferably set back uppermost levels? (nope, bland repetition and yet another perfectly flat top)

3) Interesting proportions? (nope, yet another slab)

4) Interesting materials and/or colours? (nope)

5) Ample glass coverage? (nope)

 

In the year 2018, proposing to repeat the same basic form and floorplate from the base all the way up to the flat top should get you laughed out of the room. Seriously, does nobody at the city actually care about any of these considerations? How many of these cookie-cutter punched-window jobs do we think downtown Victoria can absorb? This would be what, number four of this same basic design in the past few years?


  • Nparker and jonny like this

#45 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 2,765 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 01:47 PM

As some wise commentator on the interwebs once observed, developers will propose this kind of stuff in Victoria because they can get away with it.

 

Call me a grinch if you like, but how many times are we supposed to listen to this same tune without any variation?

 

1) Distinguished lower levels? (yes, but barely so)

2) Distinguished and preferably set back uppermost levels? (nope, bland repetition and yet another perfectly flat top)

3) Interesting proportions? (nope, yet another slab)

4) Interesting materials and/or colours? (nope)

5) Ample glass coverage? (nope)

 

In the year 2018, proposing to repeat the same basic form and floorplate from the base all the way up to the flat top should get you laughed out of the room. Seriously, does nobody at the city actually care about any of these considerations? How many of these cookie-cutter punched-window jobs do we think downtown Victoria can absorb? This would be what, number four of this same basic design in the past few years?

 

That is a long way to say we are a small city and we are not Vancouver.  This is normal fare for a city like ours 



#46 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,946 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 01:49 PM

...This is normal fare for a city like ours 

But why does a small city deserve bland architecture? 



#47 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:10 PM

 

This is normal fare for a city like ours.

 

Okay, so give me one example of a city like Victoria (similar size, on the west coast or at least in the west, expensive real estate and rents, tourism-focused) that is putting up multiple iterations of rental towers of the same basic design in its downtown core in the 2010s.



#48 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:14 PM

Crikey, the last thing that anyone should want along Pandora is bland, dark, heavy, (potentially) depressing architecture. This building should be as bright and light as possible. Do I really need to elaborate on that?


Edited by aastra, 20 December 2018 - 02:14 PM.


#49 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,133 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:15 PM

Yep... change the exterior a bit but use the same floorplans, over and over again.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#50 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:33 PM

Like I say, developers should have to give reasons why anybody would bother to take a picture of the building that they're proposing.

 

And rental projects shouldn't be getting a free pass in that regard just because they're rentals. Give me a break. I'm a pro-development fanboy but even I can see how having multiple instances of the same basic rental tower could backfire mightily. It's not the 1960s anymore. Repeating the same basic bland & blocky design shouldn't be acceptable. It wasn't acceptable for decades between then and now. So why are we going back to the old ways? Because there's a rental crisis? There never wasn't one. Because people have short memories? Short memory is now an urban planning principle in Victoria?

 

Even if we think downtown Victoria is so large that a few duplications of the same basic design would be irrelevant, I still have to ask:

a) why should anybody want duplications of the same basic design, and

b) how many duplications would be too many?



#51 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:35 PM

 

Yep... change the exterior a bit but use the same floorplans, over and over again.

 

I understand the motivations on the developer's part, but I'm saying throw us a bone and tweak it a bit. Distinguish the top two levels. Use a different cladding and a different colour scheme.

 

Make it not quite so frickin' obvious, in other words.


Edited by aastra, 20 December 2018 - 02:37 PM.

  • jonny and sdwright.vic like this

#52 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,946 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:36 PM

....And rental projects shouldn't be getting a free pass in that regard just because they're rentals...I can see how having multiple instances of the same basic rental tower could backfire mightily. It's not the 1960s anymore. Repeating the same basic bland & blocky design shouldn't be acceptable...

:thumbsup:



#53 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:38 PM

Give a developer all the height and density they want, and don't ask how every single project "addresses housing affordability" and you'll get some unique projects.


  • jonny and sdwright.vic like this

#54 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:41 PM

I'd say the rental project at Pandora and Cook had the right idea re: going with a more distinctive styling. I'm honestly not crazy about the final result, but nevertheless I appreciate it for being unique.


  • Nparker likes this

#55 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2018 - 02:46 PM

 

I'm a pro-development fanboy but even I can see how having multiple instances of the same basic rental tower could backfire mightily.

 

On this very board we've criticized the Bayview buildings for their sameness, lest we forget.



#56 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,871 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 10:57 PM

Hudson is a premium product, I can't imagine this project renting at the same rates. Then again, even Azzurro is renting at $1,400 for a 1BR. Difficult to forecast the rental market in 3-5 years, especially with the number of rental projects going up right now.


I was in Hudson Walk 1 recently and it is not premium. My entry level wood frame is 10 times nicer. Better layout, much better quality materials, much larger, better appliances...

#57 aguywholovesarchitecture

aguywholovesarchitecture
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 09:16 AM

I looks like a sheared-off tower resurrected from some slightly pomo tower around Metrotown from 2001...c'mon Victoria, you can do much better..its dewar, boring and graceless


  • Nparker likes this

#58 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,536 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 10:06 AM

The thing is, if built, it would be the only new tower this bland. I can't think of another building built downtown in recent years that could beat it. 


  • Nparker likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#59 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,946 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 10:33 AM

We have to live with bland/bad architecture for a long time.

highrise-jpg.jpg

Need I say more?

Let's not let the mistakes of the past be repeated.

 



#60 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,536 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 04:48 PM

Well on that first, that was built a long time ago. And I still kind of like View Towers, it is one building downtown. I find Tara Place much worse. If we keep building along the lines of the diversity we have been for the last ten years I think that Victoria can have one building like View Towers. In twenty years people won't even know the name of the building whereas twenty years ago it was seen as the one stop ghetto for the city. 


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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


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