Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
1400 Vancouver Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1400 Vancouver Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 15
1400 Vancouver Street is a proposal to build a 15-storey, residential tower along the 900-block of Johnson Str... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1400 Vancouver Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] 1400 Vancouver Street | Residential; retail | 15-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#61 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 355 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 10:20 PM

The funeral home is hardly integrated with the rest of the structure, besides replicating its (IMO) clumsy mishmash of geometric shapes throughout the rest of the design. It just looks like an awkward add-on, is dwarfed by the rest of the development, and again, creates a dead zone along Vancouver Street when other nearby projects like Ventana, 1008 Pandora, and 989 Johnson will enhance the pedestrian realm along the street.
 



#62 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 10:25 PM

Why is the funeral home being kept?...

I repeat: only the chapel is being retained. While I agree that its preservation creates design challenges, I imagine the developer feels that if all of the Di Castri building were removed from the site, getting approval from the city would become nearly impossible. It's probably even a risk to demolish as much of the existing structure as this proposal envisions.



#63 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 355 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 10:33 PM

It's not like it's a heritage structure. Do we have past examples of the city not approving projects due to the loss of some mid-century building?



#64 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 10:44 PM

Di Castri is to mid-century architecture in Victoria what Rattenbury was to the Victorian/Edwardian era. His work is revered. Heritage designation or not, I guarantee it would be a battle to get this site redeveloped without incorporating some aspect of what is currently on the site.



#65 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 5,962 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 05:39 AM

probably right.

#66 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:37 AM

 

It's not like it's a heritage structure.

 

I'm not a mind reader but I think some of the usual suspects might just prefer the post-1945 architecture and the post-1945 "vision" over all else.

 

Up until the 1970s, I mean.



#67 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:41 AM

Hey, if somebody feels that way then good for them. Overall I think there was a lot of misguided idealism during that period, but there was also some interesting stuff out of it.

 

*edited for clarity


Edited by aastra, 08 February 2019 - 09:42 AM.


#68 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 09:52 AM

I'm not a mind reader but I think some of the usual suspects might just prefer the post-1945 architecture and the post-1945 "vision" over all else...

I'll bite. 

This "usual suspect" has enough sense to realize there is good and bad architecture from all eras. Just because something has avoided the wrecking ball since 1885 doesn't automatically mean it is worthy of eternal preservation at all costs. It is also equally incorrect to dismiss all post-WWII architecture as banal and disposable. 



#69 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,887 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 11:06 AM

It is a heritage building.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#70 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 11:16 AM

It is a heritage building.

Well there you go. MCM can have value.  :)



#71 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,495 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 08 February 2019 - 11:34 AM

It is a heritage building.

 

It is of heritage interest but it is not on the heritage register, and a Heritage Alteration Permit is not required. The developer is not seeking to designate the chapel, but has engaged the Heritage Committee all the same.



#72 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,554 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 08:01 AM

That's correct, it can be razed tomorrow and there's nothing the City can do. The developer feels, despite the difficulty of retaining the chapel and making it a functioning space within the context of a residential building, that retaining it is important to the community so they're going for it.


  • jonny likes this

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


#73 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 5,962 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 08:08 AM

even if it's not required to be kept the gesture goes towards helping with a political decision(s) required for the project. 


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 09 February 2019 - 08:08 AM.

  • Nparker and jonny like this

#74 LetsGetIt

LetsGetIt
  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 03:50 PM

Any thoughts on how this will affect North views from 989 Victoria? Particularly the West tower

#75 MarkoJ

MarkoJ
  • Member
  • 4,795 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 09 February 2019 - 03:52 PM

even if it's not required to be kept the gesture goes towards helping with a political decision(s) required for the project. 

 

That is the only thing I can think off as I drove by today and the chapel looks like crap irrelevant of who designed it, in my opinion.

 

It kinds of ruins a cool project for me.


  • Promontory Kingpin likes this

Marko Juras, REALTOR® & Associate Broker | Gold MLS® 2011-2018 | Fair Realty

www.MarkoJuras.com - MLS® from $899 and $1,000 cash back for buyers | www.834sales.com & www.promontoryforsale.com - Building(s) specialist 

Looking at Condo Pre-Sales in Victoria? Save Thousands!

 

 


#76 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,554 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 04:23 PM

Any thoughts on how this will affect North views from 989 Victoria? Particularly the West tower


It’ll partially obstruct views to the northeast from 989’s west tower.

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


#77 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 02:02 PM

This will go to CotW on Thursday May 9.



#78 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 02:13 PM

I suspect this will go through a lot of "blandishments" before it even comes close to being approved. 

Development Tracker details here.



#79 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 04:25 PM

I suspect this will go through a lot of "blandishments" before it even comes close to being approved.

Development Tracker details here.


Maybe not, staff are recommending that this project advance to a public hearing.

#80 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 10:48 AM

There's some interesting information in this presentation from the developer to Council, especially in regards to the heritage designation of the Di Castri chapel. For instance, I didn't know that the chapel pre-dates the rest of the existing funeral home building.

chapel.JPG

I always assumed they were built at the same time.



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