Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
Hudson Place Two
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1700 Blanshard Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 23
Hudson Place Two is proposed as a 23-storey, 235-unit rental highrise along the 1700-block of Blanshard Street... (view full profile)
Learn more about Hudson Place Two on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown] Hudson Place Two | Rentals; retail | 23-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#21 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:13 AM

Although Merrick's images were probably massing studies rather than actual renderings, it would have been nice to see those sort of angles. This final piece of the Hudson project is pretty dull.

 

I don't think they were early massing studies as these are what was presented to the community association and City Hall initially. I think this is close to what they wanted to go with.

 

I can't believe the density is the same. The new tower is as tall if not taller and looks much bulkier. I can't remember if they got another density variance since the initial application.


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#22 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:19 AM

I don't think they were early massing studies as these are what was presented to the community association and City Hall initially...

Well they certainly were not detailed renderings.



#23 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:32 AM

Well, the final renderings would have just added additional fine-tuned detail. The overall look would have been the same.

 

You could tell Merrick's early massing sketches as they were done with a shaky felt pen.

 

I was told the rejection of the angled buildings was due to factors including cost, awkward suite layouts and possible seismic complications. But boy, they looked nice.


Edited by Rob Randall, 03 January 2019 - 11:34 AM.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#24 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:34 AM

 

Ack! Red brick!

 

It's funny, was there even a single scrap of red/brown brick on this block before? Abundant cream-coloured terra cotta, yellow brick, painted concrete... but no red/brown brick. And yet some people would believe the introduction of red/brown brick = appropriate.


Edited by aastra, 03 January 2019 - 11:35 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#25 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:39 AM

It would be great if at least some of the orange stuff wasn't brick but something else. I can hope.



#26 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:42 AM

 

I like the zig-zag balony...

 

VV's commissary, every other Tuesday.


  • Nparker likes this

#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:45 AM

 

And yet some people would believe the introduction of red/brown brick = appropriate.

 

FYI, I think Townline has done okay with the brick. They haven't gone bananas with it. But if any site in Victoria could put an exclamation mark on the point that there are other cladding materials out there, methinks it would be this one.



#28 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:50 AM

...I was told the rejection of the angled buildings was due to factors including cost, awkward suite layouts and possible seismic complications...

If I had to guess cost was likely the only determining factor in the switch to the less interesting design. Suite layouts could easily have been adjusted and "seismic complications" just seems like a way of saying the choice was outside of the developer's control.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#29 newbie_01

newbie_01
  • Member
  • 26 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 01:02 PM

The intent of Merrick's design was that every apartment would be on a corner and could get a through-breeze with the windows open.
  • Rob Randall and grantpalin like this

#30 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 3,521 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 03:44 PM

I like the height  :thumbsup:



#31 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 06:54 PM

I really like the massing. It's actually tall enough to not look like it was chopped off by the CoV anti height building decapitator. Looks almost but city.

Don't love the red brick. I'd rather tile or stone.

As per usual, the quality of materials used and the ground floor will make or break it.

#32 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 07:13 PM

...As per usual, the quality of materials used and the ground floor will make or break it.

Based on the renderings so far those are some of the weakest parts of this proposal. The short, podium section is particularly uninspiring.



#33 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 07:14 PM

A 5/6 floor podium is short? Any taller would be way too tall.

#34 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 07:19 PM

A 5/6 floor podium is short? Any taller would be way too tall.

It's not the height of the podium that I dislike. 



#35 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 876 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 07:38 PM

While I'm happy taller projects are going forward, I thought they'd go for more height variation between the buildings on the site.
  • Nparker and newbie_01 like this

#36 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 08:40 PM

...I thought they'd go for more height variation between the buildings on the site.

The massing might work better if it were shifted slightly further south on the lot. As it is, the majority of taller parts of the both towers is concentrated on the north.

Oh, and the podium is still kinda ugly.


  • songheesguy likes this

#37 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,376 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 08:55 PM

The design just doesn't move me. It's like a bulked out version of Astoria and Belvedere 


  • Nparker likes this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#38 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 09:18 PM

The massing might work better if it were shifted slightly further south on the lot. As it is, the majority of taller parts of the both towers is concentrated on the north.

 

The tower would be too close to Hudson Mews if it moved any further south.


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


#39 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,796 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 10:32 PM

The tower would be too close to Hudson Mews if it moved any further south.

Perhaps, but that's the problem with the current design of the slightly-too-wide tower. While it would probably result in fewer units (or at least smaller units) I've thinned down the tower a bit, dropped the podium by one floor, as well as (crudely) altered the massing of the top few floors for some visual interest. IMHO, the overall effect is better.

HP2 narrow.JPG



#40 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 3,521 posts

Posted 03 January 2019 - 11:29 PM

So what’s the deal with stratified apartments? Are they rentals or condos?

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