Jump to content

      



























APPROVED
1314-1318 Wharf Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1314-1318 Wharf Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 6
1314-1318 Wharf Street is a proposal for a six-storey mixed-use rental complex with ground floor retail space ... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1314-1318 Wharf Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown] 1314-1318 Wharf Street / Northern Junk | Rentals; retail | 6-storeys


  • Please log in to reply
652 replies to this topic

#301 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,401 posts

Posted 11 July 2020 - 05:51 PM

...nobody agrees on what an appropriate treatment of the site is and we are painted into a corner and nobody knows how to get out of it.

It's simple: approve the 2012 proposal that included the sale of that useless parcel of city land that surrounds the NJ property.


  • tiger11 likes this

#302 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 12 July 2020 - 01:01 PM

 

So now it seems we have the worst of both worlds, nobody agrees on what an appropriate treatment of the site is and we are painted into a corner...

 

We've ruled out the extremes and we've also ruled out everything in between the extremes, whether we're talking about design, height, massing, the walkway & people spaces, or even the uniqueness of the overall approach. Unique is unsuitable, generic is unsuitable, middle-of-the-road is unsuitable. The most recent concept was about as site-specific as anything we've ever seen in Victoria, but it was unsuitable. This is what happens when weasel-words like "sensitivity" and "appropriateness" dominate the conversation. These terms can be far too elusive (which is also why some people like to over-use them).

 

Re: the following point, the refined 5-story version that I preferred was so good precisely because it emphasized the stepping & layering rather than spoiling it. The old warehouses seemed to be standing on their own well in front of the major part of the new construction, and a small set of new townhouses (also set apart from the major part of the new construction) occupied the same line that the warehouses occupied. So you had the smaller buildings -- both old and new -- along the waterfront walkway, and you had the bulk of the new construction set back behind them.

 

 

...it violated the staggered step back effect planners wished the waterfront had...


  • Nparker likes this

#303 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:23 AM

For Throwback Thursday, a hypothetical view looking down Johnson Street showing the original NJ proposal if it had been built as first designed.

 

nj.JPG



#304 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,401 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 07:03 AM

It's sad to be reminded of what might have been if the CoV had some real vision and courage.



#305 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 07:43 AM

That was the very first version, right? The style was Selkirk Waterfront-ish.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#306 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,401 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 07:47 AM

The fight over this property has been going on so long that the original redevelopment proposals now have heritage status.


  • Kapten Kapsell and Greg like this

#307 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 08:29 AM

I wanted to correct a typo in one of my old posts in the NJ thread but I got a message saying I needed a heritage alteration permit.


  • Mike K., Rob Randall, Nparker and 1 other like this

#308 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 23 July 2020 - 05:33 PM

I am not sure that was the first one...

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#309 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 July 2020 - 06:46 PM

T'was the same. Right down to the mechanical boxes on the roof.

 

Northern_Junk-Original_Proposal.jpg

 

 


  • Nparker likes this

#310 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 2,891 posts

Posted 23 July 2020 - 07:10 PM

For Throwback Thursday, a hypothetical view looking down Johnson Street showing the original NJ proposal if it had been built as first designed.

 

That design was missing tents, shopping carts and a mob of angry bicyclists.



#311 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 July 2020 - 09:58 PM

...

 

 

Daily Colonist
July 26, 1979

 

New scene for Wharf

New concept for Victoria's Reeson Park on Wharf Street at foot of Yates won preliminary approval of Capital Region Board directors Wednesday morning.

...the scheme provides for renovation of existing wharf and construction of covered deck above... pebble beach in behind, grassed bowl-shaped area and a small treed plaza at the Wharf Street level... closing off unused lane and incorporating small traffic island near Johnson Street bridge.



#312 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 2,891 posts

Posted 23 July 2020 - 11:25 PM

...

 

I couldn't find what you did but I am sure it is there

 

Also this.....

 

 

Indians sought for social work.



#313 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 24 July 2020 - 06:52 AM

Nothing was removed. It was late and the quote spoke for itself.



#314 Jackerbie

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

Posted 22 August 2020 - 04:54 PM

Seems Northern Junk isn't the only old warehouse that Reliance owns. Wishing them much better luck with this proposal in Vancouver.

 

Screenshot_20200822-175250.png

 

Note renderings via https://www.urbanyvr...y-office-space/



#315 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 22 August 2020 - 07:59 PM

That's a great addition to the building on Beatty Street. But it doesn't work in a completely different context on the Northern Junk site.



#316 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:45 PM

Well this project isn’t dead yet. It’s going back to CotW on the 17th.
  • Brantastic likes this

#317 DavidSchell

DavidSchell
  • Member
  • 684 posts

Posted 11 September 2020 - 04:51 PM

Well this project isn’t dead yet. It’s going back to CotW on the 17th.

 

LOL, just so it can be rejected again ... these clowns will just waste more tax payer $$$$



#318 JanionGuy

JanionGuy
  • Member
  • 772 posts

Posted 11 September 2020 - 08:05 PM

Well this project isn’t dead yet. It’s going back to CotW on the 17th.

 

Tent city, i say!  Ocean views!



#319 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 924 posts

Posted 11 September 2020 - 08:14 PM

Well this project isn’t dead yet. It’s going back to CotW on the 17th.

Has anything changed with the proposal or is it just going back again as is?



#320 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 12 September 2020 - 01:36 PM

Has anything changed with the proposal or is it just going back again as is?

Yes, substantial changes were made in the latest revision done in August.  You can find a summary of those changes in the Staff report here:  .  Some of the changes include:

  • Removal of the glass enclosure over the heritage buildings
  • Recessed balconies have been converted to smaller projecting balconies
  • Reconfiguration of the waterfront walkway
  • Addition of a rooftop amenity space.  Due to the need to run the elevator to the roof, this technically increases height from 5 to 6 storeys.

 

  •  


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