652 replies to this topic

[jstovell]

https://www.dropbox....8Gcp01DGREZaHSe

 

https://www.dropbox....kNuxKX1UIijmOgT

[jstovell]

There is still time to write letter of support to Mayor and Council:

 

mayorandcouncil@victoria.ca and publichearings@victoria.ca

[Gary H]

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

 

A rendering comparison from the above pdf of what I assume to be the previous incarnation and the one before Council.

 

[Nparker]

Removing some of the glass from that one section appears to make it much less vibrant, if the rendering above is accurate. 

[zoomer]

Actually.. I've never been a fan of the previous bakers dozen, but I think this hits the mark! Big improvement on the waterfront side and it now has the look of a landmark building and not just another condo project. Going by 'would I take lots of pics of this building' evaluation scale.. hell yes!

[Brantastic]

I have a feeling this might be the one that finally gets through council (knock on wood). They seem to have addressed most of the concerns that were raised by council and it only takes one council member to switch their vote to put it forward. 

[A Girl is No one]

It certainly would be a nice gesture for downtown and it’s businesses to clean up that section.

[On the Level]

I hope so too but I do worry that councillors won't really remember why they might have objected and review the design like they had never seen it before. They will always find some reason to reject it and don't really care.

[aastra]

Looks great. I'm really impressed that you guys keep proposing such high-quality stuff in the face of so much resistance and so many artificial constraints.

[Nparker]

I guess the city has some AMAZING plans for the land around this developmen that they refused to sell.

[Brantastic]

Personally I prefer this proposal to anything we've seen previously for the site. All the proposals that included JSB land that I've seen looked too chunky/wide, especially from the waterfront (and yes, I've seen that one that everyone here is obsessed with). We don't need VR Hotel 2.0.

[JanionGuy]

We don't need VR Hotel 2.0.

 

 

agreed. and i happen to like that area.

Edited by JanionGuy, 13 September 2020 - 04:51 PM.

[Nparker]

Such wasted potential now with pretty much useless "open space" surrounding this project. The last thing this area needs is another people space.

[Citified.ca]

Will council add another year to this redevelopment effort? It's hard to believe how long this project has been on the drawing boards. At this point, council throwing another wrench into the plans would come as hardly a surprised.

 

 

Decade-long pursuit of approvals yields another revision for Northern Junk rental proposal

http://victoria.citi...ental-proposal/

[berzele]

Adding that bit of brick to the Wharf St entry looks good in the renderings. 

 

I think this is aesthetically good from the water side too, with the natural shoreline and the second heritage building more visible than in prior proposal and the right side building having balconies looks more graceful.  Unfortunately it seems like exposing more shoreline reduced the patio space, so now there is only room for a walkway/overlook area without good patio-dining space, and that will likely make it less successful commercially. 

 

I'm also bummed that 1. The walkway  ends at the North edge of the building, rather than connecting to the path that goes under the Johnson St Bridge - is that because it's city land? It still seems like there should be the option to connect the walkways in the future?   2. It looks like that silly little parking lot to the North East is still there - is that city-owned as well?

'

[berzele]

Reading the attachments to the council agenda, I predict another round of Kafka-esque negotiations with respect to the Pad Mounted Transformer (big electrical box).  BC Hydro says it needs to be accessible from public ROW. Heritage advocates say it can't be in front of any old walls. Staff says it can't be in Bridgehead Green (the park like space on Wharf) because it will mess with tree roots and the naturalistic ambiance.  I'm trying to imagine exactly where it could go that meets all thee requirements?

 

If I were Reliance I'd be wondering if I could donate the site and take a huge tax writeoff.

[Mike K.]

Welcome to VV, berzele, great entry, too.

 

I am a bit puzzled by the sudden stop of the walkway myself.

[Nparker]

I am a bit puzzled by the sudden stop of the walkway myself.

Why should the developer build a connecting walkway on city owned land?

Edited by Nparker, 14 September 2020 - 03:20 PM.

[Mike K.]

It's more about the City not getting on board to connect the pathway while Reliance is putting in their's, and the cost savings that would create.

 

They've only had, oh, I dunno, 13 years to get that little part sorted since the inception of the pathway idea, and 10 years since the inception of Reliance's proposal.

[Nparker]

...[The city] only had, oh, I dunno, 13 years to get that little part sorted since the inception of the pathway idea, and 10 years since the inception of Reliance's proposal.

True, but for the past 10 years they were hoping Reliance would pay for the city's portion of the walkway even as the CoV nixed proposal after proposal. I imagine they still expect the developer to cover this cost.