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

#361 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 18 September 2020 - 11:20 AM

But the buildings must be rescued in precisely the proper manner. And, unfortunately, the proper manner is impossible to describe using written/spoken language or via visual examples

 

My God, this perfectly encapsulates every application I've seen that's been through the wringer.

 

Developers on their knees begging, pleading, just tell us what to do and the heritage apparatchiks speak from on high, "We cannot dictate how you build your building, only what we dislike".


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#362 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 2,144 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 18 September 2020 - 11:59 AM

Seriously, considering how small the site is, this NJ saga must have set some kind of world record for producing such a wide range of high-quality proposals, all of which were flatly rejected.


Nice visual summary there Aastra and totally agree with the idiocy of the process. I thought the new trend in government was to use plain language and more visuals? That sure would have been helpful with this proposal at any point in the past decade. That being said nearly all of those previous proposals were terrible - big blocky dated condo building vibe or even a Regent Hotel 2.0 as a previous caller mentioned. This one though is perfect considering the land they have to work with.

Edited by zoomer, 18 September 2020 - 12:00 PM.


#363 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 18 September 2020 - 12:01 PM

I liked both of the super short proposals (but especially the version with the great townhouses) and I liked the mini-highrise version. But like I say, even the versions that I hated weren't phoned-in generic crap.



#364 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,294 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 06:10 AM

What’s in a name? Quite a lot, if the name is “Junk.” It’s difficult to love and respect buildings called Junk, especially when that reflects only a brief part — the low-point — of their 160 years of history.

 

Most of us, if we invested in an important waterfront property, would probably plan at least to re-brand any old buildings that we inherited, especially if they carried that ignominious tag. How can one proudly promote such a place?

 
 
 


#365 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 06:59 AM

Calling them Junk Buildings is a bit like referring to Craigdarroch Castle as Craigdarroch Military Hospital, which it was for a while. Or referring to the Parthenon in Athens as the Ottoman Gunpowder Store, which it briefly was.

 

 

Yet today we refer to the Janion Hotel even though the connection to Mr. Janion is tenuous and the hotel only operated for a couple of years.



#366 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 11:59 AM

 

Yet today we refer to the Janion Hotel even though the connection to Mr. Janion is tenuous and the hotel only operated for a couple of years.

 

Are you talking about the Permanent Loan Building or the Bank of Toronto Building or the Toronto-Dominion Building?

 

If you like we can meet to discuss over beer at the City Lights Building on Swift Street, or on Government Street at the Bank of B.C. or the Bank of Montreal.

 

Just be warned, when I'm on Government Street I like to browse the bookshelves in the Royal Bank of Canada. And I can't resist buying some chocolate creams at Wilkerson's Jewellery.

 

Not convenient for you? We could meet up outside the Steamship Terminal or the wax museum. Or the Hotel Douglas or the Rialto.

 

Or by the Victoria Conservatory of Music. Or Nelson's music. Or the Pantages Theatre.

 

Or I can meet you by the Coronet.

 

Or by the Montreal Trust Building on Fort (the one with the big mosaic). Didn't you used to live in the Montreal Trust Building?

 

I just have to do some shopping at the HBC first.



#367 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 12:10 PM

 

Instead of trying to hide the buildings in amongst some alien towers, imaginative developers could seize the opportunity to celebrate that history...

 

This sort of deliberate misrepresentation just isn't funny anymore. No towers are currently proposed, and a review of past proposals will demonstrate that only ONE concept ever involved a tower (and a single short tower at that).

 

Suffice it to say, if 5- or 6-story buildings are towers then Victoria's old town is full of towers. And yet Victoria's old town ISN'T full of towers. The critics want to have things both ways.

 

The call for more imagination on the part of developers is really insulting to anyone who has any familiarity with this saga. The redevelopment proposals have been numerous and they've ranged wildly in architectural style, massing, and sheer size. You don't need to take my word for it. You can easily check the past concepts for yourself.

 

The myriad past concepts illustrate (literally) how misplaced these notions are about supposedly unimaginative NJ developers. Rather, it's the overly imaginative critics that have been the real problem. They continue to criticize monstrous redevelopment concepts that exist only in their minds.

 

I still haven't seen or heard anything that would lead me to believe the forces of eternal opposition have ever bothered to seriously consider any of the proposals to save those old buildings. After ~12 frickin' years! This entire saga has fully exposed the falseness at the core of "heritage preservation" politics in Victoria.

 


  • Nparker likes this

#368 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 12:13 PM

 

I just have to do some shopping at the HBC first.

 

But from there I could walk a few blocks down Douglas to meet you at the Eaton's Centre.



#369 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 12:16 PM

 

This entire saga has fully exposed the falseness at the core of "heritage preservation" politics in Victoria.

 

Just in case there was still a shred of doubt after the JSB saga...



#370 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 23 September 2020 - 04:35 PM

Too true Aastra. I am feeling just a bit hopeful. Of course after it is built I am sure it will be up for an award.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#371 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,294 posts

Posted 29 November 2020 - 06:12 AM

At the moment, two of the city’s oldest Gold Rush-era warehouses are threatened by massive enveloping modern additions that are not yet there. These proposals should go away.

https://www.timescol...t-is-1.24247092

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 November 2020 - 06:12 AM.


#372 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 29 November 2020 - 09:47 PM

Could the references to the Reid tower controversy possibly be any more inapplicable? We get it. Decades ago, somebody wanted to build a cluster of modern highrise towers right on the waterfront. What's the relevance to the current proposal to build a singular short lowrise building on top of Northern Junk?

 

Note how that long piece contains no mention of the many old buildings that once occupied the district only to be wiped out later and replaced with void. The preservation mission dedicates itself to preserving the altered cityscape while disregarding all opportunities to fill back in some of what was lost. The park right next door was created by wiping out some old buildings. We're supposed to believe wiping out buildings is no big deal -- we don't even need to mention it, it's so inconsequential -- but adding levels on top is an extremely big deal? Why not try regarding the additional levels on Northern Junk as the reallocation of the lost building space right next door? It's not nearly so terrifying a prospect if you think of it that way.

 

 

During the forthcoming public hearing, council will be under intense public scrutiny. A Vancouver-style approach to high-density-driven development has already transformed Victoria’s eastern skyline. Will it now envelop Old Town?

 

In the year 2020 we're saying 4-, 5-, and 6-story buildings in the old town = "a Vancouver-style approach"?

 

An observation by a VV forumer back in January, 2019:

 

 

For crying out loud, lowrise buildings with single-digit floor counts were supposed to be holy, back when nobody thought it would ever be viable to build them. But then the real estate situation changed in the 21st century and lowrise buildings became viable again, and what do you know? Lowrise buildings are now "threatening" in the same way that highrise buildings were threatening ~50 years ago.

 

An observation by a VV forumer back in August, 2018:

 

 

I really think the proverbial train might have gone off the rails at some point. Fifty years ago it was the new highrise towers that were the menace. Ten or fifteen years ago it was the new junior highrise buildings that were the menace. Today it's the new lowrise buildings with single-digit floor counts that are the menace


Edited by aastra, 29 November 2020 - 09:54 PM.


#373 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 03 December 2020 - 09:39 PM

Sidewalking Victoria's response

 

https://www.sidewalk...skyline-that-is


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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#374 Dexter

Dexter
  • Member
  • 606 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 08:38 AM

This is kinda ludicrous imo

https://www.timescol...laza-1.24257940
  • aastra likes this

#375 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 08:40 AM

There's always a solution that involves spending taxpayer money.



#376 Jackerbie

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

Posted 21 December 2020 - 08:57 AM

This is kinda ludicrous imo

https://www.timescol...laza-1.24257940

 

The suggestion of offering bonus density on the Capital Iron site would be plausible if we couldn't already anticipate the battle that will happen over there. Sure, give Reliance extra density and then claw it back due to height, massing, and heritage concerns!


  • aastra, Nparker, AllseeingEye and 2 others like this

#377 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 09:58 AM

That article is a classic example of the insincere lip service that taints supposed "heritage preservation" in Victoria.


  • Nparker, Greg, Dexter and 1 other like this

#378 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 10:00 AM

I've noted many times how the recent anti-restoration commentary and the old 1970s plan to turn the NJ area into a park have seemed to indicate a distaste for reviving the buildings.


  • Nparker likes this

#379 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 10:04 AM

The Inner Harbour is a visual treasure that should not be walled off. Viewscapes are a vital part of our heritage, too.

 

Are we supposed to believe Mr. Wheelock doesn't know that the present "viewscapes" along Wharf Street were created in modern times by demolishing some of Victoria's oldest heritage buildings?


  • Nparker likes this

#380 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 10:15 AM

The official "celebration" of the city's historic built form is always erosive, it's never additive. If a dozen old buildings were knocked down to create a modern open space or a parking lot or whatever, that open space is nevertheless the heritage that should be preserved. The lost buildings are irrelevant. Nobody even MENTIONS them, as if they never existed in the first place.

 

Folks, heritage preservation in Victoria is political. How many times does it need to be exposed? When have you ever heard supposed preservationists calling for the restoration of the lost district at the intersection of Yates/Wharf/Johnson? When have you ever heard supposed preservationists calling for taller or grander modern buildings along Douglas, to fill back in some of what was lost?


  • Nparker likes this

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