Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
1314-1324 Wharf Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1314-1324 Wharf Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 6
1314-1324 Wharf Street is a proposal to build a 47-unit, six-storey mixed-use rental complex with ground floor... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1314-1324 Wharf Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown] 1314-1324 Wharf Street / Northern Junk | Rentals; retail | 6-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#21 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 09 April 2019 - 03:47 PM

For the revisionists who like to think authentic "old town" waterfront access is all about parking lots and green space...


  • Nparker likes this

#22 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,491 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 09 April 2019 - 04:00 PM

^ Those boats certainly appear parked to me


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#23 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 09 April 2019 - 04:50 PM

True, but they're also blocking the view. Modern boats aren't supposed to do that.



#24 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,206 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:26 AM

Crystal Court had more but most were internal studies never officially submitted. This project likely had the most official distinct applications although Cap 6 parking lot was up there too.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#25 Jared

Jared
  • Member
  • 77 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:14 AM

The Citified article makes it sound like the Downtown Residents Association is at least as much to blame as the previous council - is that a reasonable assessment?



#26 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:51 AM

All of the usual suspects are to blame. It's the same old script. Back in April, 2010 a wise SOB on the interwebs said the following:

 

 

You're expecting a negative fuss about this project? Wouldn't such a fuss confirm that Victoria has plunged into a mire of outrageous hypocrisy worthy of the end times?

 

At this point I'm 98% convinced that the usual suspects couldn't alter course even if they were willing to. It's like they're under a spell or something.



#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 09:14 AM

People claim that they care about heritage and history and yet they work hard to drag out the restoration and revitalization of some decrepit 1860s buildings for at least another ten years. So how would those same people have conducted themselves if they absolutely despised heritage and history? What more harm could they do?

 

It's like the tree thing. Tree lovers cut down trees, everybody knows that. So what do tree haters do? Tree haters also cut down trees.


  • Jared, jonny and DavidSchell like this

#28 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,540 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 11:12 AM

The Citified article makes it sound like the Downtown Residents Association is at least as much to blame as the previous council - is that a reasonable assessment?

 

The DRA issued a letter to council objecting to the handling of the development's footprint and general concerns about development in the downtown core. Their response to council appeared to have blindsided the developer who at the time stated “The [Downtown Residents Association] came in with a late letter (non-support) inconsistent with the meeting we had with them (support)."

 

So Reliance pulled its application, knowing that without the DRA's support they'd likely have to commit to further consultation. And that was back in October ahead of the municipal election. Since the election Reliance has found that forces at play within the City are not particularly enthusiastic about the sale of the excess bridge lands.


  • jonny and DavidSchell like this

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


#29 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,671 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 11:26 AM

...Since the election Reliance has found that forces at play within the City are not particularly enthusiastic about the sale of the excess bridge lands.

What logical reason does the CoV have for holding onto the excess bridge lands adjacent to the NJ site?

Capture1.JPG

Capture2.JPG

Have citizens been crying out loud for more green space near Reeson Park? Are those 10 parking spots in "Bridgehead Green" vital to the future of Victoria?

Without the city-owned land I really can't see how this project is viable. Reliance has my deepest sympathies for what the CoV has put them through over this proposal.


  • Jared likes this

#30 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,671 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 07:38 AM

Here it is folks.

NJ.jpg

 

I can't see heritage advocates being too happy about the "adaptive re-use" of the Northern Junk buildings.

 


  • victorian likes this

#31 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 08:24 AM

There are no heritage advocates in Victoria so no need to worry about that. This Northern Junk saga demonstrated the fact even more undeniably than the JSB fiasco did.


  • Greg and jonny like this

#32 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,671 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 08:30 AM

While there may be no honest heritage advocates in the CoV, I can't believe retrofitting these structures is going to go unchallenged by those who claim to support heritage causes.



#33 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 08:38 AM

That'd be a really nice building on Quadra St. 


  • tedward likes this

#34 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,671 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 08:42 AM

I am just relieved this latest proposal maintains the beautiful, historic open space along Wharf Street the public has craved since it was created in the 1950s.


  • victorian likes this

#35 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 08:50 AM

Reliance should just put up some mobile homes in the shape of a middle finger, call it "modular housing" and go back to Van. 


  • Nparker and AllseeingEye like this

#36 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:43 AM

The building itself is actually pretty good. To my eye it's in the same extended family as Mermaid Wharf and the Janion, but still its own thing. But obviously the old buildings are lost in the midst of it now, whereas they were celebrated in all of the prior versions (the versions that the heritage advocates criticized so heavily). It's hard to tell from that one image what the waterfront side would be like, but (again) it was excellent in all of the prior versions so I suspect that it's gone backward some.

I just don't know how the usual suspects can look in the mirror. What a debacle. And yet the average bozo will have no idea what could have been, if only the various players had dared to put down their musty old script...


  • Nparker, Jared, jonny and 1 other like this

#37 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 3,422 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:45 AM

If this happens what will happen to the city owned land there?  Just sit unused?  Throw up some benches or something?



#38 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:47 AM

Useless, awkward, no benefit for anyone... but still requiring maintenance. A big victory for "open space" advocates.


  • Nparker and jonny like this

#39 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:48 AM

I'm in a bad mood. Obviously it's possible that something worthwhile could end up there. But I won't be holding my breath.



#40 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:58 AM

I could suggest putting some oak trees there but somebody would surely lecture me about their inappropriateness, how they use too much water, how they get stressed in the south island's environment, etc.


  • jonny 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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users