652 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...The other iterations were too bulky in my opinion, and would have seriously diminished the aesthetics of the entrance to the bridge....

Because bridges - especially those in the heart of urban environments - require vast stretches of empty space on all sides to enhance their aesthetics.

[Mike K.]

And a connection that hooks up the Foster Walkway will be great to have.

The City has recently admitted it has no money, no tangible plan and no timelines to actually connect the DFHP to anything. In fact, with the City pulling back its desire for Reliance to buy its bridge lands there will be a gaping hole in the pathway between the Northern Junk and the bridge.

[Brantastic]

I mean, completion of the building's construction would still be a few years away. The walkway provided by this development is still a ways into the future so I'm sure they can manage to construct a plan for a small segment of pathway within a few years...

[Nparker]

The City has recently admitted it has no money, no tangible plan and no timelines to actually connect the DFHP to anything. In fact, with the City pulling back its desire for Reliance to buy its bridge lands there will be a gaping hole in the pathway between the Northern Junk and the bridge.

So by excluding the "Bridgehead Green" space from the NJ redevelopment, not only will this useless strip of land forever remain a reminder of the clear-cutting, heritage-destroying mistakes of the past, it also reduces the CoV revenue needed to invigorate the useless "public space" that has been built into the new JSB design.

[Mike K.]

I mean, completion of the building's construction would still be a few years away. The walkway provided by this development is still a ways into the future so I'm sure they can manage to construct a plan for a small segment of pathway within a few years...

 

This is the CoV we're talking about 

[Jackerbie]

New rezoning application with the drawings on the Dev Tracker: https://tender.victo...Number=REZ00701

Edited by Jackerbie, 24 June 2019 - 09:34 AM.

[Sparky]

^ Thanks for that. There are some VERY interesting pictures and stories of yesteryear in the Conversation Plans included in the link above.

 

Well worth a read.

[Nparker]

Even the developer admits this is no longer a landmark structure.

As for the potential of future development of the adjacent city-owned lands I simply refer readers to the Wharf Street parking lots as evidence of the CoV's concern for its waterfront properties.

[victorian]

Here it is folks.

NJ.jpg

 

 

Finally, an attractive design with high-quality materials at a nice height. I like it. It's unfortunate that it isn't larger - expanded onto city lands, not higher - but it's at least much more attractive than the previous iterations. Previous designs had some good features (like Wharf frontage), but overall, this is a much more appealing building, IMHO. Especially at a prominent location. It's too bad the developer took a decade to respond to the city's and resident's interests, but I guess the wait was worth it.

Edited by victorian, 26 July 2019 - 11:07 AM.

[Nparker]

... it's at least much more attractive than the previous iterations...

In your opinion.

[AllseeingEye]

Alas Victoria doesn't do 'signature' architecture - its far too small town conservative for that. So more often that not we get stuck with "safe", aka generally dull and uninteresting for the most part. Too bad because this one had just huge potential but naturally,,,the NIMBY element stuck its oar in and, overall, trashed and made it so much less than its potential.......

[victorian]

In your opinion.

 

Obviously. I posted it. Who else's would it be? I don't think it was unclear, and should go without saying.

[victorian]

Alas Victoria doesn't do 'signature' architecture - its far too small town conservative for that. So more often that not we get stuck with "safe", aka generally dull and uninteresting for the most part. Too bad because this one had just huge potential but naturally,,,the NIMBY element stuck its oar in and, overall, trashed and made it so much less than its potential.......

 

That's interesting, because I think there's a bunch of signature architecture in Victoria right now. I'm not an architect or anything, so maybe there's a technical definition for signature buildings, but I think developers are working way to hard at being funky (Yello, Jukebox, Black and White, 1400 Vancouver, etc) instead of classic and timeliness styles. I think many of the buildings being built now will look dated very quickly, just as modernist buildings did. Just my two cents as a non-expert.

[jstovell]

Just an update for VV that the Heritage Advisory Panel rejected the latest Northern Junk application choosing to support instead the continuation of 41 years of boarded up vacancy and decay.  We will continue to the Advisory Design Panel and then on to Council.

[Victoria Watcher]

no surprise really.

[Sparky]

Thanks for the update Jon. Hang in there.

[G-Man]

What? Was a reason provided?

[Mike K.]

Thanks, Jon. What a shame.

[jstovell]

Reason - Does not comply with guidelines for a roof top addition. 

[GaryOak]

Since this is an advisory panel there is a chance it may still get approved