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

#121 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 1,783 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 03:49 PM

You're right Jon. That gives you some heritage creds. There are many on this forum who would disagree with me, but I think your current iteration for the Wharf Street project is the best and most fitting. I really hope you succeed. Best of luck!


Don't be so sure.:cool:

#122 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 03:30 PM

Check out this prophetic old post of mine from the JSB thread. By August of 2010 we were already aware that something was coming down the pipe, but hard info about the proposal first appeared on VV in early October.

 

August 12, 2010:

 

Save the chains of protest for those precious surface parking lots. Things might seem quiet now but you just know that some slick scoundrel from afar will eventually appear flaunting a glossy proposal to replace a section of beloved, historic pavement with contemptible new homes and businesses. That's the moment when the noble "defenders of heritage" must -- and WILL -- rise again to do their glorious work!

They should be well rested, seeing as how they slept through the entire bridge-replacement saga.


  • Mike K., Rob Randall and Nparker like this

#123 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 03:43 PM

This latest rendition is the best yet..IMHO. I hate to see the lands to the North just left the way they are now, but the scale of this proposal is a better fit from a heritage fabric perspective. It would be great to see something like a library or art gallery on the lands to the North. This would be the gateway feature the City so needs. What bothers me most is that the heritage radicals just keep promoting a wait for the right proposal approach- meanwhile the City languishes with this dead and dangerous rotting corner.



#124 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,659 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 03:46 PM

 

It would be great to see something like a library or art gallery on the lands to the North

How big do you envision the city-owned land to be?



#125 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 04:16 PM

 

What bothers me most is that the heritage radicals just keep promoting a wait for the right proposal approach...

 

What bothers me most is that the heritage radicals have never seemed to be particularly concerned about Victoria's heritage or historic built form.

 

We've seen a long list of proposals for this site over the years. They've ranged widely in style, size, height... you name it. If somebody dismisses your work out of hand and says "it's all wrong -- go back to the drawing board" methinks you could be forgiven for believing they were sincere the first time, and maybe the second time, too. But several times in a row, and despite the radical revisions each time? Give me a break.


Edited by aastra, 08 October 2019 - 04:17 PM.


#126 jstovell

jstovell
  • Member
  • 72 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 07:21 PM

Update. Almost unanimous support from Advisory Design Panel. Heading to Council in November. 


  • Mike K. and Rob Randall like this

#127 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,659 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 08:20 PM

And here I was foolishly thinking these buildings should be restored in their own right, when in fact they are best used as foundations and mostly hidden under boxy additions.

I must say I am agreement with aastra regarding the CoV's bizarre relationship with heritage preservation.



#128 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:22 PM

How big do you envision the city-owned land to be?



#129 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:29 PM

I know exactly how big it is. Once you include the road closure it’s just over 30,000 square feet. Given the new art gallery is just shy of 50,000 sf, a four storey art gallery here would fit quite nicely.

#130 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:33 PM

And here I was foolishly thinking these buildings should be restored in their own right, when in fact they are best used as foundations and mostly hidden under boxy additions.

I must say I am agreement with aastra regarding the CoV's bizarre relationship with heritage preservation.



#131 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:40 PM

Why on earth would a developer ever restore the one storey northern junk buildings “in their own right”? Not only would this never be possible without the use of city land, but this wouldn’t even be good for the site. Without some form of roof top addition, Reeson park would never get the activation and passive surveillance it needs, and already getting folks to support businesses in this location has proved quite the challenge. Add to that the weird disney-fication of “old towny” just the way it was and we’d be doing well to proclaim the city as a definitive backwater.

#132 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,659 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 04:50 AM

Not incorporating the city lands is one of the worst parts of the current proposal.

#133 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 09:11 AM

 

Add to that the weird disney-fication of “old towny” just the way it was

 

"Just the way it was"? When has any Victorian ever cared about the way things were? There were buildings where the little park is now. There were buildings on the water side of Northern Junk. There were several buildings and entirely different street alignments along the east/northeast of Northern Junk, where there is now void.

 

That's one of the things I really liked about the optimized lowrise proposal from 2012 (or whenever, the dates are a blur now). It was paying some heed to the way the district actually was back in the day, before it was gutted and erased by modern auto-loving Victorians who had suddenly developed an irrational fear of their city's old urban form. Fully restoring the old scene would obviously be impossible, but methinks you'll never again see a singular small development proposal that "gets it" like that one did.


  • Nparker likes this

#134 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 09:14 AM

 

Not incorporating the city lands is one of the worst parts of the current proposal.

 

But not the developer's fault. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Obviously the exclusion of the city property hinders the project, and for no good reason. But I'd say the manner by which this most recent proposal tackles the challenge is what I like about it. It's a unique solution for these unique buildings on this unique site.

 

 

Update. Almost unanimous support from Advisory Design Panel.

 

So what changed?



#135 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,659 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 09:25 AM

...That's one of the things I really liked about the optimized lowrise proposal from 2012 (or whenever, the dates are a blur now). It was paying some heed to the way the district actually was back in the day, before it was gutted and erased by modern auto-loving Victorians who had suddenly developed an irrational fear of their city's old urban form...

And this is why I still think the 2012 proposal was the best one for this site.

But not the developer's fault. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Obviously the exclusion of the city property hinders the project, and for no good reason...

I agree, excluding the city-owned lands it is not the developer's fault, but since we'll never again get a chance to restore this site to what it once was, I am just mournful for the compromise that is being proposed.



#136 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 01:59 PM

I for one wasn’t keen on those previous proposals. All of them felt to me to be foreign to the fabric of old town for the simple reason of being monolithic. They seemed like one development (and of course they were) but of a uniformity that wasn’t consistent with old town. This is even despite all the graceful (uneconomical) articulations Merrick dreamed up. I like this proposal because it’s small, compact and seemingly constrained, just like the old buildings in old town BUT also modern. The building looks like they’ve tried everything else and now they simply need to do what makes the most sense and uses the land to its highest and best use. And in this they’ve pulled off a rather handsome building. To me, that seems authentic - and I know we all dread that word- but now the building is reflecting a story and I like that.

#137 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 02:46 PM

I agree 100% that the latest version has an authenticity to it. Like I say, I think that's because of the imposed constraints. It's a solution for the existing buildings, for the site footprint, and the constraints thereof. But I disagree that the 2012 version was monolithic. I'd say it demonstrated the most granularity by far of all the proposals before or since. It was like a mini district. The new construction (I really liked the version that was split down the middle), the two old buildings restored but maintaining their own individual identities, and also the new waterside townhouses which were starkly distinguished from the major part of the new construction and seemed to be their own thing. The walkway through the heart of everything and the various flights of stairs, decks, balconies, etc. really sealed the deal re: that micro district effect that I'm talking about.

 

Edit: No way in heck would this have seemed like some monolithic/singular development. It would have seemed like one (ideally two) new buildings situated behind three smaller waterfront buildings, with a pedestrian laneway between them.

 

post-96-0-53235600-1558735627.jpg


Edited by aastra, 09 October 2019 - 03:08 PM.

  • Rob Randall and Nparker like this

#138 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 03:00 PM

As I've said many times, I have a huge problem with this cuckoo bananas notion that the ideal way to preserve old buildings is by isolating them off on their own. We love this or that old building, which is why we knocked down every other building around it and surrounded it with green space and surface parking? Give me a break. It should be a top priority to re-integrate stuff like Northern Junk, the Janion, etc. back into the urban fabric as much as possible. These buildings aren't curios sitting on a shelf. It's very frustrating because the supposed defenders of Victoria's heritage can't seem to see the forest for the trees. What's the point in obsessing about minutiae if you completely overlook the value of streetscapes, districts, larger milieus, etc.?



#139 intheknow

intheknow
  • Member
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 03:34 PM

I would only agree that the site WILL be much better when another building gets built beside this most current proposal. But the above - to me looks like a slightly better rendition of the Bay centre (formerly Eaton's centre). This old version has that...I don't know, Catholic School vibe with Victoria Conference centre hipped roof accents, a touch of ol' towney faux lintels and in the ever successful institutional brown brick. This building would make a great addition to a town like Nanaimo (looks a bit like their conference centre)- but in Victoria the grain is much finer, specially in Old Town. This building looks like the same building, while well articulated, from every street viewpoint. It just looks so pedestrian and, frankly dated. So long as something gets built beside this latest rendition (which might be pie in the sky) I'd imagine all that stepping, decks, balconies, varying planes and accesses can all still be realized- and maybe in a civic building too. Wouldn't that be something.



#140 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,659 posts

Posted 09 October 2019 - 03:48 PM

I would only agree that the site WILL be much better when another building gets built beside this most current proposal...maybe...a civic building too. Wouldn't that be something.

It would be something alright; something that will probably never happen. Not selling the CoV property to the developer at this time is an extremely stupid move even for a city that specializes in stupid moves.


  • Greg 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