1571 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

I understand the illustrations are just massing studies but I wish they were more aspirational. For instance, the original rough sketches for The Hudson towers and the Radius project were aspirational. They showed the dynamic vision of what the were aiming for even if the end product was inevitably watered down. 

[Nparker]

Perhaps the developer doesn't want to set high expectations that will be, as you say, watered down.

[Nparker]

You gotta love this:

...resident of Regent Towers...says he likes what he sees but the architecture is all "boxes" right up to the edge of the sidewalk...

Not exactly a surprising comment from a resident of a suburban-style project that was built in the middle of a city's downtown core. The Regent buildings are the anomaly here, not this proposal. I say welcome to proper urban built form.

[Mike K.]

Is this the newest residential/commercial building slated for demolition? I don't think it's even 25 years old.

It went up in the early 00s, circa 2002-2004?

[Nparker]

Sadly it was built way under scale. It will be no architectural loss.

[Mike K.]

Initially it was envisioned for a 13-storey Tower before the four-storey build went up.

[Nparker]

Yes I seem to recall that.

[Kapten Kapsell]

TC article on development: https://www.timescol...hood-1.24027923

[SamCB]

^Can we start calling out TC for this faux-outrage type of reporting pretending to be neutral? It's akin to Fox news for NIMBYs. It's so clear they write these articles in order to make residents angry about the change.

 

Look at the details they focus on. Bolding mine:

 

...Harris Green neighbourhood will be completely changed if a Toronto-based developer’s plans get the green light next year.

 

 

over the last few years pieced together land parcels in the 900 and 1000-blocks of Yates and View streets, intends to tear down all of the existing commercial buildings to make way for a massive mixed-use project that will include residential towers, more than 100,000 square feet of commercial buildings and green space.

 

-how many parcels were clandestinely cobbled together during this period of secret acquisition leading up to this master plan to destroy the character of Victoria? 

-interesting they choose to omit the 1500 new residential rental units in the 2nd paragraph (and any discussion on the impact this will have on the housing crisis), and instead emphasize the massive commercial and retail components.

 

[Nparker]

The TC is barely a step above the National Enquirer at this point.

[Mike K.]

100,000 square feet doesn't sound all that massive to me. That's two Thrifty Foods.

[shoeflack]

^Ummm...ok. I love to bash the TC as much as the next guy, but all of that bolded content is factual material. Sure, I'll give you that maybe there was no need for the "massive" comment (though for Victoria standard, it is), but the company is Toronto-based (that's relevant info for a lot of people, just like saying Victoria-based or Vancouver-based is), and they did "piece together" the various parcels to get this to the point where they could undertake a project of this scope.

 

Are you going to rip Mike, too? His development articles are some of the best out there and he has used "Toronto-based" to introduce Starlight. Sorry, just don't see the issue with this particular TC complaint.

[Mike K.]

But yes, the reporting is unnecessarily controversial. These are two city blocks that we're talking about. Redeveloping them will be more complex and a more comprehensive undertaking than redeveloping a quarter of a block, so by comparison it will be a larger project but it's right on par with the rest of downtown development save for the 22 and 25-storey towers.

 

But we all know heights are on the rise and this is to be expected. In the 2030s 30+ storey buildings will be normal just like 20+ storey buildings are normal in the 2010s.

[Mike K.]

Are you going to rip Mike, too? His development articles are some of the best out there and he has used "Toronto-based" to introduce Starlight. Sorry, just don't see the issue with this particular TC complaint.

 

Oh hey, that's a nice thing to say 

[Nparker]

The alarmist slant to the TC's reporting cannot be ignored. It's click bait.

[Mike K.]

When you compare the size of this undertaking to Dockside Green, or Bayview, or Hudson District, it's not such a big deal. In fact you could say Victorians should be used to multi-acre developments by now with so many underway (including Railyards, Capital Park and completed ones like Selkirk Waterfront).

[Nparker]

But if Victorians get used to development projects on this scale, aren't we just Vancouverites who use umbrellas less? Surely we will lose our "charm" and tourists will avoid our region like the plague. Won't somebody please think about the children!

[Mike K.]

Reading through Andrew Duffy's piece the coverage could have been far, far more dramatic and sky-is-actively-falling. Compared to the treatment Chard Development and UVic got over their hotel proposal the piece reads like an account of a standing ovation.

 

We also learn that the four-storey rental on View at Vancouver was completed circa 2000 when Frontrunners moved in.

[Mike K.]

But if Victorians get used to development projects on this scale, aren't we just Vancouverites who use umbrellas less? Surely we will lose our "charm" and tourists will avoid our region like the plague. Won't somebody please think about the children!

 

We're literally the Little City with Massive Projects but every such project has to be shaped as the massive project, despite the fact that so much that's happening is massive.

 

In any case, like I said, the TC did a decent job here. It could have been far worse.

[Nparker]

...Compared to the treatment Chard Development and UVic got over their hotel proposal the piece reads like an account of a standing ovation...

True enough. Regarding the Ducks proposal it almost feels like the TC has some sort of monopoly on pitchforks and torches and are riling up the masses for a Boxing Day blitz.