63 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

This pre-app is now up on Development Tracker:

[Victoria Watcher]

Oh my. Someone gonna faint.

(Pam Madoff).

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 March 2022 - 04:56 PM.

[Nparker]

I am sure Comrade Ben has already decided to vote against it.

[newbie_01]

It would be nice if the existing artwork on the building was retained.

[Citified.ca]

This is shaping up to be a great project for downtown Victoria.

 

 

Hotel and residential tower envisioned for Victoria's BC Power Commission heritage block

https://victoria.cit...heritage-block/

[Kapten Kapsell]

The DRA has  published a letter claiming that the meeting with Reliance didn't officially qualify as a CALUC meeting due to issues with the audio/video components of the presentation.  They also note that there is near unanimous opposition to the project in the correspondence received so far.

 

See https://www.victoria...lanshard-street

[Nparker]

The DRA ... also note that there is near unanimous opposition to the project in the correspondence received so far....

The DRA. "Misunderstanding downtown living for decades."

[Victoria Watcher]

Of course.

[James Bay walker]

Reliance is holding an OPEN HOUSE Wednesday June 1st, 5pm-7pm according to a flyer in (James Bay) mailbox, at 780 Blanshard Street [Level 3 - Former Commissioner's Office]. ((( will there be wine and cheese? kinda hopeful ))) "to review new plans related to the rezoning" reps on hand to answer questions and listen to your comments and ideas jbw

[jpereira]

Attached Notice which also will give the possibility to access the building and engage with interior features to be retained.

[Victoria Watcher]

Reliance Properties is looking for public input on its plans for a 77-room hotel and 102-unit residential tower on the site of what was once the B.C. Power Commission building on the fringes of downtown Victoria.

The Vancouver-based developer behind the reimagined Janion building on Store Street plans to hold an open house today to gauge public sentiment about preserving the four-storey art deco building at 780 Blanshard St. and adding an 18-storey residential tower on the site.

The building is currently home to several artists, who pay low rent for work space.



https://www.timescol...uilding-5429283

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 June 2022 - 05:42 AM.

[corvus]

Did anyone go to the meet and greet? Anything interesting there?

[Kapten Kapsell]

The DRA has released another letter expressing opposition to this project:  

 

https://www.victoria...on-for-rezoning

[downtownlurker]

The DRA has released another letter expressing opposition to this project:  

 

https://www.victoria...on-for-rezoning

 

Shocking!

[Nparker]

Why does the DRA hate downtown so much?

[Victoria Watcher]

The DRA LUC has concerns that the building does not conform to the heritage design guidelines. One example is that the addition to the existing heritage is supposed to be subordinate to the proposed building. That is certainly not the case, with the large tower on top of the existing heritage. It should be noted that due to little heritage conversion value derived from this project, it is the belief of the DRA LUC that it should still be subject to the inclusionary housing policy.

 

 

 

That's obviously not possible here. It's OK to have a tower come out of a heritage facade.

[aastra]

 

...the addition to the existing heritage is supposed to be subordinate to the proposed building

 

As a guiding principle it sounds okay. Until you consider all of those buildings downtown which have one or two modern levels on the roof, clad in the same bland dark grey panels. And until you also consider how major additions were handled back in the old days (hint: they were handled very differently than today).

 

But I get it. Ideally an addition would be an addition that doesn't eclipse the older building in a major way. But then again, there are going to be exceptions. Successive additions to the Empress Hotel didn't heed this principle. Era on Yates might be the most extreme example of the new being much more substantial than the old, and yet it still works. The Janion and the Customs House at Wharf & Government are probably more of a 50/50 deal, but I'd also offer them up as examples of great projects in which the new construction did not defer to the old, either in scale or style.

 

In this case I guess we're supposed to believe the DRA would be much happier if they were proposing only 3 or 4 additional stories on top of the old building? I'm not sure I'm able to swallow that. I suspect the complaint letter would be almost word for word the same...

 

I don't know how I feel about this one. I'd say the art deco building has a style and a footprint that could work well as the podium for a tower addition. The renderings seem to confirm this. It doesn't look clumsy like a lot of the towers on top of existing buildings that we're seeing in places like Toronto. The existing building would be relegated to functioning as a podium, for sure, but it's not as if the existing building would somehow disappear. As podiums go it would be so large you wouldn't even be aware of the tower from some approaches. For example, in that illustration which shows the people on the corner. Methinks the approach from the north would be a different story, however.

 

And then there's the precedent to consider. Is there any potential for this project to set a bad precedent? Are there any other sites where developers might try to plop a tall tower on top of an existing building and we'd all be up in arms about it?

[Nparker]

It's been 10 months since the DRA pooh-poohed this proposal. Any updates since then?

[Vin]

Is there a cloaking device to turn a new tower into matching sky and clouds? 

[Nparker]

Yes. Cover the entire exterior in mirrored glass.