138 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

“Construction fatigue” was raised as an issue for the immediate area. There has been just one building built in that immediate area in recent years, that being the Jukebox. But there certainly will be a lot going on soon across the street, and including this project, there are three residential buildings planned (one of which is already approved) for the block of the application.

[Nparker]

 

“Construction fatigue” was raised as an issue for the immediate area...

When one chooses (and that's the key word here) to live in the downtown core of a city, this is something you have to accept. If you don't like it, live somewhere rural, where almost nothing ever changes.

[Nparker]

 

there certainly will be a lot going on soon across the street,

I can't even begin to imagine how the DRA will eviscerate the Harris Green proposal. 

[Kapten Kapsell]

The minutes from February's ADP were finally posted online.  This project was unanimously panned:

 

Panel members discussed:•appreciation for the detail and effort put into integrating the street and raised balconies •appreciation for the rain garden on View street•concern for a lack of open public space•disappointment in not utilizing roof space•appreciation for the unique amenities that are provided •lack of concept, configuration and design are confusing•lack of storage and parking •lack of urban agriculture•concern with lot coverage being too high at 87%•need for pedestrian experience •lack of commercial space •how the design is not in keeping with Greater Victoria.

 

Motion:It was moved by Pamela Madoff, seconded by Jason Niles, that the Development Permit with Variances Application No. 00133 for 1124 Vancouver Street, 941 and 953 View Streetdoes not sufficiently meet the applicable design guidelines and polices and should be declined as presented with consideration for:•built form, massing and building separation •façade articulation and finishes•the raised residential entrances and activation of the public realm•livability of units•the overall programing of the amenity space, with a need for quality spaces. Carried Unanimously.

[Rob Randall]

lack of urban agriculture

 

 

wut

[Nparker]

 

the design is not in keeping with Greater Victoria

What does this mean? "Greater" Victoria has some sort of signature design? 

[Rob Randall]

I can only guess that they mean any new building should have a mix of quasi-public space and adequate green space/landscaping and if that comes in the form of urban agriculture, all the better. 

 

Recall there have been recent concepts with vertical urban gardens, herbs, berries and such. It's feasible but I'm not sure this is what ADP is getting at. That's the problem with a long meeting summarized in terse bullet points.

[DougG]

Good grief. You could stack construction waste in this spot and it would be a major improvement to what's there now. 

[Rob Randall]

Is there a site plan? Is there a mid-block walkway between Fort and View? Is this the lot immediately adjacent to View Towers?

[spanky123]

Is there a site plan? Is there a mid-block walkway between Fort and View? Is this the lot immediately adjacent to View Towers?

It is the old bottle depot site on Vancouver. Home to some tech companies now.

[Mike K.]

937 View would be the proposal next to VT.

[Rob Randall]

Oh OK, I was confused by all those street numbers.

 

Alright then, any significant green space or quasi-public space should be co-ordinated as part of a larger plan since two of the other corners of this intersection are also up for redevelopment. What's the overall plan, then. 

 

How would the open space mesh with the new London Drugs block concept? How about the 937 View project? That will likely have a mid-block walkway.

[Victoria Watcher]

quasi-public space is no longer a desirable feature downtown for private property owners.  

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 28 July 2020 - 06:38 AM.

[Mike K.]

No, it isn’t. Residents within the buildings don’t want them, and condo owners don’t want the unknowns of having to maintain them, while insurers are raising their own concerns.

The public space and pathways experiment of the 90s and into the 2010s has ground to a sudden halt.

[Jackerbie]

No, it isn’t. Residents within the buildings don’t want them, and condo owners don’t want the unknowns of having to maintain them, while insurers are raising their own concerns.

The public space and pathways experiment of the 90s and into the 2010s has ground to a sudden halt.

 

In Victoria, maybe. Pedestrian paths, public spaces, and even full roads are still being built on statutory rights-of-way here in Richmond. The redevelopment of Richmond Centre was just approved two weeks ago, and it includes two new roads, two road extensions, a public walkway through the building (with open hours based on the Skytrain schedule not operation of the mall), and a public plaza all on private property and maintained by the owner. We're doing the same thing with some wholly residential developments elsewhere in Richmond, so it's not isolated to cases with a commercial property owner.

[Mike K.]

Yes, and there are examples here as well (Capital Park, Dockside), but nobody wants mid-block walkways or hidden nooks and crannies anymore which have become enforcement liabilities.

It’s shocking what a few years have done. It really is.

[Casual Kev]

The most recent example of a walkaway bombing is the one built next to the Yello on Yates, connecting Yates with View between Douglas/Blanshard. It was supposed to be open during the day but it's now closed permanently. The walkway led directly into the patios of ground floor apartments so it was bound to fail. 

 

It wouldn't have been a bad idea if the walkaway was surrounded by commercial or a podium, though.

[scotto203]

Yes, and there are examples here as well (Capital Park, Dockside), but nobody wants mid-block walkways or hidden nooks and crannies anymore which have become enforcement liabilities.
It’s shocking what a few years have done. It really is.

I've experienced this firsthand with the Yello on Yates walkway that runs between Yates and View. The resident managers have had to deal with various issues due to it being open to the public during the day.

The gates have stayed closed at all hours since the pandemic started, but even then, a week or so ago some people managed to sneak in and were camped out in the walkway. They proceeded to scream and verbally abuse the manager when they were asked to leave.

[scotto203]

The most recent example of a walkaway bombing is the one built next to the Yello on Yates, connecting Yates with View between Douglas/Blanshard. It was supposed to be open during the day but it's now closed permanently. The walkway led directly into the patios of ground floor apartments so it was bound to fail. 
 
It wouldn't have been a bad idea if the walkaway was surrounded by commercial or a podium, though.

You beat me by 10 minutes

[RustyNail]

The most recent example of a walkaway bombing is the one built next to the Yello on Yates, connecting Yates with View between Douglas/Blanshard. It was supposed to be open during the day but it's now closed permanently. The walkway led directly into the patios of ground floor apartments so it was bound to fail.

It wouldn't have been a bad idea if the walkaway was surrounded by commercial or a podium, though.

I believe the Yates on Yates and Vivid at the Yates are also supposed to have a mid block walkway spanning Johnson to Yates. There will also be townhouses with patios fronting on to that walkway.

Given the building that is just across the street from Vivid at the Yates, I have a feeling that this mid block walkway isn't going to be open for too long.