178 replies to this topic

[A Girl is No one]

I just hope it gets built at all. It seems like a risky time to be proposing a large hotel project. Then again, post-plague, Victoria may again be a desirable tourist destination. And there are certainly fewer short-term accommodation rooms in the city now than there used to be.

This one will definitely get Ben's blood boiling, so that's a plus right there.

Well it might get his blood boiling because it’s new competition against his suite at the Parkside.

[Mike K.]

Here is an updated rendering.

 

 

Attached Images

• 

[Jackerbie]

This one went to ADP today. Staff report and drawings here: https://www.victoria...t Blanshard.pdf

 

[Kapten Kapsell]

DRA is concerned about this proposal following the CALUC meeting- they have posted a letter here: https://victoriadra....-WG-–-FINAL.pdf

[Nparker]

The DRA doesn't like it. Shocking!

[Rob Randall]

An effective FSR of 9.13:1 which is far denser than the current record holder which I believe is the venerable Belmont Building at around 7:1. 

 

And right next to the island's finest cathedral. I'm not trying to shoot it down, just saying it's a hell of a bold ask.

[Victoria Watcher]

how does its density size or shape or form negatively affect the cathedral?

if it does, then in what negative ways would people feel this effect? either citizens or church members or users?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 February 2021 - 12:36 PM.

[Rob Randall]

I think there's a consensus that landmarks like important spires benefit when there's a little breathing space around them. In being able to see them from different angles from further away as opposed to being blocked in and invisible. If you visited two identical cities the one where you could see the spire would offer a better pedestrian experience. But it's hard to justify this to an accountant.

[Victoria Watcher]

i didn’t ask how the building would benefit. I was asking about the people.

how will be seeing it from further away and different angles benefit people? less walking? less eye strain?

shorter walking tours or more sights on tours?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 February 2021 - 12:50 PM.

[Rob Randall]

I can't casually explain. You get it or you don't.

[Victoria Watcher]

I can't casually explain. You get it or you don't.

 

or it defies logic or has no legitimate rationale in this case.  it's not like the cathedral is admired by thousands picnicking in a nearby park each day.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 February 2021 - 01:07 PM.

[Nparker]

...If you visited two identical cities the one where you could see the spire would offer a better pedestrian experience....

I suppose this might be true for some people. Personally, as a pedestrian, I'd just as soon be able to see a well-designed modern high rise as a cathedral spire.

[AllseeingEye]

Always wondered how it is that truly world class cities like London, Chicago, Toronto - all of which are much older and "historic" than Victoria could ever be in its wildest dreams - have no problem building modern and tall buildings directly adjacent to historic cathedrals in many cases but "nope" it can't be done here. It seems that whether its commuter ferries, new bridges (thinking of the floating bridge over Saanich Inlet proposal here), integrated regional transportation plans or - especially taller modern architecture - other places all over the globe manage these things just fine but "somehow" it just isn't possible here apparently.....

[Rob Randall]

^Of course it's possible. Would you advocate blowing up the cathedral and replacing it with a sleek, modern, world-class tower?

[Victoria Watcher]

^Of course it's possible. Would you advocate blowing up the cathedral and replacing it with a sleek, modern, world-class tower?

 

sure.  if the owner wants to do that.

[RustyNail]

^Of course it's possible. Would you advocate blowing up the cathedral and replacing it with a sleek, modern, world-class tower?

Don't think he made any such suggestion.

I'm with him though. I've been to large cities and see large buildings right next to historic sites all the time. I see no issues with us putting this building up in Victoria.

[AllseeingEye]

^Of course it's possible. Would you advocate blowing up the cathedral and replacing it with a sleek, modern, world-class tower?

 

 

Yes of course because that is "obviously" what I suggested. Are you being deliberately obtuse? If you can't refrain from putting words in someone else's mouth to support your own ridiculous response I suggest you refrain from commenting.

[Rob Randall]

Yes of course because that is "obviously" what I suggested. Are you being deliberately obtuse? If you can't refrain from putting words in someone else's mouth to support your own ridiculous response I suggest you refrain from commenting.

 

No need to get excited. I'm just pointing out that heritage has a tangible value that can be enhanced or diminished by what surrounds it. The only debate is how far we go to preserve it at the expense of other structures. We're all against removing the cathedral, whether by destruction or by enclosure (imagine taller structures surrounding it on all four sides). But how far do we go?

 

Let's have that discussion--what is the value of that spire as a key element of the skyline and the pedestrian realm?

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 February 2021 - 02:07 PM.

[Nparker]

Here are several different pedestrian vantage points from which this proposal will not affect the view of the Cathedral spire.

 

I am sure there are others. I should also add that the Cathedral is barely visible now from downtown's busiest pedestrian thoroughfare, Douglas Street.

[Rob Randall]

^And that might be just fine. You may recall I laughed at the concerns the Juliet tower would overshadow the Synagogue.