42 replies to this topic

[downtownlurker]

Right. And it was likely pushed to only the Quadra side to give the rest of the block a chance for another tower. Maybe Townline also owns that 

 

They do not. The Insurance business in the lot beside this site, at 830 Pandora, bordering Amelia street, own the land and building. I'm not sure about the little 2 storey building in the back at Amelia and Mason though.

[Mike K.]

Has council reviewed the proposal yet?

[Mike K.]

Approved 7-2, proceeding without a public hearing!

[Nparker]

Except that it should be taller, this is one time that I agree that no additional public input is likely needed.

[Victoria Watcher]

The third attempt proved to be the charm for developer Townline Homes, as Victoria council Thursday approved re-submitted plans to redevelop the northwest corner of the intersection of Quadra Street and Pandora Avenue with a 20-storey tower.

 

Townline, the developer behind the Hudson project, has cleared the first council hurdle toward establishing the mixed-use project, which includes 197 rental units and just over 7,000 square feet of commercial space on the site of 854, 858 and 880 Pandora Ave.

 

The site is currently home to low-rise commercial buildings.

 

The tower would be set back from a three-storey structure with retail units on the ground floor facing Pandora Avenue. and Quadra Street. The project also includes townhouses that face Mason Street.

 

The latest revision of the project increases the height of the tower from 14 storeys and the number of residential rental units from 137.

 

Council voted 7-2 to move forward with the project, which was previously submitted in March and then May.

 

Only councillors Chris Coleman and Marg Gardiner voted against the project, saying they wanted a public hearing on the proposal.

 

Both say they support the project, but thought the public should have a say.

 

“Large projects should go through a public hearing, and this is one of them,” said Gardiner.

 

 

https://www.timescol...-quadra-7778262

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 November 2023 - 05:08 AM.

[Mike K.]

Wait, what?

20-storey tower? I guess we missed that change!

Is this the first time a 13 storey proposal becomes a 20 storey proposal, and gets a rapid thumbs up from council? Wowzers.

[Nparker]

OK now the new renderings make sense. The increased height is sensible in this location. Just get it built.

[Mike K.]

So strange. The document on the dev tracker shows a design for 13 storeys, but with exterior schematics for 20 storeys.

 

The density uplift secured was 2.0 to 6.12:1.

[Mike K.]

The third attempt proved to be the charm for developer Townline Homes...

 

 

 

I also don't understand this. Third attempt at what? This was their first appearance before CoTW, and the project got approved.

 

What a strange application. It's historic, in that it shifted from 13 floors to 20, and secured approvals without a rezoning. But the TC says it was in its third run before council?

[HarrisonGreene]

That's 197 more people who will experience daily the mess on 900 Pandora, some of whom will surely pressure council to do something about it. It's a win in my book.

[Nparker]

...some of whom will surely pressure council to do something about it...

Good luck with that. I have been messaging the CoV about this matter for years and the situation is often worse now than ever. Improvements to Pandora will only come with changes in government at the federal, provincial and municipal level.

 

That being said, I still support this development, especially with the increased height.

[Nparker]

...I wouldn't want the Mason Street side to look like a "back" side as if the street was just a service alley. I don't know what they're planning to do on that side but I think it's a pretty unique little block...

It looks pretty good to me.

It's definitely an improvement over the current south side of Mason Street today.

[Nparker]

From the CoV Development Tracker documents.

[Victoria Watcher]

Suddenly the south water views from the Abbey project just got a lot worse.

[aastra]

I think those townhouses are the right idea but the design would seem to be too blah. Methinks even a token effort to give them a bit of panache could go a long way.

 

I can't say I'm a huge fan of this project. For one thing, that would seem to be a ton of commercial space. Do they already have a large tenant lined up? If not, aren't we making the same mistake all over again, and perhaps in one of the worst possible spots? And wouldn't we expect those large ground-level windows to be covered over, anyway? As per so many other examples around downtown?

 

The tower itself would seem to be following the example of HP2, whereby the CoV is now eager to approve fairly bland/plain residential towers of exceptional height even though the CoV had always fought against (and still does fight against, in some cases) sharp-looking residential towers of unexceptional height.

 

I'm not saying it's a bad building. It's another one of those projects that I would probably be cheering for it was on a different site. But I have a feeling this project and the one at Fisgard should motivate talented local photographers to thoroughly document some of the other small buildings along Quadra there and maybe along Pandora, too.

Of all the areas where the CoV would be ringing the dinner bell for developers, this area just seems like an odd choice to me. In a short time this part of downtown has evolved from "good luck getting anything new built, because we're going to pin you to the wall to make sure new construction is A) short and B) sensitive to its surroundings" to our enlightened present attitude re: "the sky is the limit".

[Victoria Watcher]

I think the OCP probably calls for commercial at ground so they just went with it.

So if it’s so easy to get a building approved now, and the result is a quality project, why did we do struggle sessions for the past 40 years, when the result is the same?

[aastra]

 

...why did we do struggle sessions for the past 40 years...

 

This is my point. Politics today will pound something into people, but politics tomorrow will yank the rug out from under them.

But I'm also noting the fact that many of the struggle sessions* of the past (including the recent past) involved struggling against buildings that were better looking than the current crop. Thus, we fought valiantly against really good things for a long time until the day we suddenly decided not-quite-as-good things were just fine.

 

*not to be confused with the struggle sessions by Tinto Rocks

[Victoria Watcher]

Wait until you see my Tinto Rocks 4/plex Collection.

[Nparker]

Part of the issue as I see it today, is a direct result of underbuilding the downtown core for much of the past 30 years. Each project over 4 floors was scrutinized to death, resulting in less density than there should have been. Every OCP that stipulated 10 floors constituted a Vancouveresque skyscraper and every time "someone" bemoaned their loss of the view of the Sooke hills as they drove around in their car, is why we are getting much taller towers proposed - and approved - now.

[GaryOak]

I think this building will be a part of gentrifying the "blight" away. Seems to be working decently in the rock by neighborhood South of Pembroke, that's where it used to be able to go to find the hookers.