519 replies to this topic

[Zimquats]

I still say the skyline would be enhanced by leaving the existing building, and adding a bright pink neon flashing light, illuminating the Empress and Leg with the soft glow from "Tittie Shack" Westbank should open there....

[Zimquats]

Scale down plans for Crystal Court
Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

...

And second, be prepared to provide significant benefits to the city in return for any increase in the current height and density limits for the property. The developer proposes to provide $1.1 million in benefits to the city for zoning changes that would increase its sales by some $20 million.

....

I love how this person makes it sound like those $20M in sales are pure profit, as if it wouldn't cost any money to actual build the building.

[aastra]

Victoria's skyline, viewed from most directions, works because it has retained its distinctive character.
Interesting silhouettes -- the Bay Building, historic buildings in Old Town, the Empress -- are complemented,
not obscured, by newer, taller buildings.

I actually agree with most of this, but I come to a different conclusion with regards to potential development of
the Crystal Court site.

Here's a panorama of downtown by Scaper (apologies for the width):



When I look at this picture I see one of the most interesting skylines in Canada, hands down. It does contain
interesting silhouettes, tremendous variety, and lots of colour. And that's precisely why I appreciate newer
buildings like Corazon or the Juliet: because they complement what already exists, rather than obscure it. They
fit in.

Once again I make the case that we've already got a very interesting formula in Victoria with regards to
ongoing development of the cityscape. It's working. But we just don't seem to want to admit it to ourselves.

The newer buildings haven't detracted from the uniqueness at all, not by one iota. Rather, Victoria is looking more
and more like Victoria with every new building that comes along. You couldn't confuse Victoria with any other city
in Canada. No chance. That's precisely what I love about it.

An attractive building on the Crystal Court site would be a terrific complement to the Empress and to the cityscape.
It's behind the Empress. How can it obscure anything??

[Ms. B. Havin]

I agree with your conclusions, aastra, but that fabulous photo of the skyline by Scaper is a-typical.

I'm in favour of making the skyline more of what this photo allows us to see, but that angle isn't typical. From what roof of what building (or what hilltop/ mountain top) was Scaper taking this picture from? And what sort of compression did the zoom create?

It's not the typical view you see from the ground, at the harbour, or entering Victoria by boat, if you're using just your eyes. From that ground angle, the skyline isn't nearly as differentiated as in this photo.

I'd say this photo is an amazing blueprint of what we should have in mind, that's for sure.

[aastra]

First, give up on plans for any building that looms over the legislature or the Fairmont Empress Hotel, each about 300 metres away from the property, or involves a massive structure that is out of scale for the immediate neighbourhood, which includes the Crystal Garden.

First, give up on the ridiculous fearmongering about the proposed building's potential to "loom over" either the legislature or the Empress Hotel. The legislature is much too far away, the Empress is much too tall, and the Crystal Court site is much too far in the background.

Second, the immediate neighbourhood already contains several "massive structures", the most obvious ones being the Empress Hotel, the conference centre, and the Royal BC Museum and Archives. Is the RBCM out-of-scale for the Empress? How come we haven't noticed for all of these decades?

Third, ponder the future of the bus station site for five seconds and you'll quickly realize the Crystal Court site is a red herring. Are they hoping the bus station will be replaced by a parking lot? Obviously something fairly significant is going to go in there eventually. Why stir up such a crapstorm about the Crystal Court site if it will all be moot when somebody proposes to building something on the bus station site? How come nobody ever looks even a couple of years down the road in this town??

[aastra]

That's more than twice the height allowed for the site under current zoning and about eight metres taller than the legislature building.

So the proposed building would be eight metres (about 25 feet) taller than Rattenbury's dome, but 300 metres away?

And we're worried about that??

For the purposes of comparison, I copied Belvedere onto the Crystal Court site. Does it really seem to loom over the legislature? If so, then how come nobody mentions the museum's archival tower? Wasn't the "damage" we're so worried about already done almost 40 years ago?

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Excellent points, and great visual aid (w/ the Belvedere & RBCM tower).

That editorial is so dumb, it's beyond frustrating.

[aastra]

And neither height nor density are inherently bad things. The nearby condo towers on Humboldt Street have shown that taller buildings can work well with the city's existing scale, offering benefits to residents and the developers and enriching downtown life.

Those buildings work for several reasons. They are set back from the street -- while tall, they do not loom over the sidewalks. They are grouped in a way that minimizes their visual impact. And they provide a backdrop to distinctive lower buildings rather than overwhelming or hiding them.

See, the first paragraph is very sensible. But the second paragraph goes into the whole issue of "looming," which I confess I just don't understand, because nobody seems to be able to articulate the issue effectively.

So if a 20-story building is set back from the Humboldt Street sidewalk by 40 feet, does that mean the building no longer looms? It still looms over the public space that occupies the setback, doesn't it? Is it okay to loom over public space but not over a sidewalk? On the Fairfield Road side, the building has a small setback. Doesn't that mean it's looming over the sidewalk on Fairfield Road? Is looming not an issue on the Fairfield Road side? Or is it preferable to have buildings looming over Fairfield Road rather than over Humboldt Street? If the 20-story building were only 12 stories, would any setback on any side be unnecessary? The Humboldt Street wing of the Empress has no setback and is very tall (about as tall as a 16-story residential building, if not taller). Does the Humboldt Street wing of the Empress loom? If not, why not? Can looming be bad or good, depending on how it's handled, or on which building is doing the looming? If so, what are the variables? Does the old Executive House Hotel loom over Humboldt Street? The hotel is as tall as the Astoria condo building, but with no setback. If it does loom, then how come nobody ever mentioned the looming before? (the Executive House Hotel was built in the mid-1960s). If it doesn't loom, why not?

Are the Y-lot buildings really grouped in a way that minimizes their visual impact? From all directions? If so, how was this achieved?

If the Y-lot buildings merely provide a backdrop without overwhelming or hiding "distinctive lower buildings," then why wouldn't a tower on the Crystal Court site do exactly the same thing?


Picture by billycorgan at www.flickr.com
http://flickr.com/ph...57594140714393/

[Nparker]

Well put aastra.

[aastra]

The nearby condo towers on Humboldt Street have shown that taller buildings can work well with the city's existing scale...

Taller than what? Taller than the QV Hotel? Taller than the Empress Hotel? Taller than the Crystal Garden? Taller than a doghouse? Taller than the tallest old highrises of the 1960s-1970s?

[aastra]

The now closed Crystal Court was for a years a charming downtown motel...

Say what? Don't they know the Crystal Court is in James Bay?

At this point I think the developer should aim to deliver a 14-story building that blocks as little of the QV Hotel's views as possible and leave it at that.

[aastra]

Or maybe a 6-story building like the Reef. But would a shorter, wider building be bad news for the QV Hotel?

[VicHockeyFan]

I actually agree with most of this, but I come to a different conclusion with regards to potential development of
the Crystal Court site.

Here's a panorama of downtown by Scaper (apologies for the width):



When I look at this picture I see one of the most interesting skylines in Canada, hands down. It does contain
interesting silhouettes, tremendous variety, and lots of colour. And that's precisely why I appreciate newer
buildings like Corazon or the Juliet: because they complement what already exists, rather than obscure it. They
fit in.

Once again I make the case that we've already got a very interesting formula in Victoria with regards to
ongoing development of the cityscape. It's working. But we just don't seem to want to admit it to ourselves.

The newer buildings haven't detracted from the uniqueness at all, not by one iota. Rather, Victoria is looking more
and more like Victoria with every new building that comes along. You couldn't confuse Victoria with any other city
in Canada. No chance. That's precisely what I love about it.

An attractive building on the Crystal Court site would be a terrific complement to the Empress and to the cityscape.
It's behind the Empress. How can it obscure anything??

But the CIBC building is blocking my view of upper View St. (not just looming over it). Simply write into new zoning that no building can "loom", that'll fix everything.

[aastra]

That's a good idea. Victoria needs loom restrictions.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Great letter in today's T-C, probably in response to that editorial:

Highrise buildings in Victoria would be better than more sprawl
Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008

The people who are getting all agitated about "highrise" buildings of 16 storeys or more in Victoria could instead be faced with the view of single-family subdivision dwellings or six-plexes or whatever -- nice low buildings -- covering every last bit of green space in Victoria, the Saanich Peninsula and any green space left on the way out to Sooke.

Let's get a grip.

We can either go up, spread out or find some way to persuade people to quit reproducing.

I don't think the last option will have legs until it becomes apparent to everyone that this city and planet is a finite system. So we're left with up or out.

How about leaving one or two trees and blades of grass, some habitat for wild animals and maybe even a field that grows food right here? I'm for lowering the footprint; I'm for up.

Diane McNally
Victoria

[G-Man]

Diane McNally FOR MAYOR!

[Nparker]

Ditto. Diane McNally: "A voice of reason in a cacophany of insanity"

[smably]

That was a great letter. And it reminded me of how somebody claimed in the "Managing density" thread that we should just get rid of the urban containment boundary because obviously there's not enough space to house everyone within it. But the problem isn't that there's too little space in our urban areas, it's that our politicians are too concerned with "looming" and our precious views to put density downtown, where it should be.

So then, of course, people build houses in the suburbs and everyone complains about the traffic. And then we try to put in effective transit to help mitigate the traffic, and people complain that drivers won't be able to make left turns as easily.

What I find really worrying about this situation is that it wasn't just the politicians and the NIMBYs who derailed the project -- it was the planners, the very people who should be pushing this sort of development. The rest of the world has figured out that dense, vibrant downtowns are a good thing. I wonder when Victoria's planners will get out of the '50s and realize that this is exactly what Victoria needs.

But I guess I'm preaching to the choir...

[Caramia]

That letter was beautifully well written: succinct and to the point. Well done Diane McNally, whoever you are.

[Mike K.]

First, give up on plans for any building that looms over the legislature or the Fairmont Empress Hotel...

Wait a sec. Isn't the Empress sinking!? Before we know it the Budget Rent-a-car shack will be looming over the penthouse suites.