519 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

Hate the new one. The one thing they have yet to do is create a decent ground floor interaction.

They have tried a hundred different heights but never changed how the building interacts with the street. Perhaps they should try it?

[aastra]

I'm really starting to appreciate how good the first proposal was.

[Ms. B. Havin]

No kidding. I just about went into shock seeing this new version.

[jklymak]

Yep, its pretty bad, though I was no fan of the Miami curvy thing.

[Mike K.]

Vic News, April 2007:

Anthony Hartnell, owner of the Queen Victoria Hotel immediately behind Crystal Court, said Westbank officials have consulted him and agreed to erect a taller, thinner building that would minimize the impact on his hotel’s views of the Inner Harbour.

“For me, a seven-storey squat is the worst possible design. That would block about 60 per cent of the views on the south side of my building,” Hartnell said.

“What these developers have in mind is not perfect but it’s certainly 10 times better than the alternative.”

---------

Looks like the current design is exactly what the Queen Vic didn't want to see. The potential for a concerted effort of opposition by the Queen Vic in response to the current incarnation is a real possibility and could be a huge blow to the rezoning effort.

[aastra]

Is somebody proposing to build a residential highrise on the little park? Or have two separate issues been blurred together yet again?

In questioning proposed residential towers, Coun. Pam Madoff is absolutely right in being "very protective" of the tourism zone along Belleville between Douglas and Blanshard streets. Victoria needs to be very careful not to destroy the ambience of that historic part of our city.

As a great-grandson of Church of Our Lord founder Edward Cridge, I am distressed about plans to destroy Cridge Park next to the church.
For well over a century, this park with its beautiful trees has complemented the grounds of St. Ann's Academy across Blanshard Street.

Elimination of the tranquil and charming green space of the Canadian Pacific lawn bowling pitch next to the park would be similarly foolish.
We must not lose sight of what makes Victoria unique and special for visitors and citizens alike. To cover this historic green space with modern buildings, and allow more highrise residents in that area, would be a grave mistake.

http://www.canada.co...fd-94a2b076069a

I'm confused. If a modern building on the motel site would be a grave mistake, then does that mean the QV Hotel was/is a grave mistake? The QV Hotel is a modern building that's been looming over the area for more than 40 years. It must be the equivalent of about 10 residential stories from Belleville Street to the top of the QV Hotel, yes? It's not even a very attractive modern building. And yet there it is, right in everyone's collective face. So did it trash the ambience or what? No? Well then how am I supposed to believe that an attractive new building right beside it could wreak such catastrophic harm?

I'm also wondering why allowing "more highrise residents" would be such a grave mistake. Are people who live in highrises evil by nature? Or is there a spectrum of evil that runs from saintly at the lowrise end to maliciously vile on the highrise end? The Savoy is the oldest residential highrise in that part of town. Was it a grave mistake to allow The Savoy to be built? Have residents of The Savoy done terrible things?

[aastra]

We must not lose sight of what makes Victoria unique and special for visitors and citizens alike.

I agree 100%, of course. But it's just so silly to be drawing lines in the proverbial sand. And let's not spend too many sleepless night fretting about how we might destroy the ambience. Folks, have we forgotten that surface parking lots were a big part of the ambience of that area only a few short years ago? If there's any part of Victoria that demonstrates the kinds of good things that ongoing development/re-development can produce, it's south downtown:

1) The parking lot behind the Empress was redeveloped as the conference centre.

2) The abandoned Crystal Garden and the abandoned St. Anne's Academy were both repurposed.

3) The Y-Lot was replaced with a very popular new hotel and a couple of new residential buildings.

4) The parking lot across from the Y-Lot has been replaced with a very fine residential building. Hopefully the results on the Classic Car Museum's lot will be just as good.

By my estimation, the biggest mistake in that list would be the bland-but-acceptable architecture of the Y-Lot buildings. The retail space in the base of the conference centre could have been designed better, too. So are these the sort of irreversible mistakes that haunt us when we contemplate the redevelopment of the motel site?

If you don't want residential development on the motel site, then what do you want? A brand new motel? It just isn't going to happen.

[Ms. B. Havin]

The main error in that letter, as far as I can make out, is to confuse protection of the tourism zone with protesting what was proposed, as though protection and proposal were opposed.

In fact, the city proposed eliminating the Bowling Green and Cridge Park to build *MORE* tourist attractions, which is in fact perfectly in line with the tourism zone mandate. That is, to build an art gallery & a children's museum downtown is part of the culture spectacle, which goes hand in glove with tourism. To claim otherwise is silly: every major city builds "cultural centers" in the hope of attracting tourist dollars. So even if those facilities also serve locals, let's not kid ourselves that they aren't also and often primarily a tourist attraction.

So, IOW, the build-over of that green space would have been done in the name of what's allowed in the tourism zone.

Or in yet other words, being "very protective" of the tourism zone means more **** like this.

So forget about being "very protective" of the tourism zone. It's much more the case that the very concept of the tourism zone should be made to stand up to some very hard questions.

As aastra points out, it's the softening of the zone (the influx of other uses), and *NOT* the single-minded "protection" of the zone, which has in fact humanized the area and made it more attractive for locals.

And if a city isn't for the people who actually live there, who is it for?

[zoomer]

So Pam Madoff is protective of the tourism zone. Well, what about the citizens of Victoria? Is she in favour of putting tourists first? What about the folks that reside here 365 days a year?

Oh hang on, I've also heard folks opposing condos downtown because they claim (falsely) most are bought by wealthy out of towners who don't live here year around (by using such scientific methods as counting lights on at night). Hmm, I guess it's ok if the wealthy out of towners come to the hotels they claim to support, we just don't want any new folks moving to the city as we've pulled up the drawbridge. Ironic part is that downtown is Victoria's poorest neighbourhood, and the folks complaining about the million dollar condos tend to live in single family dwellings worth far more than your average downtown condo. In fact, just how many million dollar condos (a term used rather loosely) are there in Victoria? Maybe 10-12? And how many million dollar homes which take up way more land and are far damaging to the environment? Insert your answer here: _______________

So we should leave valuable land as parking lots or abandoned motels because there may be a need in the future for hotels or tourist attractions? Just how long should we put the city on hold for? How many hotels or new attractions are we expecting in the next 20 years? Must they all be in a two block radius? I guess these folks figure all the other lots in the area will remain exactly as they are forever and there will never be another opportunity unless we save the Crystal Court lot. Heck, just looking back at this area we can see there haven't been any changes at all in the past decade, despite what aastra detailed above (he must be on drugs, cause I haven't seen any of these new buildings he's mentioned).

[victorian fan]

rough massing models

A child would have so much fun with those.

[jklymak]

I don't so much mind the city saying they don't want a condo tower there. If someone has actually sat down and decided for whatever esthetic reasons that a tower doesn't belong there, then fair enough. Just because the developer bought this land doesn't mean they are owed a "profitable" zoning.

However, it would behoove the city to say what they would like to see there. Right now the city plan calls for two 6-story buildings filling the whole lot. Does anyone really want to see that?

It would also be nice if they said what the esthetic reasons were more clearly than it must be shorter than the Empress. As others have pointed out, the BC Museum tower is taller and just as visible from the harbour. So what is the problem with this proposal?

The city's attitude seems very reactive. It would be nice if they started being proactive.

[Rob Randall]

A child would have so much fun with those.

Don't tell anyone but I admit that I had fun playing with them, fitting the different models into the slot.

This is from a Malcolm Curtis article in the Times Colonist dated May 8, 2004:

Another development proposal for the edge of James Bay appears to have attracted less controversy. Developer Austin Hamilton wants to build a 51-metre tall, 14-storey tower on the site of the Crystal Court Motel, 701 Belleville St.

Next to the tower, Hamilton hopes to locate a proposed satellite location for the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, a two-storey building backed by the gallery's board of directors.

The gallery bid has been largely welcomed by the James Bay community, said Hannah. The tower is less of a concern for most residents because it is away from existing residential areas in the community, he said, though some people think it is too high. There are also worries about potential traffic bottlenecks in the neighbourhood, he said.

[amor de cosmos]

WHAT A FNCKIN JOKE

[concorde]

I was out with some of the senior execs at Westbank this week and this job is now officially dead. They will be shutting down and leaving Victoria after the completion of the Falls.

[aastra]

Methinks a lot of people will be very happy to hear that.

Something more like Aria or Swallows Landing would probably be a better fit on the Crystal Court site, anyway.

[concorde]

Methinks a lot of people will be very happy to hear that.

Something more like Aria or Swallows Landing would probably be a better fit on the Crystal Court site, anyway.

...and instead the citizens of Victoria get to look at a boarded up, abandoned hotel. Good choice to me. I know when I drive by I just shake my head. Knowing Westbank, it will sit like that for a long time to come.

[Roger]

...and instead the citizens of Victoria get to look at a boarded up, abandoned hotel. Good choice to me. I know when I drive by I just shake my head. Knowing Westbank, it will sit like that for a long time to come.

Seems like a real shame to have this building sitting there empty while homeless people have to sleep outside in the elements. Perhaps the city could rent it as is for awhile. Turn on the electricity and water, have a security office to keep out the drug element and rent rooms for one dollar a night.

When the owners decide to redevelop it could be torn down but by then we might have some additional shelter beds and more affordable housing.

I know there are some drawbacks but campers in the park is what we are already dealing with right now. Just trying to think outside the box here folks.

Any mayor or council candidates care to comment?

[D.L.]

If the City were to rent out the rooms, they should charge enough to at lease break-even on the rent they are paying for the building.

[mat]

If the City were to rent out the rooms, they should charge enough to at lease break-even on the rent they are paying for the building.

Sure, in total revenue, but not necessarily charged to the renters. Use a system of subsidies from the Prov. and Fed. - depending on renter earning levels and need. Consideration, for any building used for social housing, should include 24 hour security, and in-house services.

[Rob Randall]

I guess I can now say that Westbank was negotiating last year to house the homeless there temporarily but the plan never materialized. What happens now--I don't know.