220 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

Then why don't make the whole goddamn thing out of cinderblock.

[AllseeingEye]

Consider the CoC killed off the minimal cost to them of manning the information desk on weekends two years ago; in addition they deferred opening the on site cafe by an hour (to noon from 11am) also on weekends.

 

Measured against the costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting/design/ and/or construction costs in order to make the structure presumably more palatable to those with sensitivity to design, those dollars are infinitesimal. Therefore if those limited costs 'matter' - which they clearly do - its should be obvious even to the dullards out there in wider society, the facility clearly can't in addition take on those 'design' costs. I sincerely hope Mr Randall you don't have to make use of such a facility for one your family members. In the unhappy event you do perhaps on that day you'll 'get it' - and be as concerned regarding their care and needs as you seemingly are about building 'design' which pales into nothingness in comparison.

[Rob Randall]

Nice to play that card.

[aastra]

Victorians in particular seem to be very vulnerable to this notion that modern institutional buildings must be overwhelmingly clumsy and intrusive things (even though Victoria's old institutional buildings generally were not... many of them were defining buildings for their neighbourhoods and/or for the city itself). Meanwhile, modern institutional buildings in many other places can still be appropriate for their contexts. This one could have been, too.

 

If we're going to toss out every consideration re: esthetics, scale, massing/format, height, materials, urban vs. suburban styling, pavement/surface parking, etc. just because a project relates to [insert favourite emotionally charged use here] then we simply do not have a leg to stand on when we criticize any and every other project.

 

How can we criticize homes in any form if we give this place a free pass? You'd have to be a psychopath to claim an institutional building of any kind is somehow more sacred than the homes we live in, love in, raise our families in, and often die in (we're often born in them, too). Yet we'll continue to harshly criticize condo buildings, rental buildings, and subdivisions and SFDs all over town... and do it without irony.

 

This place is by far the biggest thing built in the Quadra neighbourhood's history. It makes no sense to absolve it of criticism just because of its intended use. Hey, what if the complex gets re-purposed as a hotel twenty years from now? Would we be allowed to criticize it then? How the heck did such a massive and ugly suburban-style hotel ever get passed in the Quadra neighbourhood?

 

 

I sincerely hope Mr Randall you don't have to make use of such a facility for one your family members. In the unhappy event you do perhaps on that day you'll 'get it' - and be as concerned regarding their care and needs as you seemingly are about building 'design' which pales into nothingness in comparison.

 

Everybody has loved ones who get sick and die. Why not also hope that his loved ones never have to make use of an ugly and inappropriate hotel during a vacation? Or that his loved ones never have to live in an ugly and inappropriate house or apartment building, or work in an ugly and inappropriate office building?

[Rob Randall]

^Thank you, It's worth pointing out the Wellesley did the opposite: started as hotel, is now old folks.

[aastra]

Some people would probably suppose that a change of use is impossible, even though that sort of thing has happened many times for major buildings in Victoria (apartments become hotels, hotels become apartments, hotels become retirement residences, etc.).

 

Anyway, we went through all of this with the JSB. Earthquakes and seismic safety are emotionally charged topics, therefore you were a villain for criticizing any aspect of the JSB plan. Is anybody who criticizes the firehall plan a villain on the same grounds? Because fire safety is a very emotionally charged topic? Come on.

[aastra]

FYI: I'm not disagreeing with the premise that you generally tune out the exterior appearance of a structure once you're standing within it. I'm sure we've all groaned at the exterior of a motel or hotel that we were about to enter, but then forgot about it as soon as we were inside and/or enjoying the view. We forget about the exterior appearance of any shopping mall or rec centre as soon as we step inside.

 

My point is, either we care how buildings look and fit (especially major buildings) or we don't. What's the point of worrying about what every home or small apartment building looks like if you're going to give a free pass to some large institutional complex right in their midst? If anything, all of the fretting and hard scrutiny should be intensified. What's the point of focussing on the mice if you ignore the elephant?

[Nparker]

I refuse to believe a more attractive exterior could not have been designed for no additonal cost.

[aastra]

Why not for an additional cost? It's not as if we're talking about a temporary structure here.

[Nparker]

I just think that there was no reason to sacrifice form for function. Both should have been goals.

[aastra]

I realize this is generally a pro-development board, but this sort of inconsistency is actually one of my pet peeves re: development-related stinkerism:

 

--

 

Developer: Here's a new condo building proposal. What do you think of it?

 

Stinkers: Eyesore! Much too big! It will ruin the neighbourhood!

 

Developer: Pardon me, I said this was a condo building but it's actually a retirement residence.

 

Stinkers: Handsome structure! Exactly what the neighbourhood needs! Just the right size!

 

Developer: Sorry, my mistake. It's actually a hotel.

 

Stinkers: Generic! Too tall! Cookie-cutter!

 

Developer: Hang on, my mistake again. It's a community housing project.

 

etc.

 

--

 

Does a development's architecture have merit or doesn't it? Do the design, massing, etc. fit the context or not? Are there issues/shortcomings or aren't there? We shouldn't need to know what the building's use will be in order to give an honest answer to such questions.

 

Obviously we have the capacity and the freedom to make allowances and exceptions, I'm not saying we don't. But I'd suggest that it calls our evaluations into question when major exceptions are made at the push of a simple hot button.

[DustMagnet]

Does a development's architecture have merit or doesn't it? Do the design, massing, etc. fit the context or not? Are there issues/shortcomings or aren't there? We shouldn't need to know what the building's use will be in order to give an honest answer to such questions.

 

Didn't you just answer your own question?  It's obviously about the context of what the development is supposed to be...

[aastra]

A development serves as its own context? That would simplify all development controversies, for sure. 

[aastra]

When somebody wants to build a Dubai-style skyscraper in downtown Victoria, all they would need to do is demonstrate that it would truly be a Dubai-style skyscraper? 

 

When somebody wants to build a Langford-style big-box store in the heart of Oak Bay, all they would need to do is demonstrate that it would truly be a Langford-style big-box store? 

 

(No, of course not. But we're not talking about those areas, we're talking about the Quadra-Hillside neighbourhood, so...)

[Mike K.]

Let’s wait for the mayor to come back from Dubai. She might say we’ve been doing architecture all wrong in Victoria upon her return.

[aastra]

Methinks the benefit of such seemingly contradictory international jaunts is that you return more motivated than ever to stick to your principles.

 

I suppose that's why so many political figures love their seemingly contradictory international jaunts.

[Bernard]

It's the most un-photographed major project on this forum. 

I find that interesting, does this mean few VVers that post pictures pass by there, or is it too ugly?

[Rob Randall]

^I just found it weird that other projects get a HD photo essay every time a new piece of rebar is installed but this one went from concept to topping out with the only documentation being my potato-quality flip phone snap.

[bkp]

Ever since it opened last year, the Summit hospital has raised the ire of local residents for the noise created by it's rooftop HVAC system. The system that was installed in the new building produces an ambient noise prominent in areas adjacent to the building and a penetrating tonal noise that can be clearly heard as far as a kilometer away.

 

The tonal noise is most severe in warmer temperatures and in the higher-elevation areas in the Hillside-Quadra neighbourhood. Hundreds of homeowners and countless renters in nearby apartment buildings are negatively impacted by the daily noise.

 

Chek 6 has reported on this issue twice so far, including interviews with local residents:

 

‘It’s debilitating’: High-pitched humming noise from nearby facility affects Victoria neighbourhood https://www.cheknews...-noise-from.../

Victoria residents concerned solutions to get rid of ‘chronic, high-pitched’ humming noise won’t be enough https://www.cheknews...ncerned-crd.../

 

A facebook group has been started by local residents to advocate for a stop to the noise: https://www.facebook...450748644998174

 

Anyone negatively affected by the noise is encouraged to join the group.

[Mike K.]

Oh yeah, those things can be pretty invasive.

Were there issues with temporary residents during covid? I was under the impression this facility was a temporary low barrier location, or something along those lines. Is/was that the case?