Jump to content

      



























PROPOSED
One Victoria Place
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1520 Blanshard Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 35
One Victoria Place is a proposal for a 35-storey mixed-use residential and retail tower along the 1500-block o... (view full profile)
Learn more about One Victoria Place on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] One Victoria Place - 1520 Blanshard Street | Residential; retail | 35 storeys


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 88,729 posts

Posted 21 January 2025 - 04:21 PM

It reminds me of the Vancouver Sun/Province tower, atop which sits the control tower for harbour ops.

The architecture draws from various buildings in downtown, I think.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 21 January 2025 - 05:42 PM

 

That's very Vancouver looking.

 

1973 or 1974?

 

Seriously, what the heck were all those decades of hand-wringing about if this is where we were going to end up anyway?


  • lanforod likes this

#23 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 21 January 2025 - 05:44 PM

I don't think either the tower or the podium are necessarily all that bad depending on the cladding and the windows, but the excessive sameness of tower-and-podium together is feeling like too much for me.



#24 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 13,649 posts

Posted 21 January 2025 - 09:03 PM

Looks like a tall hospital.

 

I like 1 Bear Mountain better.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#25 ventilatte

ventilatte
  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 January 2025 - 10:17 PM

I like the height for this location but wow that is not a very nice looking building lol. It looks like a taller version of the CIBC building downtown which is, imo, the ugliest building in the city after View Towers. 


  • Sparky likes this

#26 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 03:26 PM

It just seems like a big miss to go all in with stark austerity on such an exceptionally tall building. This thing would be quite prominent from various perspectives around town. The plainer the design of a conspicuous building (conspicuous owing to its size and/or height and/or location), the more brash and intrusive it can seem to be. Many commentators still believe the opposite even after all these decades and even after everything we've already been through.

 

Hey, maybe it wouldn't be quite as bland as it seems at first blush, what with the texture of the brick cladding (barely perceptible in the images) and the variation in window treatment between the podium and the tower. Also, unless my hazy old eyes deceive me, there seems to be some subtle "implied extrusion" of the external facade from the inner building, does there not? Not sure, but it seems like it.

I also award them a point for incorporating some verticality in the lines and window elements of the tower, because the horizontal "stacked platters" effect would really not be fun to look at for 35 stories (and especially so considering how the Gateway Green tower will already be doing it for ~25 stories on the very next block).

But methinks the Cormorant Street perspective really demonstrates how there needs to be a fair bit more effort to distinguish the podium from the tower and also to incorporate some distinctive elements generally and give the whole thing some personality.

Can I suggest it might look good to further distinguish the uppermost ~5 levels of the tower and also the levels where the tower meets with the podium? Can I also suggest it might look good to subtly distinguish the pillars/dividers along the ground level from the levels above? (I often suggest this, because historic buildings tended to do it as a matter of course and modern buildings in Victoria rarely ever do it.)

 

I've posed the following question many times: why would a hypothetical admirer bother to pause and take a photo of this building? In this case I could see someone maybe doing a study in swaths of texture or whatever. But what else about the building would appeal to the eye? For purposes of comparison, I'd say HP1 has a fair bit more going on re: potentially interesting good stuff.


Edited by aastra, 22 January 2025 - 04:26 PM.


#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 03:39 PM

 

Looks like a tall hospital.

 

I like 1 Bear Mountain better.

 

 

Are you saying the architectural treatment is exactly what the doctor ordered?

Critics might say it's 1 Bare Mountainous Building.



#28 HarrisonGreene

HarrisonGreene
  • Member
  • 144 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 03:40 PM

Armchair architects won’t like it, but I see nothing overtly ugly about this building. It has a nice verticality to it.
  • DavidSchell likes this

#29 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 04:16 PM

Almost exactly one year ago an astute forumer on this board made the following observation about the CoV's Blanshard St. park plan (since then we've learned of two apartment tower projects in the immediate vicinity of this seemingly lame-duck location for a park):

 

 

...depending on the format of the park I'd say it has a chance of being successful. But methinks potential future developments on either side of it will be crucial (the Gateway Green site, too). When you're inside the park you should feel like you're surrounded by the city. If it ends up feeling like a legitimate park in the middle of a dense neighbourhood then it could work.


  • lanforod likes this

#30 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 04:19 PM

Despite this board's reputation, I gotta admit some forumers here can be pretty sharp.


  • Mike K. likes this

#31 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 88,729 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 04:37 PM

It has a very office block vibe. I don’t mind that for the brash verticality of it, without the scripted setbacks. It’s similar in unapologetic verticality to D’Ambrosio’s hotel tower on Blanshard: https://victoria.cit...ergarden-hotel/ I don’t think that latter tower will proceed as envisioned, despite being approved.

One Vic Place will work, exactly because it’ll be so dominant. Towers around it can add variety and texture.

Funny, how 20 years ago the tallest building in downtown was to be at the Hudson project and that was it.

Then Harris Green pushed through 32 floors, and now we have 35 floors two blocks from the Hudson, and each project says it is the natural spot for extra height downtown. Maybe they’re all good spots and we tried to control something that was never meant to be held back the way it was?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#32 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 05:09 PM

Stop being so damned reasonable. You make me want to reach through the interwebs and smack you upside the head.

 

--

 

Anyway, I also have to award the developers a point for the articulated footprint of the podium and for the "brick or stone masonry" cladding all the way up the tower (as far as I can tell from the documentation they don't ever switch out the brick for plain grey or beige panels).

 

But I'm really not digging the drabness. Seriously, take some of the images from the plans and desaturate them. If not for the green trees changing you probably wouldn't notice any difference between the full colour version and the greyscale version. So what, you say? Is there anything necessarily wrong with a prominent building having such a limited colour palette? No, not necessarily. But one might wonder why the tallest building in town by a fair margin should also be so constrained in this regard.

 

Counterpoint: In the "harbour view from Laurel Point" image I'm going to say this building looks considerably better and much more "like Victoria" than does the awful back face of HP2 (Hudson House). But I'm also going to say the design just doesn't seem to be worthy of the prominence compared to other buildings.

 

But from that angle I can see why skyscraper fanboys might like it. It suggests a stoic kind of post-1945 downtown tower. This is the city: not particularly glamorous or charming but not particularly gritty or offensive, either. Just the impassive city being what it is and going about its urban business. Unfortunately for me it's just not the kind of vibe I think Victoria should be pursuing or that I've personally been interested in since maybe 1984 or thereabouts, but I can see why some people might dig it.

From where I'm standing I just think the whole thing needs a dash more verve in the visuals (some vivacious vitality, I would venture). It strikes me as too much of one thing, and a slightly too drab rendition of that one thing.
 


Edited by aastra, 22 January 2025 - 05:17 PM.


#33 Barrister

Barrister
  • Member
  • 749 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 05:20 PM

Is this rental or condo? 



#34 DavidSchell

DavidSchell
  • Member
  • 707 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 05:34 PM

It would get my vote ... it has a grown up look, something downtown has bee missing.

#35 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 05:37 PM

 

...something downtown has bee missing.

 

Ouch, that stings.


  • DavidSchell likes this

#36 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 05:37 PM

 

Is this rental or condo?

 

Yep, I would assume.



#37 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 13,649 posts

Posted 22 January 2025 - 09:15 PM

Oh aastra...


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#38 Ryan Cook

Ryan Cook
  • Member
  • 136 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 22 January 2025 - 09:41 PM

1-5aa30123.jpg

 

Reliance purchased Arthur Erickson Place in Vancouver a few years ago. Reminds me of a modern version. I'm sure it will go through design revisions. 



#39 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 88,729 posts

Posted 23 January 2025 - 01:41 PM

Is that the former TimberWest tower?


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#40 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 23 January 2025 - 02:01 PM

The thing is, this proposed tower would have masonry cladding. It wouldn't be flaunting the "bland is beautiful" raw concrete or plain modern panels esthetic.

I gotta admit, quite a few times over the years I've imagined some brick-clad Merrick-style tower standing there in place of the little Rotherham building. But in my musings it would have had significantly more verve* and distinction than this proposal does. The basic form of this proposal actually isn't too far off from what I liked to imagine. It's just way taller and much less interesting.

 

*If I stick around in this thread then it would be best to prepare yourself for heavy usage of the word "verve"

    gumption
    gusto
    intensity
    liveliness
    moxie
    passion
    pep
    sparkle
    spunk
    stamina
    toughness
    vigor
    vitality
    zeal
    zest
 



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users