Jump to content

      














Photo

[James Bay] Hilton Garden Inn | 9-storeys | Canceled in 2007


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#41 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 03:38 PM

^ I think that was the original problem - it didn't. See TC article above...

#42 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 07:33 PM

I've got some elevation drawings somewhere around here. If people want to see them I'll post them when I get a chance.

#43 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 10:04 AM

^ I think that was the original problem - it didn't. See TC article above...


Didn't it go to ADP shortly thereafter?

The design panel will look at the development the first week of August, and report back to council Aug. 23.



#44 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:04 PM

Is it just me or was the extremely negative reaction undeserved?

 

http://moorearchitec...lton-Photom.jpg

 

Better than average for James Bay, at least in that image.



#45 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:24 PM

I think Councillors' point at the time was that "better than average" didn't cut it on Belleville.

 

Times Colonist:
 

 

"It looks like a Days Inn and that is not being complimentary," said Coun. Helen Hughes.

 

 

"Madoff said the Inner Harbour site is far too important to accept the first design through the door.

"What I personally want is a really sleek, well-considered, well- designed contemporary building that shows the world that we have contemporary architecture that holds its own with our traditional architecture," Madoff said."

 

 

"This is on the Inner Harbour and I was looking for more of an inspiring design, to a certain extent, something that stands out and enhances and enriches. The design on this doesn't strike me as that," [Councillor Dean] Fortin said.

 

 

"This building, however special it may be by itself, is not working in the context of the Inner Harbour," Coun. Geoff Young said, who called it "a 1970s block."

 

 

Victoria News:

 

 

"It would be an understatement to say I'm disappointed," offered Coun. Pam Madoff. "It's a world-class site... I just wonder why we can't aspire to something beyond mediocrity."

Commenting on the left-leaning tendencies of voters in that part of town, Coun. Dean Fortin quipped: "I can't see why James Bay would object to the NDP orange. I was looking for more of an inspired design."


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#46 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:35 PM

They do love interesting modern architecture, that crowd. Buildings like Shutters, Shoal Point, the Falls... not to mention the glass triangle proposal (on Belleville) and the art gallery proposal (also on Belleville).



#47 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:02 PM

There was a design for an orange or pink hotel here which would have really clashed with the neighbourhood. It was straight out of the 1960s.

#48 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:16 PM

Isn't that the orange proposal? It has an orange section on the south side. Or south end, I should say.

 

http://moorearchitec...-Picture-10.jpg


Edited by aastra, 03 March 2014 - 06:18 PM.


#49 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,725 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:18 PM

I think Councillors' point at the time was that "better than average" didn't cut it on Belleville.

And yet most of these same councillors approve less than average buildings all over the city: that grey cube by Beacon Hill Park and the truncated "tower" on Hillside come to mind. I am not sure they have the best judgement when it comes to aesthetics.



#50 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:19 PM

Isn't that the orange proposal? It has an orange section on the south side. Or south end, I should say.
 
http://moorearchitec...-Picture-10.jpg


I remember seeing a different design

#51 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:24 PM

They're looking for shitty faux heritage along that avenue, I garanntee. Nothing awesome and modern acceptable!
  • Nparker likes this

#52 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,725 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:31 PM

They're looking for shitty faux heritage along that avenue, I garanntee. Nothing awesome and modern acceptable!

This. Remember how the glassy pyramid proposal for the Admiral's Inn site was received?



#53 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 53,035 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:42 AM

Officialdom fell head over heals for the Trendwest monstrosity and had no qualms over the Grand Pacific, but with the Days Inn site they're champions of world-class design.

And on it goes.

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


#54 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 07:51 AM

Just add some herritage trim and some fake shutters and I'm sure council will be happy.  They had a chance for a world-class modern design a couple years ago and they trashed it for being too contemporary.  City council is like Goldilocks who isn't even hungry.


  • Nparker likes this
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#55 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:06 AM

I don't believe any of that is true. Faux heritage gets routinely trashed at City Hall and criticism of modern architecture like The Falls was limited to form and massing. I recall they were impressed by this design and all Jim Cheng's buildings. Now, the Admiral's Inn pyramid they didn't like. We all agree it was a bold design but was it great architecture? Maybe. I liked it. But that one may have scared them. Generally when it comes to aesthetic issues, council follows Madoff's lead. I can't think of a case where they trashed a great modern design based on the design itself, not height or density,. The pyramid is probably the closest example.


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#56 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:16 AM

I agree that council that pyramid design was questionable and I also agree that council doesn't poopoo all modern designs. But along this strip, like I said, I am guessing they want more traditional design given its higher profile locale.  Council in still in the Ye Olde way of thinking when it comes to how we want to present ourselves to outsiders.



#57 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 53,035 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:22 AM

The Sovereign on Broughton and The Argus on Fort are two of the latest examples of City Hall dictating design changes to make the building design fit within a comfort zone.

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


#58 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,725 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:51 AM

Generally when it comes to aesthetic issues, council follows Madoff's lead...

Which is why this paragon of bad taste needs to be removed from council. She's been there since much of the city's heritage architecture was considered contemporary design. A new perspective is sorely needed.



#59 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 10:59 AM

...criticism of modern architecture like The Falls was limited to form and massing

 

Yeah, but can we really expect something like the Falls or Shutters to work at 4 or 5 stories? I'm not just talking about financial viability. I just don't think it's realistic to argue for striking/unusual modern lines and shapes and dramatic presence and whatever else while also insisting that 8 stories is way too tall. Isn't the new tower-that-could-have-been over by Beacon Hill Park a really good example of this? The developer proposed something quite distinctive in a junior highrise format but it got legislated down to a very ordinary box not much larger than a large house. And you're never going to get unusual/expensive materials on the cheap. It just isn't going to happen.


  • Mike K. and Nparker like this

#60 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,360 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 11:10 AM

Under those conditions I think the best you're ever going to get is something conservatively/conventionally modern, like the Pier in Sidney, for example. Nice building but it's not doing anything unusual. I'd say the rendering that I linked to above is just about in that same class. Maybe a notch down at most.

 

http://moorearchitec...lton-Photom.jpg

 

http://durwest.com/w...06/the-pier.jpg



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