Jump to content

      














Photo

[Fairfield] Mount St. Angela condos, proposal #2 | 6-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#61 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,815 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 04:59 PM

Didn't they already stop it? The developer changed the plan to 4-story wood-frame Fairfield specials...

#62 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 07:51 PM

Didn't they already stop it? The developer changed the plan to 4-story wood-frame Fairfield specials...

Believe it or not, that's what the current "fight" ("Save Mount St. Angela") is against : the 4 storey alternative.

Hard to credit, isn't it?
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#63 rayne_k

rayne_k
  • Member
  • 170 posts

Posted 09 January 2008 - 07:26 PM

I saw some of those posters... amazing that people don't consider that without the seismic upgrading the most beautiful part of Mt. St. Angela would be lost forever.

Personally, since something is going to happen there eventiually, I would have preffered the 2 6 storey towers.

#64 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 10:18 AM

Mount St. Angela developer wants to 'leave a legacy'
Kim Westad, Times Colonist

Published: Thursday, January 10, 2008


The developer of a proposed 56-unit condominium project at the historic Mount St. Angela site on Burdett Avenue isn't looking to make any money out of the project.

Rather, Norm Isherwood has the financial means and the desire for any profit go into a trust to run an additional nine rental units designated solely for elderly women in need of housing, project planner Roger Tinney said this week.

"Mr. Isherwood was born and raised in the building and he'd like to leave a legacy," Tinney told a group of about 30 people who gathered to see the final plans for the contentious project before it goes to a public hearing on Jan. 17. "This is very much a personal project for Mr. Isherwood."
[...]
kwestad@tc.canwest.com

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

#65 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,673 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 01:53 PM

A reminder that the Public Hearing will be at City Hall, Thursday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. The public can speak to Mayor and Council.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#66 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,673 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 01:33 PM

This is the latest model. Yes, that is the Centennial Square fountain! Thanks to Roger Tinney from Cielo for taking the time to let me take these pictures.






"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#67 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,123 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 01:43 PM

My GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!




#68 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 01:49 PM

Is it me, or is the McClure frontage worse? I'm not terribly impressed. Are there any images of the first model anywhere?
"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

#69 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,981 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 01:54 PM

OK call me crazy but I actually LIKE this proposal. I'll be curious to hear the arguments at City Hall tomorrow night.

#70 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 02:28 PM

^^I agree, West. The McClure side looks too much like the back side of the building. Some would argue I guess that it is the back side, seeing as the historical building is the front. But since the McClure side faces a street as well, attention should be paid to it as well.

#71 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 02:44 PM

might as well just leave the existing four storey apartment building there!

#72 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,815 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 03:16 PM

OK call me crazy but I actually LIKE this proposal.


You're crazy. Can't you see it's waaaay out of scale? If I wanted megaprojects like this one, I'd still be living in Sooke.*

*I'm not actually from Sooke, but you get my point

#73 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 16 January 2008 - 03:32 PM

Look how the towers overtower everything in a towering way.
"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

#74 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,673 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 01:29 AM

At a public hearing that was still going on when I left at 12:30 a.m. it was decided to hold off on a final decision until Planning gets back to Council on the ramifications of having the rezoning pass but not the Development Permit until there's examination of the possiblility of building the two "towers" while keeping the existing SFDs intact and unmoved.

This came about because the vote was tied 4-4 and Lowe supported the rezoning but didn't want the houses moved. I'm not explaining it exactly but that's kind of how it went. Chandler and Thornton Joe in particular were wavering and could've gone either way but decided not to support it. Fortin favoured it saying he was excited to see this develop and that it contributed to a mix of housing choices.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#75 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,123 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 07:19 AM

Bizarre glad I wasn't there.

#76 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,981 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 10:25 AM

I am glad I got out at 9:45...the "impassioned" pleas were just too much for me - and I didn't want to miss E/R. Best argument of the night however, belonged to Ms. Cox regarding her concern about blasting for development projects throughout the capital region:

"We live in an earthquake zone you know...has anyone looked into the effects of blasting in this regard?".

I am paraphrasing of course, but this was the jist of it. I am no geologist, but I don't think even if all the blasting over the past 5 years in Victoria, were concentrated in one mega-blast directly over the San Andreas fault would it set off an earthquake. The blasts simply are not powerful enough nor deep enough to have that sort of impact. It was the strangest argument to make against this proposal.

Also I kept hearing about the "1000 vehicles/day" rule equating to 80 vehicles/hour passing along McClure. When I divide 1000 by 24 (hours) I get 41.66, or about HALF of what was being bandied about, yet NO ONE seemed to correct this.

If there were a more NIMBY group than the people who spoke against this project last night, I'd hate to meet them.

I think this one is going to die an ugly death.

#77 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,123 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 11:10 AM

^ You have obviously never seen a View to a Kill! This is a major issue!



007 returns from the USSR with a new computer chip; one that is invulnerable to the magnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion. The chip is being manufactured by Zorin Industries, headed up by a sociopathic businessman named Max Zorin who is planning to corner the world microchip market by using explosives to cause an earthquake in the San Andreas fault that will wipe out Silicon Valley - and the millions who live and work there! Bond must face not only Zorin himself, but the equally twisted May Day and Scarpine, another one of Zorin's henchmen. Assisted by San Francisco City employee Stacy, Bond goes after the would-be computer magnate in a series of frightening confrontations - including fire in the SF City Hall, a wild chase through the city with Stacy at the wheel of a fire department ladder truck, and finally in a hand-to-hand fight atop San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge.


We can just hope that developers use their powers for good and not evil.

#78 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,815 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 11:16 AM

What are you talking about with that 1,000 vehicles per day thing? Were people saying these little buildings would add 1,000 vehicles per day to the street?

It was the strangest argument to make against this proposal.


I presume nobody mentioned the raccoons then?

"We live in an earthquake zone you know...has anyone looked into the effects of blasting in this regard?".


Has anyone looked into the fact that just about every damn building that's ever been built in Victoria has required some blasting?

#79 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,673 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 11:52 AM

Nick Russell from the Hallmark and others noted the importance of adhering to the Humboldt Valley Official Community Plan (2.6 MB .pdf). But it must be said that the overall current density of the Mt. St. Angela site is 0.6:1 FSR which coincidentally or not is the density limit mentioned in the plan guidelines. In other words, nothing can be added to the site without taking something away first.

Councillor Madoff, to her credit, got Russell to acknowledge this. Russell fumbled, saying he wasn't familiar with crunching the numbers which compelled someone behind me to whisper that he's only had two years to think about it. With Madoff's prodding, Russell conceded that the compromise he suggested as an alternative to Cielo's proposal must involve density over 0.6:1. So Russell is now on record for advocating a proposal that violates the OCP.

Cielo's Roger Tinney said in his presentation that they altered the proposal to take into account all the reasonable criticism and comments and that if this proposal was still not acceptable then what is?

Much was said about traffic but that made little impact on the Councillors, in particular Geoff Young, who said the so-called disastrous impact caused by the paltry increase in vehicle traffic would fail to impress the residents along Quadra or Shelbourne Streets. Again, residents claimed this project would have a disastrous impact on emergency vehicle access to McClure St.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#80 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 12:11 PM

What are you talking about with that 1,000 vehicles per day thing?


Apparently someone from the city turned up one afternoon back in August and counted the number of cars on McClure for an hour. Since that number multiplied by 24 didn't exceed 1,000 (some rule-of-thumb about what is considered acceptable volume for a local road), the city decided that the impact of this development on the bucolic lifestyle of the McClure residents wasn't a problem. At least not sufficient to direct the developer to move the egress to the parking garage to the Burdett side of the property.

I loved the argument one fellow made that said this was a unique property and therefore required a unique planning process to decide the final development proposal. Apparently the procedure used for every other property in town is not good enough for this corner of heaven.

I really have no idea what Lowe intends on achieving by taking the decision process in the new direction. But then I bailed at midnight so perhaps he explained himself after I left?

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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users