147 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Mount St. Angela development proposal to get public airing

Times Colonist staff

A proposal to build 60 condominiums, townhouses and seniors’ housing on the site of historic Mount St. Angela College will go to public hearing.

Cielo Properties, on behalf of the Sisters of St. Ann, is proposing to restore and reuse the heritage-designated Mount St. Angela College on Burdett Avenue, transforming it into nine units of affordable housing for senior women.

[...]

[Nparker]

I wish I could see a rendering of this project as I am having trouble visualizing it based on on this article. BTW my mom had a cousin who was a nun who lived Mt. St. Angela. Small world huh?

[Holden West]

They're not proposing to demolish the cool four storey apartment house tucked in behind, are they? I love that building.

[D.L.]

yeah, that's probably the addition that was built in 1912 that's going to go.

[Icebergalley]

Apartment Building?

That was probably a dorm. for the nuns...

[aastra]

Anybody got a good pic of the 1912 addition?

[Holden West]

It's one of the most difficult buildings to get a clear picture of.

[Rob Randall]

This project goes before Advisory Design Panel tomorrow at noon at City Hall.

[Holden West]

Mount St. Angela: Why we should care
Development plans for historic precinct pay little heed to citizens' wishes

Nick Russell
Special to Times Colonist

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

CREDIT: John McKay, Times Colonist
Details of a development proposal for historic Mount St. Angela and its immediate neighbours pay little attention to recommendations contained in the Humboldt Valley Precinct Plan, says the president of the Hallmark Society.

What's the point of developing community plans if even the city ignores them?

The current example is Mount St. Angela (formerly Angela College) on Burdett Street -- one of Victoria's most treasured streetscapes and historic clusters.

[...]
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

[aastra]

I don't have any problems with the overall sentiment here and many of the particulars, but some things still jumped out at me:

As the plan calls for a maximum of three storeys or four storeys, why even consider six storeys?

Because the difference between six and four is trivial?

Because there are plenty of buildings that are six stories or taller in that area?

Why have we not seen scale models of what these towers would look like?

Good question about the models, but calling six story buildings "towers" is a gross misrepresentation of things. Is Victoria's old town really full of heritage towers? Obviously not, but there are plenty of buildings there that are six stories tall (or equivalent).

If the towers will be visible over the roof of Mount St. Angela, why not lop another floor off them?

Key point: visible from where?

Enhance opportunities for passive, useable open space and enhance historic open spaces in the precinct.

I can't agree with the supposed need for passive open space. If there was no such space before, how would we be preserving the character of the area by introducing it now?

[aastra]

...you can't hide two six-storey towers, and you can't hide 150 or so new residents

Why on earth would we want to hide such things? This attitude is absolutely backwards, in my opinion. We should be demanding fine buildings because fine buildings don't need to be hidden away.

Crappy buildings that maintain a low profile to divert attention from their crappiness just shouldn't be allowed anymore. That was Victoria's strategy in the 1950s. It was a near disaster.

[m0nkyman]

More people in my neighbourhood? Good.

Preserving an old character home? Good.

Getting rid of a mediocre four story structure for two decent six story buildings? Good.

All bets are off if the buildings are ugly though...

[G-Man]

I am actually against the proposal but this article is just plain ludicrous. It is articles like these that absolutely destroy any crediability the anti-height and density crowd people have.

The biggest most glaring mistake is calling a density limit a "population density limit" I mean caome on does this person know anything about development or just things he doesn't like.

Anyways I hope that this project does not go through but at the same time I hope this guy doesn't think his words had any effect on the outcome.

[Nparker]

[quote name='"G-Man"']I am actually against the proposal ...."

As I am rather ambivalent about this project (too few details so far) I am curious as to your objections G-man. Too little denisity? Too much? No need for development in this location? A soft spot for the nunnery? Enquiring minds (OK me) want to know.

[Holden West]

3. Mount St. Angela is in good shape, so why is restoring it cited as the justification for exceeding the height and density guidelines?

Good shape? Is it seismically upgraded to current standards? I somehow doubt it.

[G-Man]

I am against ripping down decent and historically valid buildings such as the 1912? addition on the back of this building. In addition I think that the risk of damage to both the esthetic of the whole site as well as the original building is too great, especially when the outcome will most likely be two Mount st Mary style hospital buildings. There are many places for valid development in our downtown core I just don't think this is one of them.

[aastra]

I agree. If we continue to knock down "non-significant" early 20th century buildings then little by little we also continue to chip away at the old urban character that makes Victoria what it is.

I have the same concerns about the older buildings at the Jubilee. They're not particularly fine buildings and their architectural integrity has suffered somewhat over the decades, but they have more Victorian (as in Victoria, BC) character in them than probably anything else in that part of town.

I had the same concern about the Oak Bay United Church but the Hallmark Society's website tells me they're going to do a full restoration, which is great.

[Rob Randall]

This project was voted down at last night's Advisory Planning Commission by a vote of 4-3.

This afternoon it was tabled for further massing revisions at Advisory Design Panel.

They had a detailed model there which was the first chance I had to see the project. I was surprised at how large the project is. There are two rectangular towers set north/south that look similar to some of the other low-rise projects Cielo has done recently.

[rayne_k]

I've had a glimpse of the model.. I too was struck by how deep the buildings seemed to be, BUT then you realise *no* one passing by on the sidewalk would ever get a view of them like that (ie. big wall) The sidewalk is perpindicular.. and there are already some skinny deep buildings in the area that no one rants on about.

Are model makers allowed to put in more neighbouring buildings for context? I think that would have been helpful.

[Rob Randall]

This project goes before Advisory Design Panel Wednesday, July 4 at 1:50 p.m. The public can attend but not speak.