Jump to content

      













Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Centro condos | 54.4m | 19- & 14-storeys | Canceled


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#41 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:10 PM

I'll give them some points for stepping it back in a couple of places, and I can also appreciate its almost austere sleekness. But for something that tall, it's got to be more distinctive. It's just not special enough. It's a glass slab with balconies on it. That's better than a concrete slab with balconies on it, but not all that much better. In this pic, I prefer the shorter one (even though I realize a two-tower complex calls for one building to be markedly taller than the other):



#42 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:59 PM

I can't seem to see any picture of the latest rendering. Did the forum upgrade nerf it?

#43 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,918 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:20 PM

That is fair enough Aastra. I agree that the taller building is a bit repetitive but this rendering has allowed me to picture a 19 storey building there and I like it. I think with some good work on the roof element and some variation as it goes up this could be good at 19.

#44 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:24 PM

Yeah, the visual presence (if I can call it that) surprised me, too. Turns out it is a good site for something reasonably tall after all. Who knew?

This proposal in Kitchener (of all places) has a better taller tower, in my opinion. Still a bit slabbish, but it has enough angles and edges to keep me happy.



#45 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,795 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:38 PM

It's amazing how much the Kitchener renderings make me think of the Centro design...only better. Any chance we can steal this one?

#46 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 12 November 2007 - 10:52 AM

I think this is the most important building site in Victoria ... whatever happens I think it is the best spot for the cities tallest proudest buildings ... I don't want to be negative but I don't think Victoria is capable of building such buildings. I also now worry that if Townline proposes something ... it is then discussed, debated and finnaly approved ... it will go the way of the three towers aproved in the Bay parking lot ...

#47 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,795 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 10:11 AM

I echo those feelings. This is one of the most important downtown sites and deserves a superior design. I also feel it is a VERY appropriate spot for extra height, as it would add some much needed interest to the skyline. I am hoping Townline - and the city - gets it right.

#48 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 10:28 AM

I have always felt that for modernism … the museum complex has never been topped … WOW, and that goes way back … I would, and have for 30 years, dreamed to see buildings in the 20 – 25 floor range there that finally made the locals say WOW, now those are beautiful buildings … PS, into this most important spot I would work some underground stores and an above ground public area with a kind of permanent outdoor market … a people place … not a hang out place for drug users. I think that the Falls is finally going to be a complex that we will be impressed with ... lets keep it going!

#49 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 11:17 AM

ah I'm at school so can finally see the pics. I must say I like the shorter one with it's detail and set backs rather than this vertical slab, although I do enjoy the sleekness of the thin vertical edge. Keep that uniform vertical glass surface, but add some steps and details around the other part to contrast. Or at least that's what I'd do. That or make that sheer vertical glass on an interesting angle like Bental tower in vancouver. Come on victoria, there's so much that can be done with glass and cement!!

#50 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,933 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 11:51 AM

I think two different colour schemes would go a long way.

One tower could be light blue as seen in the renderings and the other turquoise/aqua (or pinkish, greenish, or what have you). It's the twinning of the design that I don't particularly like but if each tower was to be differentiated in some way that'd win me over.

I made this comment about Hudson's towers during one of the presentations but I don't know if different palettes for the (now) two towers is in the works.

#51 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:27 PM

I am not crazy about the design. Its unfortunate that there is no connection to the former use of the site (no not a parking lot, but the old interurban station site), and you are probably getting sick of me saying that. The buildings look like glass versions of the appartment towers in James Bay. Why cant we approve tall buildings that arent just rectangular glass boxes? Look what is happening in Vancouver, at least many of the buildings there have some interesting shapes.

#52 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:54 PM

I am not crazy about the design. Its unfortunate that there is no connection to the former use of the site (no not a parking lot, but the old interurban station site), and you are probably getting sick of me saying that. The buildings look like glass versions of the appartment towers in James Bay. Why cant we approve tall buildings that arent just rectangular glass boxes? Look what is happening in Vancouver, at least many of the buildings there have some interesting shapes.


Amen!
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#53 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,843 posts

Posted 21 November 2007 - 11:37 PM

Why cant we approve tall buildings that arent just rectangular glass boxes? Look what is happening in Vancouver, at least many of the buildings there have some interesting shapes.


I can understand that. That drawing though shows the one side that looks all the same. The eastern side has the setback.

#54 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 12:59 AM

I would be in favour of an interesting roof element atop the tallest tower. This is a signature downtown location, and, as per a discussion we had a while back about Victoria's boring "roofline" and the need to design attractive crowns on buildings, it must reflect that in its entire design. I want to see an attractive crown or spire here!

It doesn't really matter what the architect does with the roofline because it will be soon be covered by an antenna farm, such as Camosack Place. All spiky and stuff, like this...



#55 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 08:44 AM

I think we all agree on the importance of this building site - - -

Will whatever goes up be worthy of the site - - - ?

Do you think it will happen in our lifetime - - - ?

Standing by!

#56 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,933 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 09:49 AM

It doesn't really matter what the architect does with the roofline because it will be soon be covered by an antenna farm, such as Camosack Place. All spiky and stuff, like this...


I don't think it's that easy to erect antennae. They need approval from City Hall, don't they?

The Sussex has a nice spire and it's been left alone for over a decade. I think a crown or spire here would be excellent.

#57 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,026 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:47 AM

So are there no rules about what sort of junk (including signs) they can stick on top of a building?

#58 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,933 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:50 AM

Sign bylaws take effect when it comes to signs, I believe.

#59 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:58 AM

I'm not sure what the rules are about getting the antenna farms approved and who gets a say. In the discussions about the Triangle Mountain antennae, it has always been suggested that the local government is powerless to stop their construction and operation and it's a Communications Canada responsibility. The feds are supposed to take local opinion into account but it's not obligated do what the locals want.



I don't object to antennae, I object to the unsightly way they are installed.

#60 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:01 PM

I love the roof of camosak :P

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