Jump to content

      












Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#61 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,256 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:02 PM

I liked it better without all the junk.

#62 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:31 PM

It looks like shite.

#63 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,761 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:38 PM

But why does the potential for this issue only apply to Centro?

#64 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:42 PM

No, I'm not saying this issue applies only to the Centro. It applies to any tall object in town. Since you were concerned about the architectural merit of the Centro's roofline, I was pointing out that it was probably moot since an antenna farm would appear shortly after completion.

#65 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,256 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:46 PM

Another one of those uniquely Victorian problems?



#66 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,166 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 01:40 PM

Perhaps because there is so few tall buildings the ones that are get abused? I would bet in the Vancouver pic there are hundreds of cell repeaters and antennas but they are spread out and not on one or two buildings.

Does Orchard House have any on top? Perhaps Camosack is different due to its unique location and also the fact that it is rental rather than strata title.

#67 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 637 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 01:46 PM

>>> I love the roof of camosak <<<

So do I – and I like the look of the aerials and the way they are installed - - and I love to see the Camosak off in the distance - - of course I know a lot of people don’t - - of course they don’t - - who wants to see a building blocking our view of the sky - - I think the most impressive building in the world is the Chicago Sears tower - - I can just imagine the people of Chicago when it was proposed - - it’s to tall – it’s to black – it’s not set back – there’s no mid block walk through – oh my god, there are two aerials on the roof – if I stand in front of it, I can’t see what’s on the other side – the building next door won’t like it – it’s going to cause a big black hole to appear in our city - - tourist won’t come any more because we put up a beautiful building - - send it back to the architects and shave it down to 12 floors - - lets study it for another few years!

#68 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,761 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:01 PM

Can you imagine the Empire State without it's antennas? I'm willing to bet that most people don't realize that the Empire State's spire is only up to the "round like" element near the middle of the antenna/spire combo. The part where the spire thins is no spire -- that's an antenna!





Anyhow, why would a developer market a tower for antennas when another of his towers would stand five storeys taller and two blocks to the north? I think it's a safe bet Centro won't be eyed for any communications masts.

As for Camosack the reason it has antennas is because it's the most logical place for them within the core.

#69 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 637 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:12 PM

Of course it is - and New York is a City - Victoria is a town -

#70 2F2R

2F2R
  • Member
  • 637 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:51 PM

>>> All spiky and stuff, like this... <<<

Geesh !

#71 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,750 posts

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:09 AM

I think the most impressive building in the world is the Chicago Sears tower - - I can just imagine the people of Chicago when it was proposed - - it’s to tall – it’s to black – it’s not set back – there’s no mid block walk through – oh my god, there are two aerials on the roof – if I stand in front of it, I can’t see what’s on the other side – the building next door won’t like it – it’s going to cause a big black hole to appear in our city - - tourist won’t come any more because we put up a beautiful building - - send it back to the architects and shave it down to 12 floors - - lets study it for another few years!


Well put 2F2R, it is clear that cities where larege skyscrapers dominate the skyline completely lack vibrancy; their residents live in total gloom and despair that their views of the sky are vanquished and tourists avoid such places like the plague.

I wonder then why more tourists will visit New York City each year than will visit Victoria in a decade? Isn't our unique charme and olde worlde character sufficient to lure more people here than all the museums, galleries, theatres and restaurants in Manhattan? I am at a loss to explain this phenomenon when clearly they are doing everything wrong according to the Victorian Guide to Building a Better City (subtitle: When 14 Stories is Enuff). Please explain.

#72 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 01:58 PM

There already is a lawn bowling club in Beacon Hill, just off Cook St, near Park St.

#73 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 02 December 2007 - 02:42 PM

That letter was annoying enough for me to post it (and take it apart) on the "Letters to the Editor" thread in the "General" section. See my commentary here. I don't get why the T-C continues to give a platform to ignorant statements like this letter writer's.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#74 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 5,372 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 02:42 PM

Afaik nobody has ever proposed doing anything to change Old Town & Chinatown. Some people do seem to want to do something about the ugly cracked-up parking lots like the one where The Falls is going.

#75 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,256 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:13 AM

The many high-rises that have been built and are planned have already partially eliminated any interest that the city center has for me and I avoid it at all costs.


This has become something of a catchphrase among the downtown bashers; they don't seem to realize that it reveals their true colours. It is simply not plausible that a couple of new apartment buildings behind the Crystal Garden would discourage somebody from shopping on Government Street or Johnson Street, or in the Bay Centre or Chinatown, etc.

The writer would never admit it, but the whole reason downtown went into the toilet in the first place is because people like her/him decided to turn their backs on it. The downturn didn't happen a year ago; it began happening twenty years ago and more.

I'll make this point until I'm blue in the face: new residential development downtown signifies a sea change; we're finally leaving downtown's destiny in the hands of people who LIKE downtown, rather than in the hands of those who despise it.

#76 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,256 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:21 AM

Afaik nobody has ever proposed doing anything to change Old Town & Chinatown.


Check out the "long gone greats" thread to see the extent of the damage that was done between the 1940s-1970s.

For some reason those past atrocities get a pass in the popular memory. Probably because no highrises were involved.

#77 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 5,372 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:28 AM

I know about that thread but that's not what I meant. I was referring to the options 1-4 recently released. Old town & chinatown are fine the way they are, but something has to be done about the ugly parking lots.

#78 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,256 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:40 AM

Whoops, I misunderstood. The only recent thing of any significance in Chinatown was the Bambu project, yes?

#79 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,166 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:48 AM

^perhaps this is better suited to the downtown options thread?

#80 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 13,241 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:59 AM

This project goes for its rezoning application at Thursday's Committee of the Whole meeting at City Hall (9 a.m.)

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


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