[Esquimalt] 669 Constance / 658 Admirals condos | 14-storeys | Canceled
#1
Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:05 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#2
Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:26 PM
Address
669 Constance Avenue
Applicant
Michael Levin
Application Status
To Advisory Planning Commission 06/19/07
Description:
To consolidate 669 Constance, 658, 660, 662 Admirals Road and rezone to allow for a 16 storey tower with 109 units.
[url=http://www.pembertonholmes.com/British_Columbia_Realtor.British_Columbia_Real_Estate.561549570.html:562c4]More info[/url:562c4]
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#3
Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:57 PM
This smells of a rezoning flip to me.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#4
Posted 23 June 2007 - 03:10 PM
#5
Posted 23 June 2007 - 03:17 PM
This is the only vague reference, from an Esquimalt News article from last year on planning projects:
One area where there might eventually be some higher density development is in the area near the liquor store on Constance Avenue.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#6
Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:15 PM
#7
Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:46 PM
#8
Posted 23 June 2007 - 09:25 PM
BBK, you have some strong ideas about who developers are and what they stand for, but this particular section of the forum is probably not the best place to express them. Let's stick to the topic and refrain from deviating too much.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#9
Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:17 AM
#10
Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:36 AM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#11
Posted 25 June 2007 - 11:22 AM
As I have stated before I work in the Jack Davis Building, a fatscraper extrordinaire, that will forever cast a huge northen shadow on it's neighbours. A building with half its footprint and twice its height would have had much less impact. As for its current (8 -storey) height, just exactly what magnificent view does it preserve? Nothing to the North, South or East. Would a slimmer 16 storey tower where JD sits have blocked the view of the Sooke Hills any more than this pink shoe-box does? I look forward to the coming Radius Project that will block the view OF the JD building from many an angle!
#12
Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:05 PM
21000 square foot tower Site. Ocean views start at ground level and are unobstructed for life.
Right. Because as we know, every tall building you build in Victoria is the last tall building that will ever be built. Ever.
Until the next one comes along and blocks their views.
(one way or another it must be possible to block the view in at least one direction, right?)
It's too tall regardless of whether or not they slim it down and make it attractive. I mean, 15 stories (or 14 or 16, depending on the source) in a neighbourhood full of nothing but two story SFDs?
A developer gets hell for proposing 17 stories downtown in the shadow of 19 story buildings, and yet something like this in Esquimalt actually has legs?
#13
Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:45 PM
Yep, 'cause nothing screams quality like socialist architecture.and the only thing they're interested in sustaining is capitalist culture
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#14
Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:02 PM
I understand wanting to take advantage of the underappreciated oceanfront in Esquimalt, but I think any developer should consider himself lucky if he gets seven or eight stories on that site.
I just don't understand why it's suddenly okay to propose highrises in areas that don't even have a single midrise.
#15
Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:12 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#16
Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:10 PM
#17
Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:17 PM
The wavy line must represent the original shoreline (?).
Hey, is that an anti-aircraft gun on the grass strip? That's one way of dealing with noisy neighbours.
Gum, your pics aren't showing up so I pasted the URL in a browser.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#18
Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:22 PM
#19
Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:27 PM
#20
Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:30 PM
I also think this is a very weird proposal.
Just so I understand this: unlike Victoria (which includes Vic West), Esquimalt has its own laws/ rules/ bylaws, meaning that Victoria-style CALUC protocol doesn't apply here?
@ Holden: good one about the "commie block" style "architecture" of this view-blocking slab! This building isn't capitalism (and, ok, it's not socialism either), it's just a mistake and shouldn't pass.
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