Jump to content

      













Photo

[Esquimalt] 669 Constance / 658 Admirals condos | 14-storeys | Canceled


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,096 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:05 PM

A letter to the TC posted here indicates that a proposal is in the works for a 15-storey residential building in Esquimalt.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#2 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:26 PM

A search of the Esquimalt website lists:

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]
"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

#3 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,096 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:57 PM

Good work.

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 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 23 June 2007 - 03:10 PM

Oh, ok. Disregard the reply I just made in that other thread! :)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#5 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 03:17 PM

Clicking on "MAP" on the Pemberton Holmes site launches you into the middle of the Strait of Georgia off Parksville! :lol:

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.


"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

#6 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:15 PM

Slab-tastic!



#7 BBK

BBK
  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:46 PM

The proposal was put to council by the architect Michael Levin. He's the director of Praxis, an architectural firm that is based in the building they designed on Esquimalt Rd. Looks to me like things are going to catch fire pretty quickly in Esquimalt. What with more parks per capita than any other municipality, as well as being surrounded on three sides by water, is it any wonder. Just as a bit of feedback. I was bummed to see the word "vibrant" used in Vibrant victoria. I am so freakin' sick of that word, along with sustainable and liveable. Surely those well paid planner types can come up with better adjectives to sell their schlock. As an aside, if I read those three words again in regards to development I think I might toss my cookies. These developers have actually got themselves' convinced they're doing "good". Remember folks, it's ALL about buying stuff and the only thing they're interested in sustaining is capitalist culture. Look out western comms, our working poor are getting pushed your way to make way for these "last of the water views" developments. It was bound to happen, but 16-stories? Where are we headed....

#8 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,096 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 09:25 PM

Five years ago Esquimalt was reeling from negative publicity and now that developers have taken an interest in the area it's suddenly the best place on earth and perfect as-is?

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 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,148 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:17 AM

If a highrise on this site is indeed as inevitable as some people seem to think it is, then I hope those same people will direct their energies toward making the building as good as it can possibly be. An attractive highrise is always preferable to an ugly one. This rendering suggests a lot of work is in order, especially re: the massing. It's an obscene fatscraper. Does Esquimalt really need a 21st century version of View Towers?

#10 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:36 AM

The waterfront is too precious for standard architecture. However, that does not necessarily mean only luxury condos for the rich.
"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

#11 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,235 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 11:22 AM

So why not a slimmer 22-storey tower that keeps the views more open? I just cannot understand this local obsession with creating great huge slab walls that effectively block views and light from every angle, when narrower, taller, well-placed (and well-designed) buildings potentially maintain the views much better.

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 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,148 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:05 PM

From the blurb at the Pemberton Holmes site:

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 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:45 PM

I had to look on Google maps to find out where this is. Great to get rid of surface parking next to waterfront but aastra's right. Why should we have different rules for Esquimalt's waterfront? Is it that much less important than the inner harbour?

and the only thing they're interested in sustaining is capitalist culture

Yep, 'cause nothing screams quality like socialist architecture.
"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

#14 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,148 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:02 PM

It's too far away from the inner harbour to add anything re: an impressive first impression for people arriving on the Coho or whatever. And it's too far away from Esquimalt Road to add much if anything re: village vibrancy. And it's smack in a neighbourhood of SFDs.

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 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:12 PM

They might instead think of a mini Dockside Green.
"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

#16 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:10 PM





#17 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:17 PM

^Ah, I see it's not right on the water. Still, I'd like to see what the Esquimalt community plan has set out for the future of this neighbourhood. Obviously you can't have a highrise surrounded by sfd's.

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.
"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

#18 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:22 PM

Weird. Is anyone seeing the pics in my last post? Are all pics I've posted in the past not showing? Cuz I can see them fine.

#19 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:27 PM

I see 'em fine.

#20 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:30 PM

I can see them.

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

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