Jump to content

      













Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:39 PM

I suspect that with developers now having discovered that there are views from Esquimalt that this proposed building will not remain surrounded by SFD's. Let's make sure that whatever does get developed is going to set the right kind of precedent for what we want to see going forward.

Good street interaction, a side facing the ocean that is friendly to the public, not a fatscraper. The usual. Basically, let's not repeat the Songhees mistakes...

#22 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:41 PM

Wait a second, I presumed this was on the end of the street facing the strait, not the end by the base.

For crying out loud, would a large building really be such a big deal there? You've got big parking lots, you've got warehouses and industrial facilities, you've got cranes as tall as any highrise in Victoria...

I'm still opposed to the fatscraper form, as always, but I take back what I said about seven or eight stories being an appropriate upper limit.

Thank Global Air Photos for putting the site in context for us. There are plenty of lowrise apartment blocks right there. The tallest appears to be 5 stories. And the tallest building on nearby Esquimalt Road appears to be 6 stories.

http://www.globalairphotos.com



#23 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:23 PM

That's right, there really aren't any SFDs all around this property. The recent apartment development spurt in Esquimalt has been along the same block (a few properties to the east, in fact), albeit at 4-storeys in height. There may be a few SFD's across the street but this building would stand along a strip of apartments new and old.

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


#24 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:10 AM

It still looks like The Wave and View Towers mushed together...
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#25 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 10:08 PM

paking lots next door? Go tall, I've seen this site, and it would make great for rental, I didn't recall that detail after reading it, but being so close to the base, it makes a lot of cents!

#26 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 08:45 AM

TOWN TOWER PLAN PITCHED
Sharon Tiffin/News staff

By Brennan Clarke
News staff

Jun 27 2007

A 16-storey highrise proposed for Admirals Road next to CFB Naden has raised the ire of neighbours who say the development will ruin their views, cast shadows over their homes and even compromise security at CFB Esquimalt.

“It will be slap bang in the middle of our view for one thing,” said Grenfell Road resident Christine Blackburn, whose home overlooks Esquimalt Harbour from the high side of Admirals Road.

“But my main concern is how easily the official community plan can be ignored. When we bought, we understood the limit was five storeys. We were surprised to to hear it was revised to 10 storeys.”

The 109-unit building, proposed by a Vancouver-based developer, is slated for a parcel of land next to the military base’s Canex department store, just down from the Esquimalt Legion.

Esquimalt’s advisory planning commission, which reviewed the plans last week, called on town council to stick with the official community plan’s 10-storey height limit and require the developer to hold more public meetings before moving ahead.

“It did not meet all of our wishes so we forwarded it (to council) with some reservations,” said APC chair Rod Wilkins, adding that the building’s attractive design would help rejuvenate the run-down area.

“It’s refreshing. It looks good and it would clean up that whole area.”

Admirals Road resident Pete Craig said he and many of his neighbours were dumbfounded after learning about the plans at a recent meeting held by the developers.

“People are in shock. One of my neighbours was in tears,” he said. “It’s just so far beyond what we ever thought would go there.”

Many area residents we unaware that Esquimalt’s new OCP, approved in March, raised the allowable height to 10-storeys, Craig added.

Although the plans have yet to come to council, Esquimalt Mayor Chris Clements said increasing density is essential to ensuring the cash-strapped township’s survival.

“People need to understand that if we don’t allow that kinds of stuff to happen, we might not survive,” he said. “If we don’t, we’ll have to cut back on all the services that people want.”

If approved, the Admirals Road proposal would be Esquimalt’s tallest building, surpassing the 14-storey Swallow’s Landing project currently under construction on the historic Matson Lands.

In that case, developer David Price agreed to donate 1.4 hectares of Garry oak meadow to the Nature Conservancy of Canada in return for a four-storey density lift.

Esquimalt planning director Frank Limshue said a density lift for the Admirals Road project would likely require the developer to contribute “community amenities” as well.

“The OCP has designated areas for highrises. It suggests 10 storeys, but there’s provisions for density bonusing,” Limshue said.

Blackburn said she’s also concerned about the impact on security at the military base, given that the upper floors of the development will have a panoramic view of the installation.

Officials at CFB Esquimalt have yet to comment publicly on the development.

mailto:bclarke@vicnews.com

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


#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 10:38 AM

If approved, the Admirals Road proposal would be Esquimalt’s tallest building, surpassing the 14-storey Swallow’s Landing project currently under construction on the historic Matson Lands.


Anybody know anything about this 14-storey Swallow's Landing project? Is it anywhere near the 9-storey Swallow's Landing project?

What's the deal with local journalists and building heights, anyway? Do these people not have eyes? How can you make a mistake like that?

...adding that the building’s attractive design would help rejuvenate the run-down area.

“It’s refreshing. It looks good and it would clean up that whole area.”


I presume they've seen different renderings than the ones that were posted here.

#28 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:06 AM

Esquimalt high-rise plans challenged

By Kelly Howard
Vic-News staff

Jul 13 2007


Height of proposed 16-storey structure criticized

Some call it an eyesore, others call it progressive development in Esquimalt. The 16-story high rise proposed for 669 Constance St. has area residents angry that their neighbourhood could be dwarfed by the tallest building in Esquimalt.

The 109-unit building plan presented to council July 9 had residents groaning to the developer’s recommendations for the Admirals Road area.

Politicians spent more than hour addressing traffic impacts, sewage demands and the “green” plans for the building.

Several councillors, including Coun. Jane Sterk, expressed concerns about the building’s height and mass and requested more public input.

“I still have great discomfort that we just passed a community plan going from four to 10 stories and the first project that comes to us is 60 per cent higher,” she said.

Architects admit it’s possible to lower the building to 10 storeys, but say more residents will have their view obstructed as the building footprint would have to expand outwards to compensate for the lost height.

In response to resident’s expressed fears of lost views and shadows cast by the proposed structure, developers presented results of a shadow study to council.

The study shows neighbouring houses can expect moving shadow after 3 p.m. in mid-summer During winter, shadowing begins at noon, according to architect Michael Levin.

“A result of the shadow study for a building like this is pretty minimal on the neighbours,” he said.

Developers will host a second public input meeting Aug. 9, as invitations to attend the first did not reach all potentially affected residents. Developers blamed Canada Post for the error.

Councillors suggested going door-to-door and expanding the invitation to more homeowners in efforts to generate more input.

Council accepted the introduction to the rezoning bylaw, and continue to gather information from the public. Council will hold a public hearing after developers have a chance to meet once again with residents.

khoward@vicnews.com



#29 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 11:44 AM

Architects admit it’s possible to lower the building to 10 storeys, but say more residents will have their view obstructed as the building footprint would have to expand outwards to compensate for the lost height.


That's always a good point, but then again, the community plan only allows for 10 stories and as of yet there's only one development in Esquimalt that's close to that height.

I feel like some of these more far-flung projects are taking advantage of arguments that really only apply downtown or in areas that already have a fair share of tall buildings. If 12 stories can work on Cormorant Street then why does a parking lot in Esquimalt call for 16 stories?

The curved building on Sayward Hill is really long and only 6 stories tall, but it works well enough on the site.

#30 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 17 July 2007 - 03:36 PM

^ I agree with you re. feeling "like some of these more far-flung projects are taking advantage of arguments that really only apply downtown or in areas that already have a fair share of tall buildings." But just an aside on the Sayward Hill building: its rear faces onto a cliff/ hill/ rise (whatever you want to call it), so it's impossible for that 6-storey building to block anything. When you walk the cliff- or hill-path from the very end of Worthington Rd. & Destrube down to Mattick's Farm, you're actually looking down on that building. The houses up on the cliff continue to enjoy an unobstructed view of land and sea (although, FWIW, the soil there seems to be pure sand -- can't imagine what that will do in an earthquake, ut-oh...). It's a really handsome building, though (from the front -- the backside is hallways and wall, it seems). If it did block someone's view, it at least would still provide something nice to look at...
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#31 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,564 posts

Posted 18 July 2007 - 06:19 AM

I agree Aastra you have just voiced something that has been nibbling at the back of my mind. Now I think there are areas that could use taller buildings such as the Douglas Street Corridor but places like Esquimalt cannot use the same arguments as downtown.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#32 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 09:40 AM

...

Highrise proposed for Esquimalt site
Kim Westad, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, August 01, 2007


Esquimalt is ripe for development, and a 16-storey building -- the tallest in the municipality -- would set the tone for a renaissance of the aging town centre, says the developer.

"The more money you put into a neighbourhood, the more people spend," said Norm Flemig. He is a shareholder in the Vancouver company that wants to built a 109-unit mix of townhouses and condos on three lots at 669 Constance Ave. and 668 and 650 Admirals Rd.

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



#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 11:08 AM

Again with the 12-storey height for Swallows Landing...

Can't reporters count?

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


#34 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 12:37 PM

It's simple math, Mike. Swallow's landing is two-nine story towers.

Adding the heights together and multiplying by two-thirds gives you exactly 12 storeys.
"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

#35 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 06:49 PM

So what formula was Brennan Clarke using when he arrived at 14 stories?

If the reporters continue to get such a simple and obvious detail wrong, how can we believe anything else in these articles?

Maybe I'm being too tough on them. They are getting closer. A couple more stories and they'll probably have it right.

#36 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 18 September 2007 - 06:54 AM

CBC is saying the developer is willing to knock a few storeys off the design to satisfy neighbours. Meanwhile, neighbours say that would still make it higher than the OCP allows.
"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

#37 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 03 October 2007 - 08:50 AM

The following article also hints at another highrise proposal coming down the pipes in the same vicinity as this tower.

Esquimalt highrise proposal will go to hearing
Kim Westad, Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007

A controversial 14-storey highrise that indicates a big-and-tall change in Esquimalt development will go to public hearing, Esquimalt council decided last night.

But council warned developers of three lots at 669 Constance Ave. and 668 and 650 Admirals Rd. that a vote in favour of going to public hearing shouldn't be seen as a guarantee the project will be approved.

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

http://www.canada.co... ... c1&k=53156

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


#38 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,564 posts

Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:35 AM

:eek:

Hmmm.... terrorism and forein espionage. I think these are new ones. We have had:

Blocking out sun
Attracting Racoons
Creating windstorms
Potentially downing aircraft

but I think these are new.

Question: Is there a "NIMBY Opposition Theory Generator" that would work on the same laws of probability as the "Condo Slogan Generator" or are these totally different beasts?

Holden you seem to be the expert what do you think?

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#39 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:43 AM

I saw the terrorism argument on an anti-development leaflet in Vancouver not too long ago. Tall buildings at UBC would be targets for terrorists, they claimed.

#40 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,143 posts

Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:53 AM

Question: Is there a "NIMBY Opposition Theory Generator"...


Seriously, I've seen anti-development arguments in articles over at Skyscraperpage.com from all sorts of places and many of them could be taken word-for-word and used in Victoria. Anti-development positions are often very generalized, don't you think? "We don't like traffic," or "We don't like noise," or "We don't like development," or "We don't like tall buildings," or whatever. Whereas support is often very specific to the project/site/area in question.

I suppose you could give the terrorism complaint points for being specific to Esquimalt, but since I've also seen it used in an area of Vancouver that has no strategic targets whatsoever, methinks it's probably a tactic that's being used all over as well.

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