Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Downtown Victoria] The Sovereign | Condos | 11-storeys | Built - completed in 2013

Condo Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
501 replies to this topic

#61 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 11:08 AM

Indeed. The lower part leaves me cold, too. That's a good way of putting it. It's as if the best part of the building has been hidden on top where nobody will be able to see it, while the main portion strives very hard to be very ordinary.

I sometimes get the feeling that certain members of City Council never actually take the time to walk the streets of Victoria.


We can assume this isn't the case, and yet I've wondered the same thing many times myself. We've talked about this before, but who the heck notices whether the building they're walking past is three stories or six stories or nine stories or twelve stories? What you notice are the storefronts and the windows and the finishing and the entrances and the way the building meets the sidewalk.

I'm going to say the heights of the various buildings in the Old Town contribute a maximum of 5% to the overall charm of the Old Town. Height issues are relevant, but they're soooo minor compared to so many other issues that we CONSTANTLY look past. Drives me crazy.

Worry about the quality of the design and the materials, worry about the way the ground floor engages the sidewalk, worry about the vehicle entrances, worry about creating a dynamic streetscape...and then worry about the height.

#62 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 2,144 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 04 April 2008 - 09:14 PM

I'm not crazy about the mix of styles here. It looks top heavy and unbalanced. There doesn't seem to be a natural transition from the heritage base to the modern curving penthouses. It's as if its plopped on top. Maybe they should just go with an ultra modern building, forget the heritage homage.

Chard is a genius though, and brings us the best new buildings in Victoria, so perhaps this one will be a gem yet.

As for Madoff's comments, yes, heaven forbid we allow any people with money to live downtown!! If they must, they shalt not have views!! Or big windows! Or views through big windows! Especially curved glass windows...that would be an insult to the poor! I guess the fact that downtown is Victoria's poorest neighbourhood still hasn't sunk in with some politicians. Nor has the fact that most units in the building will sell for a similar price or less than the average house in their neighbourhoods.

Once the city councillors opposed to this project remove all windows from their homes..then I'll actively campaign against this project having any windows and I'll fight tooth and nail for a solid concrete box. Covered in heritage brick...and heritage ivy.

#63 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:18 PM

This is an interesting comparison someone told me about. Examine the screenshot I took of the skyline view created by MCMP architects, and then look at an approximation of the actual location of 608 Broughton. Clearly, the architect's rendering is incorrect as it would be impossible to see the corner of the Yarrow building from that angle--the two buildings stand beside each other. I don't think the architect was trying to downplay the effect the building will have on views because it's too obvious to get away with, although it took us a long time to notice.





It's certainly taught me to pay more attention to skyline renderings in the future.

#64 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:59 PM

As I mentioned before, their other renderings appear considerably off as well. The elevations look like they are about 85% as tall as the actual building will be. i.e. your 10' floors look more like 8.5'.

#65 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 02:10 PM

I agree and I note that you have brought this to our attention before.

Here are the other renderings:





#66 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:50 PM

In "Exploring Victoria's Architecture" by Mr. Segger, the Weiler Building across the street is described as being "a five-storey structure some 82 feet high."

The Weiler Building seems to be about the same height as the Yarrows/Pemberton block, don't you think? If so, then it's probably right that about ~3.5 floors of the proposed residential building would stick up above it.

#67 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:30 PM

I don't think the architect was trying to downplay the effect the building will have on views because it's too obvious to get away with...


I think that outline is not quite right. Suffice it to say, the southwest corner of the outlined cube seems to be too far to the south and the north face doesn't seem to be foreshortened enough.

Whatever the case, any building taller than seven stories would have the same basic impact on that particular view. The Yarrow Building will be completely blocked out, and the church tower will seem to be overshadowed re: height and also partially blocked out in the side-to-side aspect.

However, all the observer needs to do is take a few steps to his/her right and the church tower will be unobstructed again.

Anyway, it occurs to me that this erroneous rendering may be a happy accident. We all know the base of the building can't be set back because a large setback would be jarring and out-of-place in the old town. But the upper floors -- the curved floors -- can indeed be set back. In fact they already are! So why not just reduce the height of the rectangular base and increase the number of curved floors atop it? If the base is the same height as the Weiler Building or even slightly shorter, then the impact on this particular view of the church tower would be absolutely minimized. And I think you'd also have a more attractive building, all things considered.

#68 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 June 2008 - 05:41 AM

I think that outline is not quite right. Suffice it to say, the southwest corner of the outlined cube seems to be too far to the south and the north face doesn't seem to be foreshortened enough.


Thats true - it looks like the west side has been twisted too far south.

#69 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 01:39 PM

A Spring 09 start has been floated for this project.

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


#70 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 01:54 PM

A Spring 09 start has been floated for this project.


Cool. I really like the look of this project...assuming the issue of the overwhelming parking garage entrance at ground level has been resolved. I wonder who is going to buy in here as the market softens?

#71 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 12 August 2008 - 02:15 PM

Perhaps he's still going ahead with the hotel plans? Or has that been shelved?

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


#72 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:06 PM

The church tower wouldn't be blocked at all from this angle (nor would the Sussex Place tower):

http://www.flickr.co...rce/2875062547/

#73 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 08:47 PM

So is this one really approved?

#74 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 09:04 PM

Yup.

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


#75 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 10:28 PM

Woah this one really skirted under the radar, how did it get approved with so little fuss?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#76 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 05:44 AM

I believe the site was pre-zoned to allow for this so they only needed the building permit.

#77 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 06:26 AM

Was the building's design altered in any way from the zoning?

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


#78 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 07:02 AM

The current design conformed to existing zoning and did not ask for any variances like setback, density or height relaxations. Remember the pre-existing zoning was designed for a canceled highrise from 20 years ago (Alan Lowe's original Mozart Building).

Nevertheless, Dave Chard and his architects at MCMP were very good at keeping us informed on this project and providing the DRA with early access to the model and drawings (which I've shared with you here) and inviting feedback from us on several occasions even though there was no obligation to do so. Because no rezoning was required, there was no official public notification or neighbourhood meeting.

Despite conforming to the rezoning, in order to get a Development Permit, the building had to go to Design Panel (twice) where the controversial design of the curved top portion was debated. Council also debated the blend of traditional and modern before granting the permit.

#79 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 10:24 AM

Awesome. I think the building is only so-so from what was released so far, but I'm sure it will improve and we'll see some better elevations and renderings in the future. David Chard is a classy guy.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#80 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 28 April 2009 - 09:22 PM

I wonder when Chard will try to market this project. Is the company capable of building 608 Broughton and 834 Johnson concurrently?

With the exception of Concert Properties, most local developers seem to build their projects 'one at a time'...

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