BUILT 200 Douglas Use: condo Address: 200 Douglas Street Municipality: Victoria Region: Urban core Storeys: 6 Condo units: (1BR, 2BR, penthouse) Sales status: now selling |
Initiall... (view full profile)
Learn more about 200 Douglas on Citified.ca
[James Bay] 200 Douglas | Condos | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2014
#21
Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:34 PM
The Building
Building is 12 storey, SAME footprint (% wise) as existing. In all other dimensions it breaks zoning.
Look is glass, flat roof, staggered balconies. Because the building sides parallel the lot shape (ie it's not square) it looks rather awkward and stubby for its height. Architect is Frank D'Ambrosio. The floor plates seemed quite big.
Underground carpark (2 floors). Entrance to parking off Simcoe, and they want to make Simcoe 2-way to accommodate their parking lot access.
They are applying for LEED but not there yet.
Existing building is 24 units, and they want to build 67, with 90+ carparks (1.3:1 as opposed to zoning on 1.4:1). No mention of car-share or any other amenity (other than collecting rainwater for the garden) that would be "green".
The Comments
Many people commented on: the lack of apartment space; the shadowing; the height; the parking off Simcoe. This developer is the same one that is building the assisted living place on Parry street (behind the Vicino property on Menzies).
My Thoughts
My property will most definitely be in shadow of this place (I live one lot in on St Andrews, to the NW of 200 Douglas), which when you consider I rather enjoy the sun coming in my window in the early morning from the west is crappy. As much as I like density (and I know all the good things that come with it) I do think this building is too tall. It's right next door to several 3-storey condos and the House of Allsorts, which basically looks like a standard R-2. D'Ambrosio kept going on about the "interface with the park", alluding to a wall of condos along public parks like Central Park in NY. Which, is fine for NY, but there are duplexes right behind them, not other multi-storeys like in NY.
My impression was that their LEED certification was just as a sales pitch and not a buy-in like Dockside.
About half the people in the hearing came jut about this property, and while one or two people said they liked the design, I personally don't. Someone mentioned (not publically) that the units on the top 4 floors will have unobstructed views of the straights. The AVERAGE selling price is to be $600/sf; so the top 3 floors of penthouses will probably rival The Falls.
At one point with the next application for a 5-plex on the old Flour Mill site on Ladysmith (zoned R-2) the proponent stumbled when he commented that the lot is the same size as an R-3L; someone asked him why he wanted site-specific zoning and not R-3L; he couldn't think of what to say. The developer from 20 Douglas whispered ("Don't Answer!"). Makes me think he's quite shrewd. I fully expect him to come back with a more "refined" proposal (what he really expects to get). But I don't think the JBNEA will like it anyway. I just hope it doesn't stay 12-storeys (for purely selfish reasons).
#22
Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:42 PM
It doesn't sound like it's really going for anything slim or innovative at all in the design if the footprint is the same, does it? If not, then why should it get the extra height? A bit of staggering is nice, but does not a great building make.Building is 12 storey, SAME footprint (% wise) as existing. In all other dimensions it breaks zoning.
#23
Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:51 PM
In fact, people did comment that there was no staggering or any other method (slimming) to "hide" the height. All street scenes shown were of Douglas, but when you try to imagine what it will look like next to the house of allsorts on Simcoe the difference will be quite staggering (pun intended!).
All three applications in James Bay today were in my mind aesthetically crap. 200 Douglas is a glass tower, no hiding it. It could probably be termed a "fatscraper"...which at 12 storeys gives you an idea of how large the footprint is (or how bad their pictures were).
The 5-plex I mentioned above was abysmally bad; I think if they had gone for a 4-plex, 2/floor with parking below (or even in the back yard) they would have received consideration. But 5 townhouses pushed up against the property lines with at-grade parking- *shudder*.
Even the Zebra house for Toronto st (currently the side entrance to the assisted living u/c on Parry st) was boxy with parking facing the street and a flat roof; not very original.
Makes you wonder....if these people can make a living at it.....
#24
Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:07 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#25
Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:13 AM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#26
Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:41 AM
#27
Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:35 AM
#28
Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:12 PM
#29
Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:42 PM
#30
Posted 13 September 2007 - 04:04 PM
Seems like a perfectly solid building. I can think of a dozen other more deserving buildings for tear down in JB. In fact, this is quiet an attractive little building. Just needs a little tlc:
#31
Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:37 PM
Is[url=http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1612:1af93]this thread[/url:1af93] about the same development?
Thanks for heads up, it's fixed now.
And thanks for the photo!
#32
Posted 14 September 2007 - 07:19 AM
#33
Posted 14 September 2007 - 08:38 AM
Well I say JBNEA why don't you stop making "spot-opinions" and try to have some consistent policies, you have lost all credibility!
#34
Posted 14 September 2007 - 09:28 AM
Someone needs to start asking them some hard-hitting, no nonsense question about their policies, and call them on their inconsistencies. Dig...scrape below the surface of what they are saying, and reveal to Victorians what the JBNEA is really all about.
Seriously, where's the passion and the pride in our local journalists?
#35
Posted 14 September 2007 - 09:49 AM
Now if this developer was say, tearing this down to build a much larger condo PLUS as part of the deal building Victoria's first large rental building in decades, some lovely 10-12 story deal, then it would be a good idea. But they arn't, this development is one of the first that fits right into the nimby's fear-mongering about greedy developers destroying affordable housing to build time-shares for the rich. Of course they don't mean any of it, all they want is no change so that their million dollar homes can continue to block any affordability in their neighbourhood so we really don't have any common ground.
I'd love to make a nice speech about this at city hall while at the same time slamming james bay for blocking every project that COULD add affordability to the area.
#36
Posted 14 September 2007 - 10:13 AM
There's not a hope in hell they're going to be able to develop here.
#37
Posted 14 September 2007 - 11:05 AM
Don't the developers know there are still a bunch of parking lots out there?
Seriously, where's the passion and the pride in our local journalists?
I guess they're too busy trying to prove they're capable of being national journalists.
#38
Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:42 PM
#39
Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:17 AM
Come on, these folks want to build walls just after they move in. What gave them the right to build their house or apartment in the 1st place? On the one hand we cant find affordable housing stock and on the other we restrict development and density which drives the prices up. They are talking gibberish.
The current building has outlived its usefuleness. Standard rule of thumb question, "whats the highest and best use for this" if its a nursing home or a safe injection site, hotel or brothel then thats what it should be.
James Bay is such a mish mash, there are some really beautiful streets and then there is some that remind me of Belfast in 1975.
The old apartments are shoeboxes left over from the Stalinist era. Dont tell me Madhoff thinks they are architecturaly significant.
If more density was allowed on main streets like Douglas, Blanshard and Quadra where there could be decent transit routes, then the side streets could have a chance of remaining more as they are. Happy medium
Why doesnt JBNA get together and put their money where their mouth is and buy some land and develop affordable housing to prove that their way is correct.
#40
Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:55 AM
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