Jump to content

      



























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
200 Douglas is a 38 unit luxury condo situated across the street from Victoria's Beacon Hill Park.

Initiall... (view full profile)
Learn more about 200 Douglas on Citified.ca
Photo

[James Bay] 200 Douglas | Condos | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2014

Condo

  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#21 cluseau

cluseau
  • Member
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:34 PM

Here's what I saw at the meeting:

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 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:42 PM

Thanks for the report, cluseau.

Building is 12 storey, SAME footprint (% wise) as existing. In all other dimensions it breaks zoning.

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

#23 cluseau

cluseau
  • Member
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:51 PM

Ms B:

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..... :rolleyes:

#24 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:07 PM

Great report, thanks. Is this D'Amrosio's tallest tower? Something tells me he's more comfortable at six storeys and under. I like most of his work but I'd hate to lose all that great affordable housing.
"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

#25 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:13 AM

cluseau nice report - glad you decided to start posting, welcome!
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#26 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:41 AM

I am not condoning tearing down that building but why does need to be that tall. Perhaps in this instance they should be going shorter and increasing the floorplates to cover more of the lots. I mean you can't on the one hand say its like New York and then put a garden around the whole building. I say reduce setbacks to 1.5 metres around the buildings lose the decks and go for 6 - 8 stories.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:35 AM

The shadowing issues would be all but the same.

#28 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:12 PM

I don't have a problem with shadows hell I make them myself :)

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#29 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:42 PM

I don't understand why they think they could get away with a highrise there when a very nice lowrise (!) was recently rejected on the lot across from Orchard House. In fact, the lot across from Orchard House was an ideal site for a highrise. For example, the shadowing issues were trivial because Orchard House's mighty shadow is already there. And a fine modern highrise would have been a nice esthetic challenge to Orchard House's rather dreary presence.

#30 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 13 September 2007 - 04:04 PM

Is[url=http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1612:a6518]this thread[/url:a6518] about the same development?

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 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

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!
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#32 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 14 September 2007 - 07:19 AM

Article [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=0427fa6b-d6a7-42d1-af9a-9059601291df:946c3]about JBNEA reaction[/url:946c3] in today's paper, too.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#33 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 14 September 2007 - 08:38 AM

While I am of the opinion that this building should stay put for now, the JBNEA really pisses me off. Here they are climbing up on their high-horse saying they don't want this torn down because of their concern for affordable housing when that is a complete and utter falsehood! They turn down midrange condo projects on surface parking while complimenting million dollar townhouse projects. They reject affordable rental towers while complaining that they need to preserve rental accomodation. They decry so called spot-zoning and ask the city to stick to an outdated plan.

Well I say JBNEA why don't you stop making "spot-opinions" and try to have some consistent policies, you have lost all credibility!

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#34 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 14 September 2007 - 09:28 AM

I just wish the media would stop treating them as a credible body.
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 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 14 September 2007 - 09:49 AM

Unless they were building a LARGER rental building on this site, I'd almost be ready to go down to city hall and chant "greedy" along with the james bay crazies. This is a very nice little rental building in absolute no need for replacement. There's tons of EMPTY lots, no need to tear down a lovely little rental.

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.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#36 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 14 September 2007 - 10:13 AM

What is this developer thinking?
There's not a hope in hell they're going to be able to develop here.

#37 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 14 September 2007 - 11:05 AM

I've been really pleased with this current development phase precisely because it's been all about building on parking lots and underutilized lots. But if they suddenly start tearing down lowrise apartment blocks, things could get out of hand in a hurry.

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 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:42 PM

^ What the rest of you said.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#39 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:17 AM

Those who shout loudest usually have the weaker views.

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 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:55 AM

If a computer is REALLY low on ram and all the current ram manufacturers arn't make any new ones for the near future at least, you wouldn't get rid of the little ram you have to trade it in for a faster video card or processor, no matter how good the upgrade is. Just like a computer, a city is a bunch of different parts functioning together. Replacing a small or cheap or old component of one critical use for a new fast component of a totally different use isn't always an upgrade. You can't run a computer made entirely out of ram, or entirely out of 3d cards. Just the same with a city, you can't have a functioning city of just condos, or just offices. Right now victoria really needs more rentals, so replacing a perfectly fine rental with ANYTHING other than a rental just doesn't make sense for the function of the city.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

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