[Fairfield] The Zen condos (1121 Fort St.) | 4 storey condo | Built - completed in October 2011
#1
Posted 14 August 2008 - 12:36 PM
The developer wants to demolish the house and commercial frontage and build a four storey condo.
Apparently, the zoning for the site means no public hearing or Design Panel is needed. Unfortunately, the building is right up to the lot line to the east so it presents a huge four storey blank wall facing the century-old houses beside it. I don't think this is a great place for a streetwall. And I'm on the record for supporting 1137 Meares just a block away which is a similar no-setback condo.
#2
Posted 14 August 2008 - 12:45 PM
With a lot that narrow, it's going to be really tricky to build what the owners want without creating an ugly no-windows wall facing east. Any setting back or notching to create any kind of interest means losing half the site's width, it seems...
#3
Posted 14 August 2008 - 01:38 PM
#4
Posted 14 August 2008 - 01:45 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#5
Posted 14 August 2008 - 04:54 PM
#6
Posted 14 August 2008 - 08:36 PM
Today:
Proposed condo:
I looked over the photocopied blueprints but couldn't see an architect's name on them.
#7
Posted 14 August 2008 - 08:38 PM
#8
Posted 14 August 2008 - 08:42 PM
#9
Posted 14 August 2008 - 08:54 PM
@Rob: thanks for the visual aid -- very helpful.
Hmm, some architectural / design savvy would help this one out, I think.I looked over the photocopied blueprints but couldn't see an architect's name on them.
The older houses that continue up Fort on that side do have a lot of character. In terms of business viability, some of them are like those older houses on Amelia St.: occupied by lawyers offices, and some kind of alternative health thing (I think at least 2 of the ones on that side of Fort have lawyers' offices -- and the business occupancy pattern repeats across the street).
IOW, those old houses might well stay put for decades to come.
And in that case, it makes sense for this new development to present a much friendlier face eastward, toward those houses. As the proposal stands now, the abrupt and rebuffing east-face of the new (proposed) building is saying, "you're next!" to the old houses next door.
A good architect/ designer should do better...
#10
Posted 14 August 2008 - 10:01 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#11
Posted 15 August 2008 - 06:32 AM
#12
Posted 15 August 2008 - 07:57 AM
#13
Posted 15 August 2008 - 09:52 AM
Of course these are EXTREMELY expensive to include on such a wall. In addition neighbours will complain bitterly about the windows looking at their house as a privacy issue.
If the building has side windows people will complain about privacy and code issues. If it doesn't they will complain it's a boring ugly face.
It's very tough to design buildings like this on narrow lots at the edge between uses/densities. Normally a building like this would be fine as the city would have a clear vision that one day the whole street will have a lovely european styled wall to wall buildings forming a delightful streetwall. But in a case like this who knows if those buildings will go one day or not. If you put windows or a presentable face it's going to seem silly if a building then goes up next door, but if you put up a blank wall and nothing ever goes up it will look silly.
#14
Posted 15 August 2008 - 09:55 AM
I guess that would reduce the square footage, though -- and with the lot being so narrow already (only 40 feet, acc. to the PDF), they can't really afford to lose even an inch...?
#15
Posted 16 October 2008 - 02:39 PM
#16
Posted 16 October 2008 - 03:29 PM
#17
Posted 16 October 2008 - 03:54 PM
...there should be a generous setback from the sidewalk to respect the form of the neighbouring houses with their front yards
That's very interesting. Why is it that whenever we talk about setbacks, the folks who want big setbacks always claim the moral high ground?
Just look at this picture. There's no setback whatsoever from Cook Street all the way up to the eastern edge of the lot. Yes, the houses further up the street do indeed have setbacks. But why should their format necessarily triumph? Why are so many Victorians so willing to toss away the urban character of our downtown?
(That said, I don't really know if I'm much of a fan of this project.)
#18
Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:21 PM
#19
Posted 16 October 2008 - 09:48 PM
#20
Posted 16 October 2008 - 11:14 PM
I liked what Pam Madoff said today, that integrating urban form into a mainly residential neighbourhood with a lot of SFD-type housing calls for smart design and that merely covering the building in bricks or hardi-plank does not make it fit into neighbourhoods. She singled out the two newish North Park condos as good examples because they use modern materials and design (The Soho on Mason Street and The Urban on Quadra).
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