Victoria Construction - #7

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Vin

And what about your own opinion, sir? Smells like roses?

Yes actually it does because i'm only interested in improving the city which is why I usually champion development because it often gets rid of old, rundown properties and replaces them with new, much nicer buildings and in the process creates employment (both temporary and permanent), increases downtown vibrancy, limits sprawl and lowers crime so rather than just expressing an opinion that isn't based on anything my beliefs are pragmatic. I'm not saying we should tear down every old building because some are worth keeping but just because something is old (and nothing around here is really old anyway) doesn't automatically make it worth preserving.

[aastra]

Nothing is old, and yet the #1 justification for tearing something down is because it was too old.

If Victorians were in charge of Budapest or London they would have demolished the national parliament buildings by now. They aren't old, so why keep them?

[aastra]

Dude, don't quote! Reply!

(just a bit of anticipation on my part)

[aastra]

...I usually champion development because it often gets rid of old, rundown properties...

For sure, but weren't you arguing with me not too long ago when I said there were numerous such properties in the downtown area???

How come nobody cares about those aerials of Yello on Yates? I thought those were great pics. Never seen some of those angles before.

[aastra]

If we really want to talk about taller buildings, I think that crappy little office block on Blanshard between Cormorant and Pandora would be a good spot for an officer tower somewhere in the teens. Gateway Green was supposed to be 14 stories on the next corner over, but obviously it never happened.

Discuss...

[Phil McAvity]

^Gateway Green was actually supposed to be 15 stories which would have been glorious.

Originally Posted by aastra

For sure, but weren't you arguing with me not too long ago when I said there were numerous such properties in the downtown area???

Nope, you're confused, we were discussing empty lots not rundown buildings and I said I didn't know of many but you pointed out a few.

I think i'm finally starting to get a handle on the edit/quote feature

Here are my shots from today as I wandered into E-Town for the first time in a while. Yet again my batteries died but this time I had thankfully taken all the shots I wanted:

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aastra

Nothing is old, and yet the #1 justification for tearing something down is because it was too old.

If Victorians were in charge of Budapest or London they would have demolished the national parliament buildings by now. They aren't old, so why keep them?

Many of London's buildings were rebuilt after the war as the Nazis destroyed a fair number of the original buildings during Blitzkrieg in the 40s. However, today you won't notice that many of the rebuilt ones are not that old. My point is, they are pretty good at creating buildings that blend with the surrounding structures.

Victoria still retains the charm of a relatively well-preserved European city. If developers had their ways back in the 60s, this city would've lost its charm decades ago.

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yes actually it does because i'm only interested in improving the city which is why I usually champion development because it often gets rid of old, rundown properties and replaces them with new, much nicer buildings and in the process creates employment (both temporary and permanent), increases downtown vibrancy, limits sprawl and lowers crime so rather than just expressing an opinion that isn't based on anything my beliefs are pragmatic. I'm not saying we should tear down every old building because some are worth keeping but just because something is old (and nothing around here is really old anyway) doesn't automatically make it worth preserving.

I understand that you mean well, but rampant redevelopment sometimes makes it worse. As aastra pointed out before, many of the newer buildings that replaced the older structures look way crappier, as is evident along Douglas Street.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Vin

I understand that you mean well, but rampant redevelopment sometimes makes it worse. As aastra pointed out before, many of the newer buildings that replaced the older structures look way crappier, as is evident along Douglas Street.

Aastra was talking about people's overreaction half a century ago to big view destroying slabs like Orchard House and View Towers so to many, skyscrapers became the enemy (my own mother voiced her disapproval of them) out of fear that Victoria might someday look like other North American cities (God forbid!). Thus we have insipid, inoffensive buildings like the RBC building at Douglas and Fort and the TD bank building at Johnson and Douglas, both of which did something almost unprecedented-build something smaller than their predecessor although I wouldn't exactly say that either the Permanent Loan Building or the Campbell Building that came before were architectural gems.

[osirisboy]

What I don't like seeing in Victoria are these spandrel towers. I'd personally like Victoria not to have any of these things and keep everything below 10-12 stories, narrow streets, buildings built up to the property lines

Phil thanks for taking pictures. But if your batteries run out doesn't your phone take pictures?

[aastra]

I've never understood why people say things like that. In order to keep everything below 10-12 stories you would need to roll the clock back to 1960 (and then re-demolish the old Permanent Loan building, because it would still be standing). And even if you could accomplish the feat, there would still be the Empress Hotel and several churches and cathedrals that would be taller than 10-12 stories in terms of their sheer height. The peak of the Humboldt Street wing of the Empress Hotel is about as tall as an 18-story residential building. Heck, in the 19th century even Oak frickin' Bay had the old exhibition hall, which was what, maybe ~120 feet high?


pic from http://www.travellingbackflip.com/countries/canada.html

This is what I mean when I say there's no need to be revisionist. Just let the city be what it is. It's working out very well. The cityscape is unique and increasingly interesting and there's lots of good stuff on the ground.

**********

Here's a slightly more refined image of Bayview 4:



pic from http://bayviewplace.com/

[osirisboy]

Why do I say that? Because I don't want to see Victoria full of generic glass condo point towers with generic townhouse podiums of painted concrete.

Also, i never understand why people conflate height and number of stories. I never said height. So if you want to have a 120 foot tall 10 storey building go for it




What's revisionist?

[GlassCity]

I see no problem with high-rises in Victoria, I just don't see the rush. It already has an active downtown with lots of cool things to see and do. What would some taller buildings accomplish? Buildings should be serving the city, its people and its amenities, not the skyline. For now, Victoria's done great in this.

[aastra]

What's revisionist?

Do I misunderstand? You said you wanted to keep everything below 10-12 stories, which would mean undoing the city's modern era and rolling everything back to 1960 or thereabouts.

Consider this: since ~1960 Victoria's built form has changed the least by far of any Canadian city west of Ontario. Roll Vancouver or Calgary or Edmonton back to before the modern highrise era and they would be unrecognizable places. Meanwhile, a city like Kelowna is just now embarking on ambitious elaboration of its modern form. And yet people want to say Victoria is the place that should be rolled back? It doesn't make any sense because Victoria is the place that has exhibited the least dramatic change. Ongoing development and redevelopment that fits and that works has been Victoria' bread and butter. The proof is in the pudding: the city has built all sorts of good new stuff without trading off its heart and soul.

Seriously, almost 60 years of ongoing development and redevelopment, and yet it's still very much the same place it was when the process started (the only really drastic changes being the erasure of several prominent historic buildings that were unfortunately replaced with bland and rather irrelevant stuff -- although you need to go back all the way to the late 1980s for the most recent misstep of this nature). If you don't believe it, just look at aerials of the city core today and compare them with aerials from decades ago. You have to scrutinize the pics to identify the new construction, even though the new construction has supposedly overwhelmed and ruined the place. If you can hardly see it then how the heck can it have overwhelmed and ruined the place? In fact, the impact has been very subtle.

This is what I mean when I say people need to relax. Literally every day since the first highrise building went up all those decades ago we've been hearing people say it's all over, the city is being ruined. So here we are 60 years later and we're still hearing people say it's all over, the city is being ruined.

"I moved to Victoria in 2015 and I'm upset because the city is being ruined."
"I moved to Victoria in 2006 and I'm upset because the city is being ruined."
"I moved to Victoria in 1998 and I'm upset because the city is being ruined."
"I moved to Victoria in 1989 and I'm upset because the city is being ruined."
etc.

I have no doubt whatsoever that people will still be saying it 25 years from now. But a place simply cannot be on the precipice of ruination for such an extended period. It's impossible. Victoria has so, so many examples of things that were supposed to be the straw that would break the city's back, only to become just one more piece of the fabric. That building was controversial? Everybody loves that building now.

Thus, we can be 100% certain that no extreme change of course is necessary. The long-established process is working. Victoria slowly but surely maintains and/or enhances its uniqueness with every passing day. Lest we forget, in terms of what you're allowed to do re: development and redevelopment, Victoria is without doubt the least extreme place in western Canada, if not in the entire country. You still have to prepare for a multi-year battle if you want to build a 4-story apartment building or some townhouses or even a simple house in some instances.

Worrying about Victoria in this regard is like worrying about the health of the only person in the room who exercises and eats right and doesn't drink or smoke. It's silly. Victoria made its big mistakes a long time ago and ultimately developed the formula that has been working very well for many years, and particularly since the late 1990s. Stay the course. Let the city be what it is. There's no need to make hasty changes.

[aastra]

...is like worrying about the health of the only person in the room who exercises and eats right and doesn't drink or smoke...

Before anyone misconstrues my analogy, I'm not suggesting that some cities have pursued unhealthy development strategies or anything like that. I'm merely observing how silly it is to come down on Victoria for not demonstrating sufficient restraint re: development matters when it's the only place that has demonstrated any restraint whatsoever (and a lot of restraint, too).

[osirisboy]

Yes you misunderstood. I meant as we move forward.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Phil thanks for taking pictures. But if your batteries run out doesn't your phone take pictures?

You're welcome. Coincidentally I just upgraded from an old Samsung Galaxy S3 to a Galaxy S7 so yes, it can take pictures but what it doesn't have is zoom, which my camera has (26X zoom actually) and I always take pictures of the city from miles away so my phone camera is about as useful as tits on a bull but believe me, I wish I could use the battery in my phone over the rechargeable AAA's I need for my camera because if I could do that I would have fewer problems.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Because I don't want to see Victoria full of generic glass condo point towers with generic townhouse podiums of painted concrete.

Also, i never understand why people conflate height and number of stories. I never said height. So if you want to have a 120 foot tall 10 storey building go for it

I don't have a problem with painted concrete, particularly when compared to bare concrete. I remember what View Towers looked like before they painted it and the difference was significant. Do I really need to explain why people conflate number of stories with height?

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I see no problem with high-rises in Victoria, I just don't see the rush.

I never said there needs to be a rush, I would just like to see the city grow naturally, free from the negative influence of NIMBY's who try to convince everyone that without their brilliant stewardship Victoria would look like Manhattan, except for the fact it's light years from true.

Here's the new seniors building on Hillside that for some reason is concrete in spite of only being 4 stories while in Esquimalt a wooden 6 story building is going up.

I sure hope they keep the green exterior.

[aastra]

People seem to think this unidentified project is for the Railyards:



pic from Stephane Laroye Architect Inc. instagram

[Phil McAvity]

Citified says this building on the site of the old Low Food Store in Esquimalt will be 15 stories but I only count 12. Either way, it will really stand out due to it's hilltop location



https://victoria.citified.ca/condos/...pacific-house/

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Aastra was talking about people's overreaction half a century ago to big view destroying slabs like Orchard House and View Towers so to many, skyscrapers became the enemy (my own mother voiced her disapproval of them) out of fear that Victoria might someday look like other North American cities (God forbid!). Thus we have insipid, inoffensive buildings like the RBC building at Douglas and Fort and the TD bank building at Johnson and Douglas, both of which did something almost unprecedented-build something smaller than their predecessor although I wouldn't exactly say that either the Permanent Loan Building or the Campbell Building that came before were architectural gems.

In its rejection of typical tall North American-style skyscrapers, Victoria chose to build "insipid, inoffensive" buildings in the 60s-80s. Well, why couldn't the City continue its legacy of the past by continuing to build structures that could match the more ornate mid-rise buildings, such as the the Empress, the Belmont, Union Club or the Custom House? In my opinion, opting for tall skyscrapers as well as building the small boring structures are both lousy choices for Victoria. Choosing the latter results in what you get along Douglas today.

Old Montreal has done a good job in preserving the classical mid-rise neighbourhoods, resulting in old world neighbourhoods that many say are comparable to those in old European cities. At the same time, Montreal also has a newer neighbourhood with tall gleaming skyscrapers. Quebec City has also done a very good job, although a couple of 60s-70s high rises had certainly ruined the view of the city from certain angles.

Victoria is the only Anglo-Canadian city that has more or less preserved its old world charm.


Old Montreal:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Old...!4d-73.5544177

You don't see a single skyscraper spoiling the view here.

[Phil McAvity]

^If you think that skyscrapers "spoil the view of cities" why are you at this site? I would think that the name "skyscraperpage.com" might kind of tip people off that we like them.