I'm really not digging this abrupt switch from "any development whatsoever would be very bad" in the Fort Street/cathedral district area to "tall highrises would be very good" in the Fort Street/cathedral district area.

Crikey, does anyone remember when Mount St. Angela was getting smeared left and right for what they wanted to do? For those who might not recall the 15+ year saga, they basically wanted to restore the old college building and add an adjoining new lowrise wing. Appalling! Unacceptable! We need to draw a hard line in the sand! Seniors housing would ruin the neighbourhood!

Some residue of our former reality can still be found on the Victoria Heritage Foundation's website:

The college building has been leased to the Vancouver Island Health Authority but in 2009 the owner proposed constructing a 5-storey tower beside it.

The Chelsea lowrise condo building at Vancouver & Burdett also received a mountain of grief.

(from Hallmark Society newsletter, Spring 2007)

It may be argued that developers have already ruined the Burdett streetscape with the dense towers currently being constructed at Burdett/Vancouver/McClure. But if we concede defeat every time that happens, then we might has well throw in the towel entirely.

Complaints along the way have included issues like: disruptions and blasting during construction, traffic (of course), shadowing (of course), height, density, and etc.

The outrage over the small-footprint junior highrise proposal further up Fort Street is still fresh, for crying out loud.

And yet here we are, just the CoV's stamp of approval away from (how many?) at least five legitimate towers south of Fort and north of Burdett? Two or three of them could end up being some of the tallest buildings in the entire city.

The way things have turned so suddenly, it reminds me of the old joke about the branding for Mr. Salty Pretzels: "Reduced salt? Low salt? No salt? To hell with it: MISTER Salty."

Flagrantly abrupt abandonment of every professed principle... which leaves the sane few among us to wonder what could have been if only we had chosen to be sensible when we had the chance.

Anyhoo, too late now. This bed was prepared at great hassle and expense over a very long time. Now we lie in it.

FYI: I see the Broughton St side of this PARC proposal is now being depicted as overflowing with vegetation on every floor.

I've never been a fan of this kind of "green building" sales pitch. Remember Gateway Green? And wasn't HP1 originally depicted as flaunting a scattering of small trees right up to the top?

If it still has power to seduce planners and politicians then I suppose I can't blame anyone for trying, but methinks there are few examples in the history of the modern world where this kind of thing has panned out as envisioned. Even in those rare instances where the "gardens of Babylon" aspect has seemed to turn out well, it tends not to last because it requires maintenance and expense. Good buildings are one thing, and good landscaping/plantings are another thing. If you can do both within a single project then great, but methinks you shouldn't be emphasizing one in order to supplant or distract from the other.

It's a frickin' building. Let it be a building. Focus more on the fundamentals, like the overall architectural design, the ground floor, the cladding, the materials, the windows, the balcony railings, and other much more pertinent details.

Click here to view attachment.

We'll note that the tower depicted above adjacent to View Towers has not been built yet.

27-storey highrise planned at Fort and Quadra streets kitty-corner from View Towers