Address:
Click here to learn how to keep your data current and how to upgrade to a Citified Plus project profile.
The DRA has released another letter expressing opposition to this project:
The DRA has released another letter expressing opposition to this project:
Shocking!
Why does the DRA hate downtown so much?
The DRA LUC has concerns that the building does not conform to the heritage design guidelines. One example is that the addition to the existing heritage is supposed to be subordinate to the proposed building. That is certainly not the case, with the large tower on top of the existing heritage. It should be noted that due to little heritage conversion value derived from this project, it is the belief of the DRA LUC that it should still be subject to the inclusionary housing policy.
...the addition to the existing heritage is supposed to be subordinate to the proposed building
As a guiding principle it sounds okay. Until you consider all of those buildings downtown which have one or two modern levels on the roof, clad in the same bland dark grey panels. And until you also consider how major additions were handled back in the old days (hint: they were handled very differently than today).
But I get it. Ideally an addition would be an addition that doesn't eclipse the older building in a major way. But then again, there are going to be exceptions. Successive additions to the Empress Hotel didn't heed this principle. Era on Yates might be the most extreme example of the new being much more substantial than the old, and yet it still works. The Janion and the Customs House at Wharf & Government are probably more of a 50/50 deal, but I'd also offer them up as examples of great projects in which the new construction did not defer to the old, either in scale or style.
In this case I guess we're supposed to believe the DRA would be much happier if they were proposing only 3 or 4 additional stories on top of the old building? I'm not sure I'm able to swallow that. I suspect the complaint letter would be almost word for word the same...
I don't know how I feel about this one. I'd say the art deco building has a style and a footprint that could work well as the podium for a tower addition. The renderings seem to confirm this. It doesn't look clumsy like a lot of the towers on top of existing buildings that we're seeing in places like Toronto. The existing building would be relegated to functioning as a podium, for sure, but it's not as if the existing building would somehow disappear. As podiums go it would be so large you wouldn't even be aware of the tower from some approaches. For example, in that illustration which shows the people on the corner. Methinks the approach from the north would be a different story, however.
And then there's the precedent to consider. Is there any potential for this project to set a bad precedent? Are there any other sites where developers might try to plop a tall tower on top of an existing building and we'd all be up in arms about it?
Hotel and residential tower envisioned for Victoria's BC Power Commission heritage block
22-storey project will convert the office building into hotel rooms, and add 18-storeys of residences above.
South downtown art deco-styled office complex to anchor 21-storey hotel/residential project
Reliance Properties plans to restore the B.C. Power Commission building into a four-storey hotel, with...
Art Deco-styled Victoria office complex sold to Vancouver developer; eyed for restoration, more floors
Completed in 1940, 780 Blanshard Street served as the headquarters for the province's mid-century electrification efforts.
STAY CONNECTED TO CITIFIED