[Downtown Victoria] 1075 Pandora | 13- & 10-storeys | Proposed

[Downtownguy99]

Got a notice in the mail today re a development proposal for 1075 Pandora - where Coast Capital is now.....

Looks like they are holding a community meeting on September 13 regarding
- removal of existing buildings
- Blasting
- Number of buildings
- Height
- Number of Stories
- Floor Area
- Site coverage
- Number of Rental Units
- LEED
- New Zone
- Views from existing buildings (my favourite)

I had heard through the grapevine from a realtor at the Mondrian that this lot was up for redev, it will be great for the area depending on what is being proposed. But given that I am loosing half my view to the Mondrian, not entirely sure about loosing the other half to the North East - but all new development in this area is good as long as there is services and resources to support the people...

Has anyone heard anything on this?

The applicant name is JCP Properties Ltd - Dan Cox

[Mike K.]

Thanks for the heads up. I don't think anyone has mentioned anything about this on VV.

[Holden West]

People have been eyeballing that site as a prime development site for several years now. The players' names are unfamiliar to me. It's a surprise as the building was derelict for a couple of years before Coast Capital (or the landlords) brought it back to life. It was the BCAA office before they moved beside Starbucks at Quadra and Yates. I'm very interested in how high they plan to go.

[G-Man]

A fourth ten storey would be a mistake. Eight or twelve IMO.

[Dylan Leblanc]

5 would be ideal IMO. It wouldn't shade the park and block views of surrounding towers like anything taller would.

[VicHockeyFan]

What's this (at risk of Downtownguy99 having a heart attack, along with every Mondrian buyer):

CGS Property Group:

[Dylan Leblanc]

whoa, I didn't know Victoria was that kind of city. but hey, why not!

[aastra]

At this point I'm wondering just how harmful a few slim and nicely separated towers would really be in Victoria. If that image doesn't make people pause for reflection, nothing will.

[Mike K.]

The powers that be say they want a "Paris," don't they?

Anyhow, unless the development team has past experience with projects of this magnitude (and by all indications their existing properties aren't anywhere near the scale of what we see here) we could be looking at yet another overly ambition proposal by a developer that doesn't have the wherewithal to complete the project. Either that or they'll want to flip as soon as zoning is secured.

[jklymak]

Ha, this would be terrible. Everything I've been complaining about re urban planning downtown. "This block already has some 10-storey towers, so a couple more crammed in must be OK" , is completely wrong.

[Holden West]

Originally Posted by aastra

At this point I'm wondering just how harmful a few slim and nicely separated towers would really be in Victoria. If that image doesn't make people pause for reflection, nothing will.

But with Harris Green, you've got a height restriction but no density restriction. As long as you follow the separation guidelines, which is looks like they have (It doesn't look like living room windows are facing other living room windows, for example).

Anyhow, unless the development team has past experience with projects of this magnitude (and by all indications their existing properties aren't anywhere near the scale of what we see here) we could be looking at yet another overly ambition proposal by a developer that doesn't have the wherewithal to complete the project. Either that or they'll want to flip as soon as zoning is secured.

I agree, this is the big boy playground. I don't care how many cabins you've built on Salt Spring, this proposal is a whole different animal.

[VicHockeyFan]

Question for Marko.

What type of full disclosure is required from the sales people at Mondrian, with this proposal on paper....

[Holden West]

I'm certain a Realtor must disclose his knowledge if asked. Do you scare away potential investors because of a mere speculative possible proposal? Or do you volunteer any possible future development, even if it's a rumour, in order to build long term trust. If it was already approved by City Hall it would be different, this is just a very early idea.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Holden West

I'm certain a Realtor must disclose his knowledge if asked. Do you scare away potential investors because of a mere speculative possible proposal? Or do you volunteer any possible future development, even if it's a rumour, in order to build long term trust. If it was already approved by City Hall it would be different, this is just a very early idea.

I mean what has to be disclosed, whether asked or not. There are things that MUST be disclosed, asked or not.

[G-Man]

The only thing a project like this will do to the Mondrian is increase their property values. This is currently a transitional area whereas this proposal which is ambitious will increase density and create more services.

This is exactly what was envisioned for Harris Green back in the late 1990s with the design charette that was done. That said if I were putting forward the proposal I would drop the 10 storey section to 4 storeys and increase the corner lot to 16. Of course that would be well outside the height allowance for the area.

Still if you look at benefit to the city I would be inclined to support this in its current form. No one said we were trying to create Vancouver point and podium towers. The idea was to create a low dense city ala Washington and Paris. Unless that idea changes and we increase height allowances or the city changes its population increase estimates for the downtown core we are going to continue to see proposals like this.

Developers are putting forward what they think the city wants and as people in business with the intent to make money they are going to do that to the best of their ability.

[MarkoJ]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Question for Marko.

What type of full disclosure is required from the sales people at Mondrian, with this proposal on paper....

Good question, a bit of an interesting situation as the sales people (also licensed realtors) are related (wifes) of the developers. I am assuming the Mondrian developers have received this notice?

To be honest, I don't know what is exactly legally required in terms of disclosure given it is only a proposal, but I would hope ethical realtors/sales people working for developers would disclose that a proposal has been made especially to those buying on the two potentially most affected flanks.

[G-Man]

The second picture seems to show the parking entrance or exit coming onto Cook. This seems to be a huge mistake. I mean that light can get backed up going south already. Why would you not put the entrance/exit onto the Pandora laneway and allow for the section of Cook Street to be a complete commercial strip. This would continue the village continuity from the North Park Village to the North and hopefully encourage more commercial along Cook to the South in the future.

The more I think about it I would do the lot between the older rentals and the Mondrian as townhouses. At the very least townhouses facing Johnson but something like the ones on Quadra by North Park Cycle would also be a good fit (though with a more pleasant backside)

Option one

or these ones

Option two

[G-Man]

Something like the SoMA might also work on that lot.

Option three

[Dylan Leblanc]

The tower on Johnson is wrong. We shouldn't be cramming a 10 story residential tower between two others in a space so narrow the tower has to have largely windowless sides which the existing towers look directly over to.

Four storys max there I say or yeah, townhouses.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

The more I think about it I would do the lot between the older rentals [/url]

Those are both condos. Yes, there are lots of rentals in there, but they are individually owned. I had a suite in the west building, my first-ever apartment after moving out of the parent's home, circa 1987. Nothing like the 120v 18"w dryers to take 5 hours to dry a pair of white jeans.

[aastra]

This is exactly what was envisioned for Harris Green back in the late 1990s with the design charette that was done.

True, but there's one major problem with that vision: nobody actually wants it to come to fruition because it would be terrible. People (especially people in Harris Green) want something approximating a view and they want at least a bit of daylight coming through their windows. And I'm sure they also want at least a smidgen of variety in the building heights and forms that they're going to be looking at every day. I'm not reading minds here. This is the sort of stuff that they complain about endlessly, and for pretty good reason.

And yet their vision calls for the opposite. It makes no sense.

[G-Man]

Well charettes are done by residents and business owners of course one could argue that the population has changed significantly from then.

I would hope that people's expectations are even as reasonable as you suggest.

I will go back to what I have said over and over again about Harris Green. This area should not be touted as a place with a view. It is plain ridiculous that anyone would buy a place in a flat low lying area of the downtown core not bordered by a park or water and expect a view to exist in perpetuity. The city should not cater to that.

The only view that anyone should expect in this area of town is a city view or in other words a view of other buildings. If you want water or mountains try Shoal Point or Swallow's Landing or the Promontory.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Sure, but no one deserves a view of a 10 story blank wall 20 feet from their balcony, which is what the residents of the west side of the Mondrian would receive.

[G-Man]

^ agree

[Baro]

If we want to be like paris or prague we need to zone for it and encourage that urban form. I actually prefer that form to the Vancouver model, but we're not building either. I'd love to see some zero-setback street-wall style 5-8 story high density buildings, but we're not building that style at all, we're building short fat buildings with windows on all sides, only to get blocked by their neighbours.

Either build tall slim buildings with enough upper setbacks all around to preserve some tolerable views, or build dense wall-to-wall euro-blocks. We end up getting the worst of both worlds though.