[Downtown Victoria] Atrium Building (BC Ferries headquarters) | Office | 7-storeys | Completed in October 2010

[Kapten Kapsell]

Originally Posted by G-Man

There are two vacant spots on Blanshard still. One next to Pig and onenext to Metropole.

G-Man,

The vacant spot next to Pig on Blanshard has been leased to a shoe store (opening in March).

I think that the only remaining retail vacany is the storefront facing Johnson Street.

[G-Man]

Yup pretty impressive how fast they filled it up when you compare that to The Hudson...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by MarkCB

I popped inside for the first time yesterday and was blown away! I had always considered the building ho-hum from the outside. Those curving, offwhite concrete panels looked straight outta the 70s to me. But inside, oh man, that's a whole different story. I rode the elevator up and down a couple of times just to watch the perspective change. It's awesome in there!

That's the problem with that building. If I didn't know what I learned here, I would never think to go and visit it. On the outside it looks like any other boring Victoria office building.

[manifest]

I love this building. I live across the street so I get to see it every day. It's much better than the 2 floors of concrete that was there when I moved in.

Also, having Pig so close to my door is a good (and bad) thing. I'm pretty sure they know me by name now.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The last remaining street-level retail space (facing Johnson Street) has been leased to a chiropractor.

[Holden West]

Anagram time:

Atrium Building: "Um, a tiring build".

[Rob Randall]

VICTORIA - Franc D'Ambrosio's stunning use of wood inside the Atrium building has earned the Victoria architect a major award from the industry.

D'Ambrosio architecture + urbanism was singled out recently for the Interior Beauty honour at the B.C. Wood Design Awards, one of 12 winners whittled from 82 nominations.

D'Ambrosio used several kinds of wood - including reclaimed lumber, Island hemlock and cedar, beetle-kill from the Interior and local blowdown - to create the atrium inside the new building on Blanshard Street downtown, which is the new headquarters for B.C. Ferries, Land Titles and a string a local businesses and restaurants on the ground floor.

Read more:

http://www.canada.com/Victoria+archi...894/story.html

http://www.wood-works.org/BC/BC+Gala...Recipients.htm

[VicHockeyFan]

AJ's Organic Cafe inside the Atrium building is having a party today from 10-3, with free food samples, prizes & goodies..

[jonny]

Came across this blurb in Western Living Magazine about the barber shop that should be opening in the Atrium soon.

Man Shave in a Man Cave
Victory Barber & Brand, Victoria

A moose, not a candy-striped pole, is the symbol of this new-generation barbershop that opened in the tony downtown Atrium building in June. The folks behind nearby Lab Salon are putting the man back in manicure. “Our goal is to restore the classic masculinity of being well-groomed, which sadly seems to have been relegated to high maintenance metrosexual types,” says Victory’s Matthew Conrad. Settle into one of eight restored vintage barber chairs for a haircut, shave or a facial, billed as both the Victory Treatment ($35) and the ultimate hangover cure. Plus, find the best men’s grooming goop from around the globe.

Top treatment The Victory Wet Shave, complete with sandalwood-infused hot towels and straightrazor smoothness ($35).

It actually sounds kinda cool. I might have to check it out!

[Dylan Leblanc]

Something like Fix health is going into the Johnson st retail unit, I think

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by jonny

Came across this blurb in Western Living Magazine about the barber shop that should be opening in the Atrium soon.

It actually sounds kinda cool. I might have to check it out!

Looks pretty cool based on their FACEBOOK photos.

[Sparky]

^ I wonder what the lockers are all about? Staff stuff?

[amor de cosmos]

nominated:

The Atrium, Victoria, Canada
D'Ambrosio's Atrium combines high-class offices & retail under one roof

Developed on a one acre site located downtown, the Atrium comprises approximately 20,000 sq m of class-A office and retail space in 7-storeys and addresses the challenge: how can a speculatively-built office building help revitalise a moribund area and enrich the community at large?

Occupying the length of a city block, the Atrium actively engages its civic context. To complement Victoria's historical downtown, and to reintegrate the block into the urban fabric, the building takes a mid-rise form, built to the street walls to give definition to the public realm. The building's palette of natural, durable materials invests the district with a welcome sense of commitment.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...pload_id=18059

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ That's great. I've had some criticisms of the building (mostly its long Blanshard facade), but I love the interior, the landscaping, the offices, the shops.

However, there's one very important thing to keep in mind with this building and its site, before Victorians go patting themselves on the back too hard and think they can replicate it all over the city: the size of the lot.

It's very unusual to have a large footprint lot size like this available / under consideration for development anywhere that close in downtown. Most of the other proposed sites are considerably smaller. (Maybe the Pandora lot across from Big Bad John's comes close? Also purchased by the same developer? But it's not 1 acre, I bet. The Atrium site is huge, for here.)

Why does the lot size matter? Land use specialists/ professionals, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that the large footprint of the lot allowed a relatively low- (ok: MID-) rise building to have enough density and to make economic sense.

Almost everywhere else you go in Victoria you have these much smaller footprints, and the buildings have to be higher to get the needed density to make construction worthwhile. Then, when developers ask for the increased height, all hell breaks loose around that issue. Moronic.

What the city could be doing is thinking about how to consolidate different building sites, if there's the potential that they could be next to one another. That would allow developers to get the density that's needed to make the numbers work, while letting the city keep to the height at the apparently preferred mid-level range that Victorians seem to favor. This would mean actually identifying (and targeting) development sites /blocks, though, and would require an economic policy at City Hall...

[ZGsta]

Originally Posted by Ms. B. Havin

It's very unusual to have a large footprint lot size like this available / under consideration for development anywhere that close in downtown. Most of the other proposed sites are considerably smaller. (Maybe the Pandora lot across from Big Bad John's comes close? Also purchased by the same developer? But it's not 1 acre, I bet. The Atrium site is huge, for here.)

You mean John's Place. Big Bad John's is a bar in the Strathcona.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by ZGsta

You mean John's Place. Big Bad John's is a bar in the Strathcona.

Yeah, that's the bug.

[rjag]

awww thats nice that they get all cushy over the fancy design and use of natural stuff.....except its not functional for servicing. I've said this before but its a total pain for couriers and delivery vehicles as the City has no commercial zone outside and there is no internal commercial loading underground....its a piece of art and I'm sure its lovely to work in, they just forgot that it cant clean itself, has no storage and cant regenerate furniture...all these things and more are part of a normal process to operate and manage a building yet seem to have been forgotten here....rant over

[Baro]

This building gets brought up all the time in "Developers don't need to go over 6 stories to make a profit!" arguments. Ms. B hit the nail on the head with her intuition about lot size. The larger the building, the more space efficient you can make it. Atrium has 3 elevators and 4 stairwells serving it, while a normal sized downtown lot may be 1/10th the size but it doesn't get to have .3 and .4 stairwells serving it. Every building HAS to have 2 stairwells minimum. Elevators also don't quite scale linearly, for example 834 Johnson has 2 elevators compared to the atrium's 3. To make matters worse, taller buildings have higher per sqft costs. A 10,000 sqft 2 story building and a 10,000 sqft 8 story building are not going to cost the same. So when building on a small lot, not only do you have to go higher to make a profit, but you "have to go higher to go higher" essentially. City hall doesn't seem to understand this and always demands developers "prove it" that they need X amount of floors to break even. Developers know Victoria hates height and they generally only propose the absolute minimum to make their hoped 10% profit. Taking a single floor off a building can ruin their razor thin margins.

Also different uses have different demands. Office like's big floorplates so fat buildings are great for them, residential wants windows and views. The Hudson has to carve out a huge hole in the middle as the building was too fat for residential.

And don't forget parking, that is the worst for vertical density. Each level down gets more and more expensive, and on a small lot you end up spending a far higher % of your floor space on ramps.

Basically the TL;DR is: tall thin buildings cost FAR more than a short fat building of the same size, the city needs to recognize this and stop using the atrium as proof builders are lying when they say they need more height.

[MarkoJ]

Originally Posted by Baro

This building gets brought up all the time in "Developers don't need to go over 6 stories to make a profit!" arguments. Ms. B hit the nail on the head with her intuition about lot size. The larger the building, the more space efficient you can make it. Atrium has 3 elevators and 4 stairwells serving it, while a normal sized downtown lot may be 1/10th the size but it doesn't get to have .3 and .4 stairwells serving it. Every building HAS to have 2 stairwells minimum. Elevators also don't quite scale linearly, for example 834 Johnson has 2 elevators compared to the atrium's 3. To make matters worse, taller buildings have higher per sqft costs. A 10,000 sqft 2 story building and a 10,000 sqft 8 story building are not going to cost the same. So when building on a small lot, not only do you have to go higher to make a profit, but you "have to go higher to go higher" essentially. City hall doesn't seem to understand this and always demands developers "prove it" that they need X amount of floors to break even. Developers know Victoria hates height and they generally only propose the absolute minimum to make their hoped 10% profit. Taking a single floor off a building can ruin their razor thin margins.

Also different uses have different demands. Office like's big floorplates so fat buildings are great for them, residential wants windows and views. The Hudson has to carve out a huge hole in the middle as the building was too fat for residential.

And don't forget parking, that is the worst for vertical density. Each level down gets more and more expensive, and on a small lot you end up spending a far higher % of your floor space on ramps.

Basically the TL;DR is: tall thin buildings cost FAR more than a short fat building of the same size, the city needs to recognize this and stop using the atrium as proof builders are lying when they say they need more height.

I couldn't agree more with you. A bit off topic but my father is small time builder (one to two homes a year) and the city does no grasp economics. Right now the he is just finishing up a new spec home in Fernwood. The city made him install 50' of new sidewalk, new driveway, all new curbs, and new asphalt on the city road.

That is just a few of the many many ridiculous things imposed...not to mention it took over 2 months to get plans on a spec home approved while he is making mortgage payments (no variances required, designer followed zoning guidelines). It just bounced from planning to plumbing to inspector, back to planning.....

Needless to say coming from doing two projects last year (one in Langford, and one in Esquimalt) it was a nightmare. Project 3 months behind schedule and overbudget. Once again, spec home.

While 100' of new sidewalk may not be a big deal at the 834 (116 units), it really hurts any margins for a small time guy like my father when you pay $340,000 for an old house + tear down + building a new 2,800 sq/ft home with a suite + sell for $799,000 if lucky + cover all your overhead (equipment, warranties, insurance, WCB, etc.).

Needless to say he won't be tearing down any more 1940s mouldy homes in the City of Victoria. Back to building in Langford. He will be lucky to break even on this City of Victoria project. With their policies I doubt we will see many of the hunderds of 600-900 sq/ft moldy homes in Fernwood ever beening torn down.

[MarkoJ]

and on top of it all City of Langford requires every new home to have rain screen technology; however, the City of Victoria does not. You can't even say that new homes are better built in Victoria in return for all the extra hassle and delays.

[aastra]

...how can a speculatively-built office building help revitalise a moribund area and enrich the community at large?

Lest we forget, the major deficiency in that moribund area was the very property that was redeveloped. It consisted of a craptastic little office block with no sidewalk appeal, a long, tall fence along the Blanshard Street sidewalk, a shack at one of downtown's main corners, and a couple of empty lots.

I like the way the Atrium turned out. It's good. But just about anything would have been better than what was there before. One of downtown's biggest black holes was eliminated, so it should be no surprise that the area is that much better for it.

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by MarkoJ

and on top of it all City of Langford requires every new home to have rain screen technology; however, the City of Victoria does not. You can't even say that new homes are better built in Victoria in return for all the extra hassle and delays.

I wonder how that is possible when the building code is adopted provincially. I know that if you use hardy plank you do not require rain screen, but if you use stucco you do. I just can't see CoV not requiring something.

[ZGsta]

Originally Posted by aastra

Lest we forget, the major deficiency in that moribund area was the very property that was redeveloped. It consisted of a craptastic little office block with no sidewalk appeal, a long, tall fence along the Blanshard Street sidewalk, a shack at one of downtown's main corners, and a couple of empty lots.

I like the way the Atrium turned out. It's good. But just about anything would have been better than what was there before. One of downtown's biggest black holes was eliminated, so it should be no surprise that the area is that much better for it.

I really really like the Atrium and what it's done to that corner but you're right, what was there before was one of the worst corners in all of downtown so anything else would make a huge improvement.

[MarkoJ]

Originally Posted by Sparky

I wonder how that is possible when the building code is adopted provincially. I know that if you use hardy plank you do not require rain screen, but if you use stucco you do. I just can't see CoV not requiring something.

The building code has a rain/moisture scale (I forget the exact name). If you are above 1.00 on this scale you need a rain screen, if you are below 1.00 you don't need rain screen. Langford is at 1.00 and Victoria is at 0.99 - apparently it rains more in Langford. Personally, I wouldn't build a home without rain screen - a rain screen makes a lot of sense especially as the home ages.

And yes the building code is provinical but you would not believe the differences between building a home in Langford, Esquimalt and Victoria.

There is very little consistency.

With all the city fees, HPO fees, warranties, WCB issues regarding tearing down old homes, etc...I predict in 5-8 years a brand new 2,800 home sq/ft in Fernwood will go for about $1,000,000 or more.

Everyone talks about affordable housing; however, reality is no one is helping to make it happen.

[MarkoJ]

You are right about the stucco...In Langford you need rain screen even for hardy plank.