![]() ![]() | ![]() |
| | |
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
![]() |
| | Thread Link Options | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
| ||||
| ||||
| Cook/Johnson condo project tries again By Robert Randall • Published on Thursday, December 23, 2010 Quote:
__________________ Robert Randall's blog Last edited by Rob Randall; Dec 23, 2010 at 12:01 AM. |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
5:1 density!! Me likey!
__________________ "beats greezy have baked donut-dough" |
|
#3
| ||||
| ||||
|
Sounds good to me. I do remain a little concerned about the lot next door. But perhaps a SoMA type building could go in there.
|
|
#4
| ||||
| ||||
|
I hope a "podium tower" isn't a bad thing. The previous design was perfect.
|
|
#5
| ||||
| ||||
|
The original proposal looked like this:
__________________ Skyscraper Source Media Inc.
|
|
#6
| ||||
| ||||
|
Wow. That might really pick up that area. Then there's the huge lot on the other side of Cook next to the medical centre. I wonder if this would be a catalyst for more happening there.
|
|
#7
| ||||
| ||||
|
Fingers crossed!
|
|
#8
| |||
| |||
|
Why do they always seem to want to go back to the drawing board? The original renderings looked really good.
|
|
#9
| ||||
| ||||
|
^The previous design was an office. I don't think the previous entity would make a decent condo.
|
|
#10
| ||||
| ||||
|
I don't remember an office component. To clarify, that is the second version. I don't have an image of the very first one circa 2005 but it was quite different. I believe both versions were modified after much feedback, including Design Panel recommendations so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a half dozen iterations floating around. That photo depicts Kwan's design that resulted after people said the building should be more modern and broken up and with a corner entrance. I think Corazon and Juliet may have influenced it as the renderings for those popular buildings may have been around at the time. Harris Green guidelines recommend staggered setbacks to encourage a terraced look to towers but developers and architects prefer straight-sided buildings for various reasons. De Hoog will propose a straight-sided tower pulled back from the podium that will satisfy the setback requirements.
__________________ Robert Randall's blog Last edited by Rob Randall; Dec 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM. |
|
#11
| ||||
| ||||
|
This is what I've heard from developers and architects on why they dislike setback rules designed to create terraced towers.
__________________ Robert Randall's blog |
|
#12
| ||||
| ||||
|
I could have sworn this was originally office.
|
|
#13
| ||||
| ||||
|
No that was residential. The developer may want to update the design of the building though to better reflect what type of units and price point the current market demands.
|
|
#14
| ||||
| ||||
|
what if the cook st village went all the way to RAP? :dancingbanana:
|
|
#15
| ||||
| ||||
|
Well North of Pandora it would stop because that is North Park Village.
|
|
#16
| ||||
| ||||
|
really? I didn't know it had a name
|
|
#17
| |||
| |||
|
I'm still trying to figure out why the original design was nixed.
__________________ In chains by Keynes |
|
#18
| ||||
| ||||
|
^ It wasn't - it just didn't get built because of the economy.
|
|
#19
| |||
| |||
|
As I recall Fred Rohani and company bought the property. He built the Aria and many other projects in town. His dad built the tower at 747 Fort St
|
|
#20
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
If Alpha Developments is planning to build the proposed tower at Cook/Johnson then it is highly likely that the condo sales centre under construction at the Aria is associated with this new project. |
|
#21
| |||
| |||
|
OK- it looks like the project will be called The Mondrian and its address will actually by 1090 Johnson Street. Alpha Developments has announced the project on its website: http://www.alphadevelopments.com/newprojects.html |
|
#22
| ||||
| ||||
| like this painting? that would be slick maybe the bright colours wouldn't work so well in victoria thoughLast edited by amor de cosmos; Dec 25, 2010 at 09:45 PM. |
|
#23
| |||
| |||
| That makes sense now, thanks. Doesn't Harris Green have higher height limits than 10 stories though? I mean there's View Towers, The Manhattan, Regent Park, etc....
__________________ In chains by Keynes |
|
#24
| ||||
| ||||
|
^I believe those all came in before the current guidelines (+ - 10 years ago.) The Manhattan, for example was allowed to build that high because density transfer and a covenant was placed on the neighbouring two-storey office tower. Recall this prevented what would have been the 7-Eleven tower at Quadra/Yates. The Regent's Park tower was allowed because they built that huge semi-public garden space connecting View with Yates. The history of View Towers can be found elsewhere in this forum.
__________________ Robert Randall's blog |
|
#25
| ||||
| ||||
|
^ Aren't the new guidelines for much taller buildings? Why don't the developers push for that?
|
| You're not quite at the end of this discussion thread! Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page and read additional posts. |
| | |
![]() |
| « Previous Thread
|
Next Thread » | ||||||
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |