[Downtown Victoria] The Union | Condos | 5- and 5-storeys | U/C

[gumgum]

Originally Posted by jklymak

^ over the years on here I've been struggling to give Pam Madoff the benefit of the doubt. But for an elected politician for the city to say that an empty lot is a better opportunity than a very high class looking low rise development that preserves the historical facades is beyond the pale. Madoff owes the rest of us an explanation as to what would be the "opportune" use of the lot. What does she see going in there? A couple of Fairfield family lots?

I too have struggled with this. I have looked at her position regarding these matters time and time again. On the rare occasion she has some legitimate concerns. But for the most part the only conclusion I can come is that she is pandering to the type of voter that keeps her re-elected term after term.
I would go as far to say that she knowingly votes against project that meets all requirements, and may even actually believe that a project will have a positive effect; but she votes against her own opinion to win votes.
This is of course just a theory, but she is a smart, experienced official. How could anyone with this level of intelligence have so many inconsistent, nonsensical ideals?

I too feel that she owes us an explanation.

[Rob Randall]

I'll play Devil's Advocate and attempt to put my interpretation on Madoff's comments.

When a prime development site like the Buckerfield's lot (or the Classic Car Museum lot or the Telus/Haida theatre lot) sits fallow and abandoned year after year our anxiety level goes up. We can't allow developers to exploit our impatience with proposals that fall short of what the site (and we) deserve. Recall that the previous Bambu proposal included a theatre as a public amenity. Are we getting a good value in return for the extra variances being asked of us? It's still a question worth asking, even if the lot is an eyesore that is driving us crazy with anticipation.

It may surprise you that Madoff has eventually voted "yes" on most highrises (but not before dispensing a few withering admonitions) whereas Geoff Young (a hero to many on this board) has voted "No" on several projects, including innocuous ones like 947 Fort.

Look, I'm no Madoff supporter but I wish she had been around in the 1980s when the award-winning heritage Victoria Brewing building on Government was demolished to make way for a two-storey piece of crap.

[jklymak]

^ Right, I agree. Its important for quality buildings to be built, and I don't think zoning variances should be randomly dished out. Unlike some on this board, I think its absolutely council's role to make sure the city is built in a form we will be happy with for many years. Market forces alone can't do that.

However, maybe the TC just selectively quoted her, but it would have been nice to hear if there were actual design problems that she had with the building. What could we have gotten instead that would be worth the wait?

[aastra]

...I wish she had been around in the 1980s when the award-winning heritage Victoria Brewing building on Government was demolished to make way for a two-storey piece of crap.

I wish she had been around in 2010 when the city was planning to replace the... ah, never mind.

[gumgum]

Good points, Rob.

[Mike K.]

When a prime development site like the Buckerfield's lot (or the Classic Car Museum lot or the Telus/Haida theatre lot) sits fallow and abandoned year after year our anxiety level goes up. We can't allow developers to exploit our impatience with proposals that fall short of what the site (and we) deserve. Recall that the previous Bambu proposal included a theatre as a public amenity. Are we getting a good value in return for the extra variances being asked of us? It's still a question worth asking, even if the lot is an eyesore that is driving us crazy with anticipation.

How did Anthem Properties attempt to exploit the property? On what basis could she even suggest that this project, designed by a well received architectural firm, could possibly exploit the community?

Exploitation is forcing tax payers to pay for pet projects or demanding senseless amenities from developers which only exacerbate the cost of purchasing a residential unit or leasing commercial space. Developing an eyesore of a property with a quality, worthwhile project that will do more for the rejuvenation of old town than any make-work scheme City Hall could ever conceive, should be welcomed with open hands, not extorted for amenities that are oftentimes more trivial and costly to implement than they're worth to society at large.

[Nparker]

Well put, Mike.

[G-Man]

Yup my thoughts exactly.

[Rob Randall]

I am confused. There are hundreds of posts here that we have written over the years berating developers who insult us by presenting plans featuring cheap cookie-cutter buildings. And we praise the projects that have emerged from the approval process better than when they began.

Clearly, nickel-and-diming a project to a slow, lingering death (see: Crystal Court) is unacceptable. But so is jumping at the first proposal that sees the light.

This version of the Union project is superior than the one floated a year ago.

How did Anthem Properties attempt to exploit the property? On what basis could she even suggest that this project, designed by a well received architectural firm, could possibly exploit the community?

That's not what I mean. I believe the core of the complaint is that we do not benefit by letting our anxiety and impatience influence the development process.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by Rob Randall

I believe the core of the complaint is that we do not benefit by letting our anxiety and impatience influence the development process.

Anxiety about development already constantly "influence[s] the development process" in Victoria. It's just that it's usually deployed to impede it, but now that it might be used to accelerate it, who steps up and says, in so many words (which you've paraphrased for her), "hey, let's not let anxiety and impatience influence the development process"? Why, the person who previously has used it to retard development. Funny, that.

[Old School]

The TC article by Bill Cleverley was a bit of a surprise for those of us whom actually attended the public hearing on the Union April 28. A quick check of the council minutes on the city website will indeed confirm that not only did Pam Madoff vote FOR the Union project, it was her own motion to approve the project that was adopted unanimously by council.

[Mike K.]

Please don't tell me the TC is back to its "Malcolm Curtis" days of reporting on development...

[aastra]

Check out this comment to the TC article from April 29th:

Just what downtown Victoria needs. More condos. Why anyone would pay for an overpriced shoebox, with the sound of sirens going off all night long and people peeing in doorways is beyond me. But whatever floats your boat.

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/Condo+r...#ixzz1MS940SmY

To summarize, downtown is a hellhole that desperately needs help, and thus the last thing that downtown needs is new residents.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Yeah, there are a couple of decent comments on that article, but for the most part they're just inane and so incredibly poorly thought out.

Also, it's frustrating to read legitimate criticisms (say, that a lot of condo construction is poor, resulting in buildings that don't have good sound insulation, etc.; or that we tend to trash the environment in Victoria by disregarding emissions laws; or that practices that destroy amenities - again: excessive pollution, noise, etc. - are permitted while we worry instead about 2 metre height variances and other BS) mixed in with the utter economic gobbledegook from some of the regulars on the TC comments.

Example, "Canadianbud" writes: "can't they build something other than condos.. I mean really, have they run out of ideas on stores or other types of housing?"

That's what comes of being a total stoner, I guess. Uh, let's see... economics... 1 + 1 is ... uh, 2, and 2 + 1 is ...uh, many. Too many, man. Yeah, that's right, it's too many. Greedy developers, boo!

#fail

[aastra]

One thing that really confounds me is this idea that a building (any building) somehow represents unmitigated greed whereas a surface parking lot does not. Many Victorians seem to subscribe to this notion. It makes no sense.

[jklymak]

Originally Posted by Old School

The TC article by Bill Cleverley was a bit of a surprise for those of us whom actually attended the public hearing on the Union April 28. A quick check of the council minutes on the city website will indeed confirm that not only did Pam Madoff vote FOR the Union project, it was her own motion to approve the project that was adopted unanimously by council.

While she did indeed make the motion, on page 5 of 9, it says she voted against the motion, so I think Cleverley was correct.

Just because she moved something to a vote, doesn't mean she approved of the proposal.

The minutes http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanage...110428_cnc.pdf are actually interesting. The group most in opposition was the Downtown Resident's Association. I'm not sure what to make of the objection:

Ian Sutherland (Chair of Land Use Committee, Downtown Residents’ Assoc.): The DRA would like to support this proposal, but Victoria’s Chinatown has been recognized as a National Historic Site, and this is in the centre. The DRA feels there needs to be extra sensitivity toward the heritage value. After the public information meeting held last November by the developer and after reviewing the consultants report and there three areas of concern: the proposed building is too high; four storeys would be more appropriate; Theatre Alley, once reintroduced should have shops and more detail; and the façade of the building does not blend into the Heritage façade and Chinatown. It is to be noted that some of the support noted in the consultants report was conditional upon changes, which do not appear to have happened. They were told the height variance was 1 meter not the 2.3 meters which is what is being asked for. DRA members are also concerned about cladding materials for the upper floors and parking entrance; the design is too linear for the upper stories; it should be set back further than the 6 feet from the original façade; Theatre Alley appears uninviting; more retail is needed; it appears to be a cut through for residents; the pedestrian access should be protected by covenant and there should be more colour of masonry to animate the Fisgard Street frontage. The DRA would like to support this as the property is significant; however, there are still significant concerns and until they are addressed the DRA would ask Council to table the proposal.

[aastra]

I agree with a lot of that.

Not sure what to make of this from the minutes:

Buildings were of moderate height and built to a height people were willing to walk up to.

So does this mean people were not willing to walk up to the Empress Hotel?

Not so thrilled with this:

They wanted a natural concrete finish, but to make the numbers, wood frame on top of a concrete podium is what is being used. They wanted it to look like concrete, but you cannot put concrete on wood; so hardie board is the preferable solution.

So what's that mean? A Railyards sort of look?

[Kapten Kapsell]

The Union's website is up and running now:
http://unionvictoria.com/

Information on the site is somewhat limited (so far).

[Mike K.]

I guess they're trying to establish a presence on Google considering VV ranks as #1, #2 and #3 when searching for "Union condo Victoria." Their website is #6.

[Dylan Leblanc]

The sales office for this will be inside Market Square along the main walkway through from Johnson to Pandora.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The website has been substantially updated with floor plans for each unit.

Junior 1 bedrooms (under 600 sq. feet) constitute the vast majority of the units and, given the neighbourhood, this puts the Union in direct competition with Kunju.

There are 2-bedroom + den units in the Pandora building of just 732 square feet; I believe these constitute the smallest 2 bedroom + den homes ever offered in this market.

[Dylan Leblanc]

today

[Baro]

Uhg can't get the website to show me the floorplans, shoddy website.

[G-Man]

I'll admit I am surprised that the Mondrian and Sovereign are underway and this site is still quiet. Anyone want to guess whether this or Era will be underway first? I am going with Era.

[Mike K.]

We're half a year into sales now, btw. Any word on how the project has been received?