[Downtown Victoria] View Towers | 19-storeys | Completed in 1960's

[Mike K.]

We're lucky there's only one. Edmonton's west downtown area is littered with dozens carbon copy View Towers.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Well, maybe I'm out of touch here, but what I take away from that article is a breath-taking sense of arrogance on the part of Peter Pollen.

In November 1972, the city issued the first ultimatum to clean up what Pollen then described as an "intolerable" mess on the site.

In 1972, that property was not an "intolerable mess," unless perhaps you were used to OB/Uplands criteria. I knew people who lived in that building in 1973 through 1975 -- it wasn't bad.

I'd add that anybody who enters politics because of an aesthetic crusade has to have something not quite in perspective:

View Towers was a motivating factor in Pollen's decision to enter civic politics. "It was one of the most ghastly developments I had ever seen," Pollen said.

(An aside: Tell you what, Mr. Pollen: looking around today and seeing scores of homeless people without an apartment to call home -- even one as "ghastly" as View Towers -- is in my opinion aesthetically far more offensive.)

Pollen said View Towers may provide low-cost housing, "but at what sociological cost?"

'Nuff said...

"We bent over backwards to accommodate the guy," said Pollen, who was prepared to accept a project of about eight storeys.

Bent over backwards, except for letting Mulek derive any profit from his property? Eight storeys... how very generous... <irony alert>

Don't get me wrong -- from what I've heard, I'm pretty sure this Mulek guy acted like a mule and was far from an angel.

And I'm sure glad we don't have a bunch of these buildings all over town, a la Edmonton and other siberian cities (in Canada and Siberia).

But jeepers, I can't imagine it would have been much fun getting anything done with persnickety aesthetes who get their noses out of joint so easily (Pollen). I mean, look at his letters to the editor to this date: they're almost always about how something will "ruin" the look of Victoria, with nary a thought given to economic development, etc. I don't have time for that, frankly -- there has to be something more serious than appearances to running a city and guiding it to a sustainable future.

[Rob Randall]

Originally Posted by Ms. B. Havin

In 1972, that property was not an "intolerable mess," unless perhaps you were used to OB/Uplands criteria.

He could have been referring to the Quadra/Fort corner. I don't know what is was in the 70s but in the 80s it was the remnants of a slab foundation covered in broken tiles. I believe it was the remains of a garage or car dealership.

[victorian fan]

Empress Pontiac Buick was on View/Quadra or Fort/Quadra.
Maybe both. Can't remember.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ haha, a car dealership, eh? Perhaps it was one of Pollen's "intolerable" competitors, and that's what got his goat up. (He was a car salesman, IIRC.)

[Holden West]

Apparently there was a pretty big fire in a utility room on the third floor yesterday. 10 fire trucks I was told.

[Mike K.]

Yeah, I caught a glimpse of that on my way to work yesterday. And you could smell the aftermath quite a distance from the building.

[Holden West]

Keith Vass is on the case:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver.../41919867.html

[victorian fan]

Fire soot/ damage?



http://www.flickr.com/photos/beryllium/3388641147/

[Holden West]

This month's View Towers fire brought to you by:

First Alert smoke alarms. First Alert. For What Matters Most™

and

Febreze. It's A Breath Of Fresh Air™

[Vic Skyscraper Fan]

lol

[sebberry]

Fire at View Towers:

http://cfax1070.com/index.php?option...ews&Itemid=155

A suite on the ninth floor of the View Towers apartment block is uninhabitable after a fire Saturday morning.

Smoke was coming out of the balcony window when crews arrived around 10:20. They contained the fire to the suite and put it out. The two occupants of the unit had gotten out safely before fire fighters arrived and did not go to hospital. One of the occupants spoke to reporters outside the building and said she was OK.

[...]

[Mike K.]

What's up with this building? There have been more fires at View Towers than I can remember.

[Baro]

People with impaired brains cooking, using electricity, so on.

[Mike K.]

Yup, sounds about right.

[Bingo]

The 18 story building has no sprinkler system. Does it need to be condemned?

[Sparky]

^ You would be surprised as to how many older buildings in this city were built before there was a requirement to have a sprinkler system. Both highrise and 4 story.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Sparky

^ You would be surprised as to how many older buildings in this city were built before there was a requirement to have a sprinkler system. Both highrise and 4 story.

Can the city strong-arm older buildings into bringing them up to current code? (Install sprinklers, in-suite fire bells/sirens, etc...) or once they're built to the code of the day can they no longer be forced to upgrade?

[Sparky]

There is a very political answer to that question Seb. A fire marshal can under the powers of the BC Fire Code direct an owner to comply with an order.

That is easier said than done. That order may need to be consistent with all buildings instead of just one, a judge may need to decide that answer.

The Victoria Fire Department has recently written a directive to remove all fire hoses within the city. Some owners are reluctant to do so. So, if you have a standpipe system and 1 1/2" hoses connected to that system......because of water pressure issues...they are required to be removed and capped off. The fire department wants to use their own hoses. When the owner has the 5 year flush and flow test performed (even with the hoses removed) and the system is deemed to not have the appropriate water pressure, thou shalt remove that 1 1/2" system and install a 4" standpipe system.

The water pressure is continually reducing due to increased building.

I appreciate that my response does not answer your question regarding increasing life safety protection, my point is that Fire Marshals do have the authority to issue an order that must be complied with.

[sebberry]

That makes sense. Long story short: Don't look at the Fire Marshal the wrong way. Got it

[Sparky]

^ In all fairness Seb, some of us in the industry are a little confused about the requirement to remove a life safety piece of equipment.

[sebberry]

Well I can understand the removal of the hoses if the pressure tests show that they wouldn't work very well, but I'd be more worried if the Marshal was having a rough day and ordered a large building to run sprinklers to every unit.

[Sparky]

Seb, I have not yet experienced a situation whereby any Fire Marshal or building inspector has ordered an owner to install a sprinkler system in a building that did not require such a system when the building was constructed.

[Nparker]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The 18 story building has no sprinkler system. Does it need to be condemned?

In a word, YES. View Towers should be condemned and immediately imploded; not because it doesn't have sprinklers, but because it's an aesthetically atrocious, Soviet-Russia-style monolith that since being constructed has left a 4-decade long bad taste in the mouths of locals leading to an irrational fear of all structures over 4-storeys in height.

ps: It also blocks the views of the Sooke Hills from the windows of a certain city counsellor's car as she drives around town.

[Sparky]

^ If were demolished, who is going to write the owner a cheque?