[Esquimalt] 669 Constance / 658 Admirals condos | 14-storeys | Proposed

[Mike K.]

A letter to the TC posted here indicates that a proposal is in the works for a 15-storey residential building in Esquimalt.

[Holden West]

A search of the Esquimalt website lists:

Address
669 Constance Avenue

Applicant
Michael Levin

Application Status
To Advisory Planning Commission 06/19/07

Description:
To consolidate 669 Constance, 658, 660, 662 Admirals Road and rezone to allow for a 16 storey tower with 109 units.



[url=http://www.pembertonholmes.com/British_Columbia_Realtor.British_Columbia_Real_Est ate.561549570.html:562c4]More info[/url:562c4]

[Mike K.]

Good work.

This smells of a rezoning flip to me.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Oh, ok. Disregard the reply I just made in that other thread!

[Holden West]

Clicking on "MAP" on the Pemberton Holmes site launches you into the middle of the Strait of Georgia off Parksville! :lol:

This is the only vague reference, from an Esquimalt News article from last year on planning projects:

One area where there might eventually be some higher density development is in the area near the liquor store on Constance Avenue.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Slab-tastic!

[BBK]

The proposal was put to council by the architect Michael Levin. He's the director of Praxis, an architectural firm that is based in the building they designed on Esquimalt Rd. Looks to me like things are going to catch fire pretty quickly in Esquimalt. What with more parks per capita than any other municipality, as well as being surrounded on three sides by water, is it any wonder. Just as a bit of feedback. I was bummed to see the word "vibrant" used in Vibrant victoria. I am so freakin' sick of that word, along with sustainable and liveable. Surely those well paid planner types can come up with better adjectives to sell their schlock. As an aside, if I read those three words again in regards to development I think I might toss my cookies. These developers have actually got themselves' convinced they're doing "good". Remember folks, it's ALL about buying stuff and the only thing they're interested in sustaining is capitalist culture. Look out western comms, our working poor are getting pushed your way to make way for these "last of the water views" developments. It was bound to happen, but 16-stories? Where are we headed....

[Mike K.]

Five years ago Esquimalt was reeling from negative publicity and now that developers have taken an interest in the area it's suddenly the best place on earth and perfect as-is?

BBK, you have some strong ideas about who developers are and what they stand for, but this particular section of the forum is probably not the best place to express them. Let's stick to the topic and refrain from deviating too much.

[aastra]

If a highrise on this site is indeed as inevitable as some people seem to think it is, then I hope those same people will direct their energies toward making the building as good as it can possibly be. An attractive highrise is always preferable to an ugly one. This rendering suggests a lot of work is in order, especially re: the massing. It's an obscene fatscraper. Does Esquimalt really need a 21st century version of View Towers?

[Holden West]

The waterfront is too precious for standard architecture. However, that does not necessarily mean only luxury condos for the rich.

[Nparker]

So why not a slimmer 22-storey tower that keeps the views more open? I just cannot understand this local obsession with creating great huge slab walls that effectively block views and light from every angle, when narrower, taller, well-placed (and well-designed) buildings potentially maintain the views much better.

As I have stated before I work in the Jack Davis Building, a fatscraper extrordinaire, that will forever cast a huge northen shadow on it's neighbours. A building with half its footprint and twice its height would have had much less impact. As for its current (8 -storey) height, just exactly what magnificent view does it preserve? Nothing to the North, South or East. Would a slimmer 16 storey tower where JD sits have blocked the view of the Sooke Hills any more than this pink shoe-box does? I look forward to the coming Radius Project that will block the view OF the JD building from many an angle!

[aastra]

From the blurb at the Pemberton Holmes site:

21000 square foot tower Site. Ocean views start at ground level and are unobstructed for life.

Right. Because as we know, every tall building you build in Victoria is the last tall building that will ever be built. Ever.

Until the next one comes along and blocks their views.

(one way or another it must be possible to block the view in at least one direction, right?)

It's too tall regardless of whether or not they slim it down and make it attractive. I mean, 15 stories (or 14 or 16, depending on the source) in a neighbourhood full of nothing but two story SFDs?

A developer gets hell for proposing 17 stories downtown in the shadow of 19 story buildings, and yet something like this in Esquimalt actually has legs?

[Holden West]

I had to look on Google maps to find out where this is. Great to get rid of surface parking next to waterfront but aastra's right. Why should we have different rules for Esquimalt's waterfront? Is it that much less important than the inner harbour?

and the only thing they're interested in sustaining is capitalist culture

Yep, 'cause nothing screams quality like socialist architecture.

[aastra]

It's too far away from the inner harbour to add anything re: an impressive first impression for people arriving on the Coho or whatever. And it's too far away from Esquimalt Road to add much if anything re: village vibrancy. And it's smack in a neighbourhood of SFDs.

I understand wanting to take advantage of the underappreciated oceanfront in Esquimalt, but I think any developer should consider himself lucky if he gets seven or eight stories on that site.

I just don't understand why it's suddenly okay to propose highrises in areas that don't even have a single midrise.

[Holden West]

They might instead think of a mini Dockside Green.

[gumgum]

[Holden West]

^Ah, I see it's not right on the water. Still, I'd like to see what the Esquimalt community plan has set out for the future of this neighbourhood. Obviously you can't have a highrise surrounded by sfd's.

The wavy line must represent the original shoreline (?).

Hey, is that an anti-aircraft gun on the grass strip? That's one way of dealing with noisy neighbours.

Gum, your pics aren't showing up so I pasted the URL in a browser.

[gumgum]

Weird. Is anyone seeing the pics in my last post? Are all pics I've posted in the past not showing? Cuz I can see them fine.

[m0nkyman]

I see 'em fine.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I can see them.

I also think this is a very weird proposal.

Just so I understand this: unlike Victoria (which includes Vic West), Esquimalt has its own laws/ rules/ bylaws, meaning that Victoria-style CALUC protocol doesn't apply here?

@ Holden: good one about the "commie block" style "architecture" of this view-blocking slab! This building isn't capitalism (and, ok, it's not socialism either), it's just a mistake and shouldn't pass.

[m0nkyman]

I suspect that with developers now having discovered that there are views from Esquimalt that this proposed building will not remain surrounded by SFD's. Let's make sure that whatever does get developed is going to set the right kind of precedent for what we want to see going forward.

Good street interaction, a side facing the ocean that is friendly to the public, not a fatscraper. The usual. Basically, let's not repeat the Songhees mistakes...

[aastra]

Wait a second, I presumed this was on the end of the street facing the strait, not the end by the base.

For crying out loud, would a large building really be such a big deal there? You've got big parking lots, you've got warehouses and industrial facilities, you've got cranes as tall as any highrise in Victoria...

I'm still opposed to the fatscraper form, as always, but I take back what I said about seven or eight stories being an appropriate upper limit.

Thank Global Air Photos for putting the site in context for us. There are plenty of lowrise apartment blocks right there. The tallest appears to be 5 stories. And the tallest building on nearby Esquimalt Road appears to be 6 stories.

http://www.globalairphotos.com

[Mike K.]

That's right, there really aren't any SFDs all around this property. The recent apartment development spurt in Esquimalt has been along the same block (a few properties to the east, in fact), albeit at 4-storeys in height. There may be a few SFD's across the street but this building would stand along a strip of apartments new and old.

[Ms. B. Havin]

It still looks like The Wave and View Towers mushed together...

[renthefinn]

paking lots next door? Go tall, I've seen this site, and it would make great for rental, I didn't recall that detail after reading it, but being so close to the base, it makes a lot of cents!