Victoria Construction - #7

[aastra]

Recent (and authorized!) UAV footage showing Hudson Place One under construction...

--

31 sec - Looking northeast over the old town toward HP1

58 sec - Flying east over View Street

1:29 - In front of the Empress Hotel looking north up Government St.

1:37 - Looking over to Vic West, showing JSB

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by vicdevelopments

I said it before but I can’t believe how slow Chard’s buildings are going up.

Slow? You want slow, you should venture into Esquimalt and check out the building going up behind City Hall. I went there last night and saw it poking above the neighborhood and it had been so long since I was last there I had forgotten all about it. That project started ~4 years ago

[aastra]

Speaking of slow projects, we have a Dockside Green update....

[aastra]

Webcam of the Esquimalt town centre project here...

*****

And a new pic of 989 Johnson:

[aastra]

Victoria News: Demolition begins on 93-year-old Fairfield church

As this 1940s aerial pic of the Fairfield/Moss St. neighbourhood illustrates, Victorians are obsessed with keeping their city frozen in time, never changing, staunchly preserving its old buildings and its historic built form, etc.

(Seriously, if this is what hardcore resistance to change gets you then I don't want to know what the neighbourhood would look like if Victorians were really eager to wipe stuff out.)



cropped vintage aerial pic from http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-47-1450/

[skylinegazer]

nice to hear about Dockside Green again!

[skylinegazer]

this webpage has a nice overhead view of the development in Esquimalt - https://www.aragon.ca/portfolio/esqu...n-square/home/

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aastra

Victoria News: Demolition begins on 93-year-old Fairfield church

As this 1940s aerial pic of the Fairfield/Moss St. neighbourhood illustrates, Victorians are obsessed with keeping their city frozen in time, never changing, staunchly preserving its old buildings and its historic built form, etc.

(Seriously, if this is what hardcore resistance to change gets you then I don't want to know what the neighbourhood would look like if Victorians were really eager to wipe stuff out.)



cropped vintage aerial pic from http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-47-1450/

In a way, that's a good thing. If Victoria were to demolish its remaining stocks of heritage buildings from the 60s till the 80s, the city would be one ugly place with no charm whatsoever today. Imagine all those concrete flats at James Bay taking over the entire City, and minimalist concrete tall buildings sprouting up at the old town area. Also think West End of Vancouver's downtown: ugly to the max!

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by aastra

Speaking of slow projects, we have a Dockside Green update....

That's a good point

Dockside Green and the Railyards have been underway for what? 13 years now? 14?

They are Victoria's Expo Lands

[aastra]

In a way, that's a good thing.

Nope, it's definitely not a good thing no matter how anti-heritage Victorians have tried to spin it. It's thinly disguised contempt for the city's actual heritage and historic built form in favour of a reinvented falseness. That Fairfield/Moss intersection could/should be like Fairfield's version of Fernwood/Gladstone, if they had actually dared to preserve the notable old buildings AND if they had actually dared to build new stuff that fit the scene. It would have been so easy to build five or six stories on the lot beside the church and refurb the church itself. But in Victoria you're not allowed to do stuff like that, because -- as you say -- a new apartment block beside the renovated church would surely ruin Victoria. Better to tear the church down and replace it with a new apartment block, and thus "preserve" Victoria. It's such twisted logic, it's absolutely nuts. Erase the city's essence in order to protect the city's essence.


pic from Victoria News

Crikey, Victorians like to think they're the champions of heritage preservation because they do things like preserving the arch at Sir James Douglas school while tearing down the rest of the building, and then constructing a new school that looks like it's straight out of the suburbs. They install plaques and such all over town reminding people of how intersections used to look, or what interesting buildings used to be there, etc. They wipe stuff out as aggressively as any place, but pat themselves on the back for caring oh so much while they're doing it. Honestly, it disgusts me.


pic from Victoria Heritage Foundation

The Dallas Road balustrade is next for the chop, and of course we're all working overtime to frame the insult & injury as something enlightened and positive.

[aastra]

To paraphrase a famous Gandhi quote:

Q: What do you think of heritage preservation in Victoria?

A: I think it would be a good idea.

[Phil McAvity]

I live in North Park and I see it around my 'hood too, buildings that look ~15 years old surrounded by rock walls that look like they're from the 1800's and you know the only reason the developer got the permit to build the featureless residential building in the first place was if he kept the old rock wall but who gives a shit about the old rock wall anyway? People are interested in the structure that was on the site before that is of course long gone, not the wall surrounding it

Aastra, what do you think of facadism?

[aastra]

I think it can be the right thing to do depending on the nature of the building and the condition of the interior levels (if they've already been altered/modernized significantly, or if they're outright falling apart, etc.). But I wouldn't want to see it happening widely just 'cuz. I don't mind it so much in the case of the Customs House, but I'm thinking the Duck's Block project could set a bad precedent.

[skylinegazer]

came across this photo of the skyline from a year or two back :-)


Pemberton Holmes - https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...toria-burnside

[Vin]

The old blue bridge was still there! Boy this photo is ancient, but that's a very fine vantage point of the city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aastra

Nope, it's definitely not a good thing no matter how anti-heritage Victorians have tried to spin it. It's thinly disguised contempt for the city's actual heritage and historic built form in favour of a reinvented falseness. That Fairfield/Moss intersection could/should be like Fairfield's version of Fernwood/Gladstone, if they had actually dared to preserve the notable old buildings AND if they had actually dared to build new stuff that fit the scene. It would have been so easy to build five or six stories on the lot beside the church and refurb the church itself. But in Victoria you're not allowed to do stuff like that, because -- as you say -- a new apartment block beside the renovated church would surely ruin Victoria. Better to tear the church down and replace it with a new apartment block, and thus "preserve" Victoria. It's such twisted logic, it's absolutely nuts. Erase the city's essence in order to protect the city's essence.


pic from Victoria News

Crikey, Victorians like to think they're the champions of heritage preservation because they do things like preserving the arch at Sir James Douglas school while tearing down the rest of the building, and then constructing a new school that looks like it's straight out of the suburbs. They install plaques and such all over town reminding people of how intersections used to look, or what interesting buildings used to be there, etc. They wipe stuff out as aggressively as any place, but pat themselves on the back for caring oh so much while they're doing it. Honestly, it disgusts me.


pic from Victoria Heritage Foundation

The Dallas Road balustrade is next for the chop, and of course we're all working overtime to frame the insult & injury as something enlightened and positive.

I see what you are getting at. Your statement here totally threw me off:

As this 1940s aerial pic of the Fairfield/Moss St. neighbourhood illustrates, Victorians are obsessed with keeping their city frozen in time, never changing, staunchly preserving its old buildings and its historic built form, etc.

Obviously this is not happening if old buildings keep getting torn down.

I totally agree with you that they should allow something newer and nicer to be built right beside a heritage structure so as to preserve it. The wanton destruction of old schools, institutions and church buildings is really disgusting.

[aastra]

I was juxtaposing the oft-repeated claim against reality. If all of the neighbourhood's notable old buildings are now gone (the church was knocked down at the end of last week), and if new construction tends to pay no heed whatsoever to the way things were, then how much water does the oft-repeated claim really hold?

FYI: check out what local Heritage expert and author Martin Segger said about the new (1997) Sir James Douglas School while criticizing the pending replacement for the church in his letter to Focus this summer:

Fairfield United marks the very core of a unique arts-and-crafts bungalow neighbourhood. It signalled "neighbourliness" in its construction. Red brick echoed the Edwardian James Douglas Elementary School which originally faced it across the street. Half-timbered gables, bracketed roof detailing, and an expansive pitched roof repeated the texture of the surrounding bungalows and cottages lining the adjacent streetscapes.

So where were the Fairfield Neighbourhood Association, the City's planning department, its heritage and design committees, and the council when this over-scaled abstract cubist design was proposed? Were the developers and design professionals blind to architect Shiv Garyali's brilliantly executed new James Douglas School, just across the road, which respectfully and literally grows out of the form, scale and craft character of its environs?

from https://www.focusonvictoria.ca

Regardless of whether we think the 1997 school is good or bad or neither, anyone can plainly see that it completely contradicts the look and feel of the old school building. The preservation of the entrance arch in what is now the open schoolyard only serves to remind us just how far the new building has been set back from the street as compared to the original building. And yet we celebrate the new building for how respectful it is of the established and time-honoured Fairfield milieu*. Why then should we be surprised when the replacement for the church will continue the trend of upending things? This is the sort of thing that I've tried in vain to point out to people. They just refuse to open their eyes. You're getting exactly what you asked for. Stop asking for it. Start appreciating the way Victoria actually was and how it still is (to some degree, at least), and start preserving, enhancing, and extending that.

*So... was the old school building not respectful? Is this what we're saying?


Pic of 1997 school building from https://sjd.sd61.bc.ca



*****

Pic of previous school building from https://search-bcarchives.royalbcmus...chool-victoria




pic from Victoria Heritage Foundation

[aastra]

I just double-checked the street view, so before anybody gets mad at me I'll concede that the end of one wing of 1996-97 construction is actually a bit closer to the sidewalk than the old school was. But I hope you get my point that it's essentially turning its back on Moss Street and the intersection. Just like that modern strip mall building on the other side of Moss Street also turns its back. Minimal engagement of the street.

Heck, the way those modern developments were designed to shun the intersection you'd think there was Indy 500 traffic going through there or something. (Ironically, this evil new redevelopment of the church will not be shunning the street. Did anybody give it a point for that?)

Just plunk yourself in that intersection and spin around. Imagine a new building beside the church or joined to the church; imagine that little flatiron building sharpened up, maybe with an additional level; imagine the school facing toward the intersection rather than having its back against it; and imagine a redevelopment of the strip mall that faces toward the intersection rather than having its back against it. It could have been a great little neighbourhood intersection (again).

Anyway...

[Vin]

I'm fuming at the lack of respect of old buildings. Bunch of moronic decision makers I gotta say.

I would go on a riot rampage in the city if they decide to tear down South Park Elementary School.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4176...7i13312!8i6656

[aastra]

They tore down its "North Ward" counterpart a long time ago (South Park school was originally called "South Ward").

Old days:


pic from BC Archives...

*****

Closer to its final days:



pic from https://archives.victoria.ca