The two small buildings have been derelict on the site for many years. The site itself is currently set up so as to be functionally useless to anyone. The location is bisected by about 90 meters of Wharf Street. This means there is more pavement there than anyone really needs. The site also has parking on it meaning even more of the site is paved. As a public space, the small piece of grass is offering the City nothing and costs money to maintain it.
 |
| photo from Merrick Architecture |
The City not only gains by having what looks like a decently designed building going in on this site, it would also gain from the new taxes the site would bring in. The roughly 2000 square meters of land that the City owns at this location would be much better served being added to some development at this location.
The existing property is only about 2200 square meters in size. It also comes with some significant limitations because the slope behind the buildings. The footprint of the two old buildings, 290 and 150 square meters respectively, does not leave much space to do much on this land. Reeson Park, which is adjacent to the Northern Junk buildings, would be rescued from being a drug use location and actually allow people to make use of the park and enjoy the harbour.
The building proposed is on the same scale as Swan's Hotel or the Salvation Army. It is in fact a much better building for the area than the Salvation Army building which at the moment seriously detracts from the old town feel of the area and creates a very dark and gloomy walking area. The shape and size certainly would be an improvement over the current situation.
The building as proposed would have no significant impact on any existing views from old town to the habour. This is because at the moment there are really no decent sight lines in the area.
I think it the City would be well served to work with the developer to come up with some way to transfer as much land as possible into functional building space and make some real open space for the public.
The development would encourage more walking and extend the "LoJo" area southwards. It creates a much more holistic and complete area. Though the area still has to contend with the further dead zone in the area.
In fact the whole set of intersections of Johnson, Pandora and Wharf creates this dead space. It is an area of green with trees that is completely out of sync with the rest of the old town. The trees, as they have grown, obscures the view from the bridge to the old town.
The area of roads, parking and green space, without the 1/2 acre that would be part of the Northern Junk Proposal, is 2.5 acres in area. The streets do not function well, the green space is not one that is open and friendly to the public. No one's interests are served.
My hope is that council will look at the bigger picture of the area and see that there are opportunities for the City to divest itself of some unneeded land.
Maybe it is time to make Wharf a one way couplet with Government from Pandora Street to the Empress. Doing this would improve the traffic flows in the area and would also make the redesign of the roads in the area easier to accomplish.
If nothing happens with the site and if the buildings fall down, it would be a shame. No one is making new 19th century buildings and each one lost is one less available to make a consistent look and feel in old town.
3 comments:
Very much agree with your post, Bernard.
I listened to Murray Langdon's interview with Pam Madoff and found myself listening to jargon with little substance - honestly, what was she saying? Then, when she actually got specific and went past what Gene Miller has so sagaciously called BAFFLEGAB, she verged into the ridiculous.
For example, to claim that the proposal's rounded facade will echo and reinforce the automobile-centric curve of the road at the Johnson Street Bridge's eastern bridgehead was just nonsense. I bet what she wants instead are huge setbacks - you know, so the building doesn't mimic the street, even though setbacks are exactly what would kill the Old Town vibe. But of course she (slyly) adds that the road was put in during a 1960s/ 70s car-oriented reconfiguration, so having the building echo the road would be a genuflection to car culture and we're all way too cool for that, right? What a bunch of twaddle. Of course the real stinger was her unmitigated gall in reminding us of buildings that were torn down to make way for that marvel of late-mid-century traffic engineering - all the while conveniently eliding that she voted to tear down the historic Johnson Street Bridge. What a damn hypocrite!!!
Now, if the city forces the developer to make the proposal less dense, less tall, and with less of a street wall (i.e., forces him to increase the setbacks), then what sort of economic universe can sustain ANY development there at all?
Look, if a crummy (I'd say sh*tty, but yours is a family blog) PARKING lot on Fisgard at Store St. with a shed on it can go on the market for $7,750,000 - and if the owner of that lot has ZERO incentive to sell the land for less because he's pulling in around $720K annual revenue from parking cars (as per jklymak's back-of-the-napkin calculation on Vibrant Victoria), then how in blazes is ANYTHING supposed to be developed in that area if it's all kept to Lilliputian dimensions as per Councillor Madoff's *quaint* vision of Victoria?
Does anyone actually look at the economics of real estate and development in Victoria? It's an impossible situation.
I'm not advocating high-rises in Old Town, not at all. But I do not understand why anyone thinks developers are going to give anything away for free, either. If I were a developer, I'd run, not walk, away from anything in Victoria - Chard Development's string of successes notwithstanding. But the site he bought in Old Town came with zoning already in place, and even Madoff couldn't do anything about it. His other projects are well outside of Old Town.
What a mess.
I disagree - I don't like the size of this proposal in that location.
I travel across the JSB by foot or bike every day. I like the way that you emerge from the city walls on Pandora, Johnson, Yates and Wharf, and travel through an area with trees, green and sightlines towards the harbour and the Sooke Hills beyond. The current proposal looks like it would extend the walls right to the edge of the water. A lot of potential sitelines and lightways to the harbour would be eliminated.
I don't see why every square inch of land needs to have multi-story blocks on it. There's lots of other lots in the city which are underused now, and could have buildings put on them. This is the only chance to secure and improve the environs of the most important access to the Inner Harbour in the city.
I also don't see what value the city gets from giving up public green space for development. Once it's gone it's gone - there's no more of it left.
At the very least any design for this area should wait until after the new bridge is built, and there's a better idea of traffic flows and aesthetics. (For the record, I am in favour of the new bridge - anyone who likes the old one probably doesn't have to cross it by bike or foot every day).
I agree the Sally Ann building is a 70s monstrosity creating a serious dead zone. It would be nice to see that redeveloped into something more appropriate.
The idea of making Wharf one-way is interesting... although it is an important N-bound access during the summer, when Government St is so clogged up.
"A lot of potential sitelines and lightways to the harbour would be eliminated."
"I also don't see what value the city gets from giving up public green space for development."
You needn't worry. A large new open space will be created north of the new building. It's easy to overlook the fact that the new bridge will actually be located north of the current bridge, thus leaving a big gap where the current bridge's access used to be.
Post a Comment