King-Victoria Transit Hub

[Viewfromthe42]

I wonder if anything in the RFQ, or in outside companies' views of the public consultation on the project, hinted at the possibility that the site density might be limited to 4-6 storeys (still too tall in the views of some residents north of the site). If your big recoup for the project is the office/residential you can build on top, the possibility that you might need to bid based on being able to get 1Vic or Sixo levels of cost-recouping density, only to get told that, in fact, you need to provide the same exceptional public Transit Hub facilities with only 4-6 storeys of density allowed to help you recoup those costs, would be an unsustainable mix for almost anyone. Frankly, it's a bit ridiculous that the region hasn't come out and clarified that point yet.

[panamaniac]

I thought that the concept was in the 20+ stories range, at least at the King/Victoria corner. I can't think of any residential views that would be relevant anywhere on that site.

[Viewfromthe42]

Residents in the neighbourhoods north of Victoria voiced opposition to the Google building, school of Pharmacy, and 1Vic, due to it polluting their viewscapes. When public consultations on the Hub were held, there were three options for people to support: low density (up to 6 storeys), medium density (up to 10 storeys), and high density (up to 18 or 20). Many of those same residents came out to support no more than 4 storeys. I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but the public usefulness of this project, its transit foundation, will be designed according to what is affordable to a developer, and that will in large part depend on what profits they can make on the office/residential components involved. A 4 storey building wouldn't be able to support any, realistically, and they've also got to use those profits to fund the preservation and reuse of Rumpel Felt (not cheap). Even 6 storeys would be a laughable use of what should be the single densest plot of land in the entire region. That the upper limit was set at 20 storeys even baffles me a bit in the context of the site within the region.

[rangersfan]

The upper limit of 20 storeys for me is silly as soon for this spot.

[ijmorlan]

The upper limit of 20 storeys for me is silly as soon for this spot.

If those residents don’t want to see any tall buildings near their house, this Region has huge areas with nothing but low-rise houses now or likely to be built in the foreseeable future. They need to choose which is more important: seeing nothing higher than their house, or living downtown. Either want can be accommodated, but not both at once.

For this particular site I think there should be pretty well no specific height limitation. If the developer determines that a 60-story needle tower is economical, they should be allowed to build it. About the only thing I wouldn’t want to see is the entire site built up to such a height, which I suspect probably would actually cast a substantial shadow. But that doesn’t seem to be how the largest buildings happen around here — it’s usually a low- or medium-rise podium, with relatively smaller towers rising into the “highrise” range.

[highlander]

The handout from the open house has higher density with a tower between 25-30 stories. I doubt the market would dictate anything more than that in the time frame we expect/hope this will be developed.

   

[Viewfromthe42]

I'm glad I am misremembering the heights from the handouts, but I know I am not forgetting the residents who felt Google was too tall and wanted the substantially lower graded Hub site shorter still.

[panamaniac]

Residents in the neighbourhoods north of Victoria voiced opposition to the Google building, school of Pharmacy, and 1Vic, due to it polluting their viewscapes. When public consultations on the Hub were held, there were three options for people to support: low density (up to 6 storeys), medium density (up to 10 storeys), and high density (up to 18 or 20). Many of those same residents came out to support no more than 4 storeys. I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but the public usefulness of this project, its transit foundation, will be designed according to what is affordable to a developer, and that will in large part depend on what profits they can make on the office/residential components involved. A 4 storey building wouldn't be able to support any, realistically, and they've also got to use those profits to fund the preservation and reuse of Rumpel Felt (not cheap). Even 6 storeys would be a laughable use of what should be the single densest plot of land in the entire region. That the upper limit was set at 20 storeys even baffles me a bit in the context of the site within the region.

Not a very successful track record.

[white_brian]

For some reason I couldn't get the link to work, were there any design renders or stuff like that with the proposal

[Canard]

Yeah, I couldn't really make heads or tails of it - isn't there just like a document that shows what the proposal was?

[kps]

There is no proposal. This process was just the application to be allowed to submit a proposal.

[Canard]

...so only one group said "sure, we'll maybe submit a proposal"?

[tomh009]

It seems that way, yes.

[Canard]

That seems really unfortunate.

How do projects by massive architecture houses (Calatrava, Foster, etc.) come to be? Would that come from the Region, or is that up to whoever does a proposal to pick if they want a "bland" or a world-renowned architect?

[tomh009]

Normally whoever pays for the building will choose the architect. In this case the region is looking for a developer who will do the build ...