RSS

A very exciting new condo proposal at 1029 View

We've been waiting for a long time to see what development proposals would come forward for the vacant land just East of the Vancouver & View intersection, almost kitty corner to Front Runners and London Drugs.   It's a great location, just North of downtown. It offers a short walk to the core, but is far enough away to offer a quieter, more peaceful setting. 
  
The current proposal that Victoria council is considering is very innovative in that it consists of smaller units that are expected to be quite affordable.  As you can read in the recent article from the Times Colonist (reposted below) the development could also have a mild theme to it which will be more visually interesting than the standard condo block.  I think that this may be one to watch!
  

  
Reprinted from the Times Colonist, January 18, 2011
  
What could become downtown Victoria's newest condo is a nine-storey, $30-million building designed to recall memories of the 1950s when life seemed simpler and technology solved all problems, its architects say.
 
The Jukebox, proposed by CareVest Capital and Don Charity, and designed by Gustavson Wylie Architects, would fill a vacant lot at 1029 View St. near Vancouver Street.
 
It is now up to Victoria council to decide whether the proposed building -- with 181 suites, ranging from 350 to 600 square feet -- above 11 ground-floor commercial units -- should be given a development permit.
 
Charity said the units will be "very contemporary and very cool." "For singles, even for couples that are looking for minimalist, I believe there's a big market for this product. It's a concrete and steel building, and it is going to be state-of-the-art interiors," Charity said.
 
The architect says the development is inspired by simpler times. "[The Jukebox] is aptly named to conjure up memories of the '50s, where neon lights, clean lines, rock 'n' roll and cutting-edge technology were front and centre," John Gustavson said of the project in a letter to Victoria council.
 
The proposal envisages 86 parking stalls. There would be storage for 181 bicycles. Because of challenges with the soil condition and a high water table, off-street parking would be above ground.
 
Key to council's decision will be whether it thinks a mid-block walkway should link View and Fort streets.
 
City planning staff recommend that the application be denied. They point out that the Harris Green neighbourhood plan calls for a mid-block walkway with any redevelopment. Ideally, in this case, it would run along about the eastern edge of this proposal through to Fort.
 
The developers say that's problematic. Because there's currently no access to punch a walkway through to Fort Street's Antique Row, it would have to come to a dead end midway between the two streets. The city's advisory design panel agreed.
 
Senior planner Andrea Hudson said that while the design panel in general supports the establishment of mid-block walkways throughout downtown, "they felt that a walkway this far east in the core area was not necessary at this site." The city's planning and land use standing committee decided last week city council should decide on whether to issue the permit.
 
Coun. Pam Madoff said establishing walkways is one of the important goals for downtown.
 
"But at the same time, I have to look at what the value of it would be and how it connects. Its success in the future would be predicated upon the demolition of an existing building and redevelopment on that [Fort] side, which may or may not happen," Madoff said. "I'm not sure this is the right location for a mid-block walkway. I would have to know more about it," she said.
 
Before the city could issue a development permit, the provincial Ministry of Environment requires a detailed site investigation to determine whether the site is contaminated. If it is, the developer would have to provide a remediation plan.
MLS® property information is provided under copyright© by the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board and Victoria Real Estate Board. The information is from sources deemed reliable, but should not be relied upon without independent verification.