A request to replace a failing tile mural on a downtown condo with a painted version has been rejected by Victoria councillors, who say the mural’s prominent location demands better.
When approved in 2004, the large mosaic — a tile rendition of The Great Wave by the Japanese artist Katsushika Hokusai — was supposed to be the defining feature of the condo at 845 Yates St., near Quadra Street.
But parts of the wave came crashing to the ground about three years ago as some of the mosaic’s tiles started to let go. The mural was quickly covered to protect passersby.
An investigation was launched and a consultant found a number of issues relating to the initial installation.
That has led to a complicated set of negotiations involving the strata council, the builder, sub-trades, building envelope specialists, architects, insurance providers and lawyers to determine how best to fix it and who would pay for what.
After more than a year of negotiations, everyone thought they had found a cost-effective solution to remove the tile mural and replace it with a painted version of the wave.
But on Thursday, Victoria councillors turned down the request, deciding that the tile version originally agreed to should remain.
Councillors supported Coun. Pam Madoff, who said the mosaic was approved in 2004 because it was felt that the prominent location demanded something significant.
Other options were considered at the time and rejected, she said.
“There was [at the time] film that you could put on, which would be similar to a painted mural, and that was declined because there was a sense that this required a substantive material response,” Madoff said, adding that a painted mural might eventually be painted over.
“What I can see happening down the line is when this painted mural starts to fade, which they all do, the next request we’ll get is can we just paint it all out. So I think we should go back to what was debated and discussed and supported originally, which was a properly installed tile mural.”
Council went into an in-camera session before reaching a decision.
Coun. Geoff Young called it “unfortunate” that council was in the position of imposing a significant cost — perhaps on residents — but said he was satisfied that inclusion of the mural was a significant issue when approval for the build design was first given.
“No. 2, I’m satisfied that the proposed replacement is distinctly less satisfactory,” he said.
Mike Levin, of Praxis Architects, which is making the development permit application on behalf of the parties involved, said in an interview that he didn’t know what would happen next.
“It took a year to work the deal out and the deal is now void as far as I know,” Levin said. “I guess the first question is: What will it cost to put it back the way it was? But I don’t know if the tiles are available any more.”
Tile had been presented by a consultant as an option but paint was significantly less costly.
Even replacing the image with paint would cost in excess of $100,000, Levin said.
“All the tile is not off. So they have to build a scaffolding. They have to completely strip the stone, which is not just tile, it’s stone and tile. They have to clean the surface of the concrete to make it smooth. They have to seal it, and then an artist has to get up there and paint,” Levin said.
He said that with proper care, the painted mural could last 25 years.
Mayor Dean Fortin reminded councillors that they had no information before them about costs.
“We have no evidence nor is there any presentation about where the burden of financial cost will land,” Fortin said.
