Heritage at forefront of Old Town plan
Re: “139-room hotel might replace two Victoria heritage buildings,” Nov. 22
I wish to provide clarity with regard to Chard Development’s proposed development along the 1300 block of Broad Street. The proposed 139-room hotel will not “replace two Victoria heritage buildings.”
On the contrary, this development will improve and celebrate the historically significant elements of both the Duck’s Building and the Canada Hotel, bringing economic and employment benefits, neighbourhood vitality, an increased tax base and long-term sustainability through construction that meets the incoming seismic and life-safety standards and adheres to the City of Victoria’s Old Town Design Guidelines.
With full heritage conservation plans in place, both buildings will remain on Victoria’s Heritage Register and would obtain heritage designations.
From the very inception of this proposed development, heritage rehabilitation has remained at the forefront of the project objectives. Extensive work has been done with renowned heritage consultant Don Luxton, and with local structural engineers to find a way to celebrate the buildings’ historically significant elements.
With the expressed support of those close to Michael Williams, including the executors of his estate, the proposed design will ensure that the character-defining heritage features — including both the east and west facades of the Duck’s Building and the significant rubble stone wall of the Canada Hotel — are showcased.
Project design has focused on making the new construction complementary yet subordinate to these historical elements and will ensure that visitors, employees and residents are afforded safe and sustainable enjoyment of these structures well into the future.
David Chard
Chard Development Ltd.
Vancouver
Redevelopment key to Duck’s Building’s survival
The crowning jewel of a 139-room Broad Street hotel proposal is a heritage asset that, unless restored and repurposed as part of the redevelopment effort, could face years of continued degradation and remain at risk of collapse in the event of a moderate earthquake.
As the defining architectural statement of its block, the nearly 130-year-old Duck’s Building is at the centre of a six-storey vision to bring a flagship hotel to Victoria’s downtown core. Great effort will be taken to preserve its front and rear façades and reclaim its status as a landmark destination.
With unanimous support for the project from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the concept is within the parameters of Victoria’s Official Community Plan and the newly minted Old Town Heritage Guidelines. It is, literally, a reflection of the City of Victoria’s heritage preservation goals, and the city centre will benefit should it come to fruition.
With regard to the adjacent Canada Hotel, this property suffered significantly from a continent-wide post-modern push for whitewashing history in our cities that yielded the masking of historic façades and an indifference toward the degradation of heritage elements.
Many of Victoria’s heritage buildings, in fact, were caught up in this mid-century assault on the built form. Contrary to this approach, the proposed development will see the remaining historically significant feature of this building — a rubble stone wall constructed in the late 1800s — rehabilitated and celebrated.
It would be a shame for Victoria council to forgo the many benefits this development will bring to Old Town — including the celebration of those heritage elements that remain — in favour of adherence to the preservation of long-lost heritage.
Mike Kozakowski
Citified Media Inc.
Victoria
Council support for hotel project baffling
Friday’s article reporting that UVic intends to replace the Duck’s Building at Broad and Johnson with a hotel baffles me. Some time back, I read in these pages that the building was supposed to be used for affordable student housing.
I am further surprised that council is supportive of the hotel project, since it is contrary to their mandate of “affordable and inclusive,” not to mention their antipathy to tourism, which they believe contributes to climate change.
This project is proceeding on the heels of a letter of protest against the current trend of “facadism,” which diminishes the heritage of Old Town, so I wonder if it is an intended snub to those who protest development in the downtown core.
Lloyd Chesley
Victoria
Victoria needs more hotel rooms
I support adding new hotel room inventory for Victoria, such as Chard’s proposed hotel and retail development for the Duck’s Building and Canada Hotel, along the 1300 block of Broad Street.
Since 2012, the Queen Victoria, Travellers Inn, Admiral Inn, Dominion Hotel and Harbour Towers have all been converted into residential housing, to name only some. This represents a loss of nearly 1,000 hotel rooms.
Meanwhile, tourism has seen unprecedented growth. In fact, Greater Victoria attracts almost four million people per year and those numbers are increasing year over year.
According to Tourism Victoria, from 2011 to 2016, tourism’s economic output for the region has increased 20%, generating $2.3 billion in 2016. Although 2019 saw a 6% drop in hotel occupancy over 2018, it’s still at a very healthy 83.79%.
No wonder there is such a huge amount of pressure on the transient rental accommodation inventory in Victoria, which is attempting to fill this obvious void in the marketplace.
Naturally, the entire heritage facade of these buildings cannot realistically be retained for earthquake and fire-safety reasons. However Chard’s proposal includes retaining historically significant elements of both of these buildings and the city’s Heritage Advisory Panel unanimously supported the project.
I encourage Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps and council to move this project forward.
Grant Wittkamp
Victoria
Heritage decisions turn Victoria into Disneyland
What Victoria needs is a mouse. Well, perhaps maybe a marmot, but from the way this city has begun to look at heritage buildings, a mouse in short pants would be entirely appropriate.
First it was the Eaton Centre (which younger people will know as the Bay Centre), then the Sussex Hotel, followed by the Janion Building, the Customs House and now the Duck’s Building. The list is getting longer with each council.
Downtown is moving inexorably toward becoming a fantasy island, where carefully reconstructed heritage facades stand where genuinely valuable heritage buildings once were.
Of course in Disney’s case, the facades replaced orange groves, but in the end, the result is the same. Blatantly phony heritage.
Perhaps council could recruit Marty the Marmot, put a moat and fence around the downtown to keep the cars out and charge admission. After all, it worked for Disney over 60 years ago.
K.M. Frye
Victoria
Do we want facadism to be the new normal?
I read with dismay in Friday’s Times Colonist about the demolition of the Duck’s Hotel on Broad Street, with the retention of only a six-foot strip of the façade.
I agree with some letter-writers in Saturday’s editorial page that this approach to heritage conservation is the wrong approach, and is a slippery slope, the notion that facades can just be replicated or saved, and everything else demolished.
The Bay Centre mall, the Sussex Building and three new projects on Fort Street all come to mind.
I’m sure this approach makes it much simpler and cheaper to construct a new project and provide uninterrupted parking below, by completely removing the inconvenient portions of the building.
As Ian Sutherland, who has rehabilitated and owns two heritage-designated buildings in the downtown, notes in your original article, other buildings have been restored without resorting to demolition and increases in density, and “they produce a good return.”
I’m sure the new seismic code is more restrictive than the last one. At the same time, my sense is that they have a talented design team working on this project, and that they are more than capable of coming up with a solution that is more respectful of the original structure.
We need to draw a line in this city, or we’re going to lose everything that is unique about our Old Town.
What makes our buildings special is that they are real, and once they’re gone, they can’t be replaced. And then what will we have to attract tourism, for instance?
This facadism is better suited to Disneyland or Las Vegas. As Pam Madoff was quoted as saying in your Friday article: “it starts to look a little bit like a theme park.”
Do we want this facadism to be the new normal?
Doug Scott
Victoria
Council already well-paid for decisions
Re: “Councillors seek taxpayers’ support for 50% pay hike,” Nov. 15.
When one looks at the quality of Victoria council decisions being made, the current $45,384 a year seems to be more than adequate compensation.
Bill Cleverley
Victoria
Hold coaches to same standard as athletes
Re: “Athletes tell of UVic disciplinary threat if they speak about probe,” Nov. 23.
Full stop! Or as they say in rowing, “Hold water!” In this article, we learn that the University of Victoria does not have an established code of conduct for coaches.
Yet, to my knowledge, every varsity athlete at UVic, Camosun and beyond has to sign an athlete’s code of conduct before they are permitted to engage in their chosen varsity sport, before they don the blue and gold, before they put oars to water.
One would have thought UVic would hold their coaches to the same standards as they do their athletes. Clearly a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Marka Riske
Victoria
Send us your letters
• Email: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 2621 Douglas St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4M2.
Letters should be no longer than 250 words and may be edited for length, legality or clarity. Include your full name, address and telephone number. Copyright of letters or other material accepted for publication remains with the author, but the publisher and its licensees may freely reproduce them in print, electronic and other forms.
