March, 2005 - Ever since the highrise controversies of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Victoria has pursued an unfortunate love affair with so-called "fatscrapers". What is a fatscraper? The definition is not so strict (we're still waiting for a Wikipedia entry to help clarify the matter), but in general usage the term refers to a building that is (or appears to be) more massive than it is tall. Large floorplates, ungainly proportions, and a propensity for blocking views from both near and far...these are the primary attributes of a fatscraper.
Fatscrapers aren't necessarily ugly buildings. The Empress Hotel, Shoal Point, and Parc Residences (or more precisely, one side of it) are three notable Victoria fatscrapers that demonstrate this fact very clearly. But even a beautiful fatscraper can create problems and generate controversy, when compared to a slender highrise with a much smaller floorplate.
Slim buildings cast significantly less shade onto the street than massive ones do. They reveal significantly more blue sky around them. They have relatively small footprints and don't overwhelm their streetscapes, visually or functionally. Don't believe it? Try circumnavigating the girth of the massive Richard Blanshard building (the Ministry of Health, on Blanshard Street). It's not tall, but its sheer bulk makes for an overwhelming presence.
When viewed from a distance, a slim building is a point of visual interest — a landmark — whereas a low, wide building (or, heaven forbid, a tall, wide building like View Towers) tends to be a visual interruption. Contrary to popular misconception, bulky midrises are in fact an effective means toward destroying existing viewscapes. A flagpole can't block a nice view, but a wall — lower but much longer — certainly can. Just look at how effectively the Empress Hotel (God bless the old gal) blocks the views of the buildings behind it when viewed from Laurel Point or across the harbour.
Simply put, massive, bulky midrises tend to be much more obtrusive than slim highrises.
Fatscrapers certainly have a long heritage in Victoria, but anyone who claims slim architecture is somehow inappropriate for the capital city is simply mistaken. The Rohani Tower on Fort Street is a good modern example, and from Victoria's earlier days we have the Campbell Building (since demolished), the B.C. Permanent Loan Building (since demolished), and the spires of St. Andrews Cathedral and The Church of St. John the Divine.
Some people would say the city's height restrictions produce bulky midrise buildings by accident. Height restrictions, they would claim, are intended to prevent the construction of tall buildings, so that the Empress Hotel and other established favourites will not be overshadowed. The fact that height restrictions tend to encourage inelegant designs is an unfortunate and unintended side effect.
But this begs the question: do taller buildings really detract so mightily from shorter and/or wider buildings in their company? If so, then why do so many professional photographers take pains to include the Fannin Tower and the Orchard/Robert House apartments in their pictures of the legislative buildings? Why are so many pictures of the Empress Hotel framed so as to include — rather than obscure — the point of the Sussex building?
Tall, slim buildings have never been a problem in Victoria, esthetically or otherwise. When it comes to blocked views, monotonous facades, and dysfunctional streetscapes, fingers should be pointed squarely at the city's many fatscrapers. It might just be time to call this romance off for good.