+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=7)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Rainrider22 - 01-13-2022
The one on the right is so ugly. And the sun is high lighting just how ugly it is.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 01-13-2022
I'd say it's not even surprising, let alone "shocking".
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 01-13-2022
(01-13-2022, 09:41 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: The one on the right is so ugly. And the sun is high lighting just how ugly it is.
That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Rainrider22 - 01-13-2022
(01-13-2022, 11:42 AM)ac3r Wrote:(01-13-2022, 09:41 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: The one on the right is so ugly. And the sun is high lighting just how ugly it is.
That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.
Ok, I dont always agree with your analysis of some buildings, but I respect that you are an architect, and as such, I have to ask you.... Who would have designed that finish ? Would it have been part of the design by the architect firm ? Or, is that be the owner inserting their own preference of design. Sort of like a signature of the developer ?
Because I cant imagine people in a boardroom coming to consensus that this would have a good outcome.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - cherrypark - 01-13-2022
(01-13-2022, 11:53 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:(01-13-2022, 11:42 AM)ac3r Wrote: That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.
Ok, I dont always agree with your analysis of some buildings, but I respect that you are an architect, and as such, I have to ask you.... Who would have designed that finish ? Would it have been part of the design by the architect firm ? Or, is that be the owner inserting their own preference of design. Sort of like a signature of the developer ?
Because I cant imagine people in a boardroom coming to consensus that this would have a good outcome.
I would suggest it was precisely the boardroom that caused that outcome on the basis of cost cutting.
To answer your question: this is another greatest hit in the SRM Architects portfolio (you'll notice a trend on who has designed many of these sore thumbs). And the blend of unpainted and faded black concrete is likely the cost minimum for finishing the building (which was behind schedule and a general mess from start to finish).
The original render wasn't much for promise, though:
![[Image: 10%20-%20KIJIJI%201%20EXTERIOR.jpg?width...quality=80]](https://cdngeneral.rentcafe.com/dmslivecafe/3/689508/10%20-%20KIJIJI%201%20EXTERIOR.jpg?width=850&mode=pad&bgcolor=333333&quality=80)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - CP42 - 01-13-2022
(01-13-2022, 11:42 AM)ac3r Wrote:I remember them being relatively all the same colour when it was first built. The grey is just faded on the outside portions while they must have used a different material in the middle that held this darker grey colour.(01-13-2022, 09:41 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: The one on the right is so ugly. And the sun is high lighting just how ugly it is.
That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.
![[Image: 426_21_(9).jpg]](https://www.stubbes.org/info_photos/426_21_(9).jpg)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Rainrider22 - 01-13-2022
The original rendering is at least looked some what interesting on paper. How they got to that final result should be against the law.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 01-13-2022
(01-13-2022, 11:53 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:(01-13-2022, 11:42 AM)ac3r Wrote: That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.
Ok, I dont always agree with your analysis of some buildings, but I respect that you are an architect, and as such, I have to ask you.... Who would have designed that finish ? Would it have been part of the design by the architect firm ? Or, is that be the owner inserting their own preference of design. Sort of like a signature of the developer ?
Because I cant imagine people in a boardroom coming to consensus that this would have a good outcome.
The main thing is there are two forms of development and architectural design. Pardon the long post, but I'll try to explain.
You can think of one form as being economically driven. Developers see a need in a market that can be fulfilled, in this case to provide housing to students. They want to achieve this in the most economically conservative way possible. You get developers who see that need and then they want a piece of that pie. So, they plan out these buildings in a way that does not cost them a whole lot. Being student buildings, they only need to serve a few functions: the main, obviously, to give people a place to stay with the minimum amenities required. In turn, you get a pretty simple building proposal. They then hire in an architectural group that can design them a building that fulfills their criteria (apartments, some parking, minimal recreational amenities etc). But since they are approaching this economically, they don't expect a building with any thought into the experience, high quality finishes, high quality building materials, unique design and so on. As a result, you end up with a proposal that can be completed without costing a lot of money and then you end up with the sort of ugly buildings we see around Waterloo.
The other main form of development and design is that which aims to create a useful space that also fulfills a need (since buildings all serve a function - luxury condos, offices, commercial spaces, civic spaces etc) but which uses a more intellectual approach that focuses on how human beings use, interact with and react to that space. This has long been a thing we've sought to do as human beings when designing our buildings - for example, historically, we have always designed churches/mosques/etc to emphasize God or we'd create homes that offered inhabitants a very personalized experience. Gaston Bachelard contributed to this form of architectural theory with works like The Poetics of Space and the Martin Heidegger also contributed to a lot of theory with his works on dwelling (which can be explored in this wonderful book Heidegger for Architects). In short, their theories - and the theories of countless other architects in history - sought to evolve architectural design into something that places emphasis on the lived experiences we have in the buildings we create and live our lives in. But, since the vast majority of architecture in the world these days is - first and foremost - functional (as well as economic), there is not always emphasis on creating useful, pleasing and aesthetically beautiful places for us to exist in.
Some architects have attempted to bridge the gap between the two forms, a good example being Le Corbusier who designed buildings to be functional (such as his Plan Voisin in Paris) but he also designed in a manner that used design as a way to heighten more intangible aspects of the human experience, such as his religious architecture which resulted in some of the most beautiful churches created in history, creating buildings that were not only functional as churches, but that also offered spiritual and sacred spaces for religious practitioners.
In the case of these student buildings, they are all obviously economically driven. There is no deeper thought into why and how one can create a useful yet pleasing space. These buildings just exist to fulfill a need in the market, generate profit and pack students into them like sardines. Whatever conversations were happening in the meetings between the developer and architecture, I know none of them consisted of any consideration of how they can create a space that students can live in, but also offer those students a pleasing experience during their time spent there. In contrast, we have several luxury condo developments now which aim to fulfill a need in the market and create a nicer building for the people who are willing to buy or rent units in it. Then there are more serious forms of building in the region - such as the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery or the John M. Harper branch of Waterloo Public Libraries - both of which were designed using more theoretical architectural design (using things like: how can we use light and space to create a gallery to emphasize the art, or create a library that offers the public a bright, functional and intellectually stimulating place).
Naturally, not everything we build in a capitalist system can or needs to place emphasis on the human experience one has within the buildings because they are often devoid of any principles, ideologies etc, but yikes...they could at least try to not make them look so bad. The result when you don't do so is how we end up with these monstrosities dotted all over Waterloo.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - clasher - 01-13-2022
I assumed whoever designed those buildings with the random black & white squares just played too much tetris on gameboy.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Rainrider22 - 01-13-2022
Thanks ac3r for taking the time to explain. I take a lot away from that and it all makes sense. I guess if we really want any form of true pleasing aesthetics it will need to be driven by policy. Unfortunately we don't have enough developers in this region that want to build a show stopper with their name on it. I get the part of economics, but seriously, isn't there a developer that would like to build with a legacy in mind ?
Perhaps as we attract more outside developers we will see a push for more wow factor, And when I say wow, it doesn't always have to be in the form of the finished building, but the entire experience including how the building lends to its streetscape and provides good functionality for everyone.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 01-13-2022
Yeah, how the people and spaces interact with the street is also a good point. I know some of the professors at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture place a lot of emphasis on that when they are teaching their students. Eric Haldenby is one of them, who specifically covered how absurdly ugly and inhumane of an experience King Street is in Waterloo, describing it as atrocious and terrible as it does no dignity to the people who live there and move around the area. I've linked the specific time he brings it up here if you're interested (the entire lecture is worth listening to, though, as he explores the recent boom in this region): https://youtu.be/aAZ-EMfK_6Q?t=3684
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - nms - 01-13-2022
I guess that outside architectural firms (and for that matter the developers who own the land) aren't as concerned about their legacy if they aren't likely to be a part of the community where they might have to drive by the building on regular day. Waterloo Region had a brief burst of home-grown (or at least locally owned) architectural firms from the 1960s to 1990s who designed quite a few gems in town. Many of the buildings are still standing too. (ac3r probably knows many of them).
I also understand that in contrast to publicly owned buildings (eg a City Hall or library) or those funded by someone keen on their legacy (eg Perimeter Institute, CIGI, or some of the University buildings), the City doesn't have much control over the design of a building provided it fits the various building code and zoning rules. I believe, even in the case of a zone change variance, the City cannot deny a building permit on aesthetic grounds. I also seem to recall that the building that was going to look pretty sharp at the corner of NW King St and University Ave was stopped because one of the retail tenants refused to break their lease which would have allowed the demolition and rebuild of the low-rise commercial plaza.
It will be interesting to see how the University district buildings age. I'm not familiar with how many are full rentals (and therefore one owner can make the call for renovations and repairs) vs condos (which may have their own challenges for repairs or renovation). One can dream.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 01-14-2022
(01-13-2022, 10:02 PM)nms Wrote: I also understand that in contrast to publicly owned buildings (eg a City Hall or library) or those funded by someone keen on their legacy (eg Perimeter Institute, CIGI, or some of the University buildings), the City doesn't have much control over the design of a building provided it fits the various building code and zoning rules. I believe, even in the case of a zone change variance, the City cannot deny a building permit on aesthetic grounds. I also seem to recall that the building that was going to look pretty sharp at the corner of NW King St and University Ave was stopped because one of the retail tenants refused to break their lease which would have allowed the demolition and rebuild of the low-rise commercial plaza.
In the case of significant variances, it's really a negotiation between the developer and the city staff. The city can certainly request aesthetic changes, but it will always depend on what their priorities are.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 01-14-2022
(01-14-2022, 12:58 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(01-13-2022, 10:02 PM)nms Wrote: I also understand that in contrast to publicly owned buildings (eg a City Hall or library) or those funded by someone keen on their legacy (eg Perimeter Institute, CIGI, or some of the University buildings), the City doesn't have much control over the design of a building provided it fits the various building code and zoning rules. I believe, even in the case of a zone change variance, the City cannot deny a building permit on aesthetic grounds. I also seem to recall that the building that was going to look pretty sharp at the corner of NW King St and University Ave was stopped because one of the retail tenants refused to break their lease which would have allowed the demolition and rebuild of the low-rise commercial plaza.
In the case of significant variances, it's really a negotiation between the developer and the city staff. The city can certainly request aesthetic changes, but it will always depend on what their priorities are.
They probably can deny on aesthetic grounds, but I'm not sure there's a practical way for city governments to legislate on the longevity or long term looks of the treatments used to cover a building.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 01-14-2022
(01-14-2022, 01:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-14-2022, 12:58 PM)tomh009 Wrote: In the case of significant variances, it's really a negotiation between the developer and the city staff. The city can certainly request aesthetic changes, but it will always depend on what their priorities are.
They probably can deny on aesthetic grounds, but I'm not sure there's a practical way for city governments to legislate on the longevity or long term looks of the treatments used to cover a building.
Only on an exception basis, I think. And I can't really conceive a practical way to enforce that as a rule, either.