Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed

[Bjays93]

They should absolutely be looking at saving as much as the building as possible. Preserving heritage is not NIMBYism (not saying anyone was saying it was, I'm just saying it isnt lol)

[ac3r]

They should absolutely be looking at saving as much as the building as possible. Preserving heritage is not NIMBYism (not saying anyone was saying it was, I'm just saying it isnt lol)

Absolutely. It's a cultural and intellectual issue. NIMBYs are more like the clowns around Victoria Park that managed to block a development on Mill Street because they don't like tall buildings. Preserving historically significant buildings is actually a great thing. It doesn't seem like anyone has objected to this condo development, they're just saying hey please save as much of the original building as possible - and indeed Momentum should try to do so. In 100 years, this condo won't matter, but the building it's on top of will.

[panamaniac]

I’d certainly be happy if more than the facade were saved, but I wonder if building a structure to support the tower won’t make it a problem? At a minimum, I’d hope the they can save and repurpose some original features/materials. It would also be great if Dr Peta’s old office could be recreated as commercial space in the new building, with it’s original street entrance.

[KingandWeber]

Yeah I'm going to have to side with the heritage advocates on this one. It would be nice to save as much of the interior as possible. I imagine the difficulty (albeit with zero engineering knowledge) is building the support for the condo tower on the Goudies Lane and Queen St. corner, but I wonder if they couldn't somehow get permission to put some sort of support pillar on the side of the lane. I know that would involve the City cutting a deal, but if the result is more preservation, I think it would be worth considering as a win-win for all parties.

[jeffster]

I am sure you could save a lot of the interior, just not the whole interior. That build cannot support 34 floors. You'd need to make major alterations either way. I do question: what is the value of saving the interior? Is it that special? I don't know, because I have never be inside this building.

[nms]

How much of the interior executive office space was saved in the Kaufman Lofts? I seem to recall in one of the articles about the project that a good deal of the original woodwork was present when the project started. If it could be incorporated into the common space, or perhaps even duplicated to fill gaps if walls were removed to create a lobby, or a larger common room, that would be wonderful. We don't need everything to be stark, angular, and modern.

[panamaniac]

I am sure you could save a lot of the interior, just not the whole interior. That build cannot support 34 floors. You'd need to make major alterations either way. I do question: what is the value of saving the interior? Is it that special? I don't know, because I have never be inside this building.

It has been many years, but in my mind it has (had?) a rather distinguished interior with lots of wood panelling up the stairwell.  Since the render seems to show the entrance to be to the north of the existing building, I’m thinking that the original lobby and stairwell would be eliminated.

[Bjays93]

I'd like to be clear, these are not my photos. I've been posting some kitchener development threads over at urban toronto in hopes that they'll gain some more traction (kitchener is really overlooked right now in spite of all the developments going on) 

One of the people over actually had photos of the interior from a few years ago and they were these

           

Full credit goes to enmphur

[kitborn]

A very beautiful interior. Worth saving.

[Rainrider22]

WOW, very nice !!

[panamaniac]

That plaster work is impressive. Is that the lobby?

[ParkerQueen]

I was reading tomh's prediction of 'more organized opposition to development, intensification and affordable housing in the future for anything near the Victoria Park neighbourhood' in the 19-41 Mill St thread, and then noticed this email in my inbox from a Victoria Park neighbour:

---

"Peggy Nickels, our VPNA President, has been asked by Hal Jaeger from Olde Berlin NA and chair of the Development Committee to forward this on to neighbours in case any of you are interested. He and others in his neighbourhood and the surrounding community are concerned about a proposed development at 22 Weber Street (between Queen and Young Streets, where Ontario dead-ends into Weber). They are concerned about this development because the applicant is requesting:

-unlimited building height and number of storeys
-a front yard setback of 0.8m when the existing zoning requires 3m
-a maximum floor space ratio of 6.2 when the existing and proposed zoning allows a maximum of 4.0
-21 parking spaces when the existing zoning requires a minimum of 104
-3 visitor parking spaces when the existing zoning requires a minimum of 21

Concerned neighbours believe the proposed zoning fails to provide an appropriate transition and threatens neighbourhood homes and properties, and, if accepted, would:

-encroach on the privacy of nearby residents and occupants
-block sunlight and cast shadows on nearby low-rise properties, businesses and homes
-diminish owner enjoyment of their property
-exacerbate wind tunnels on Weber, Roy and other streets
-increase pressure on parking on nearby streets
-detract from the ambience and character of the neighbourhood
-overwhelm heritage properties and harm the Heritage District
-compromise the viability of a stable neighbourhood
-set a dangerous precedent

On top of this, there has been no consultation with the neighbourhood, and the developer is going directly to the LPAT (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) for approval.

----
Ugh.

This is what the YIMBYs are up against. On the OldeBerlinTown website, Councillor Sarah Marsh has info for people hoping to be involved in advocating for/against this project. http://oldeberlintown.ca/22weberstw

I generally like the conversations on WRC. In this thread, there's been a good balance of the need for urban densification and the need to preserve heritage. I think Karl Kessler's points in yesterday's Record makes a far more convincing argument than the drivel in the email I received.

Also, first time posting. Devoted reader, and appreciative of the content and opinions shared.

[mastermind]

Beautiful. My guess is that saving it definitely means no 34 story building though.

[jeffster]

Beautiful.  My guess is that saving it definitely means no 34 story building though.

I sort of agree with that. To add, trying to force them to preserve the interior may be an overreach and could set a bad precedent. By that, I mean, heritage advocates could make it hard for anyone to make interior changes. Years ago I rented an apartment that for sure had interior heritage (arched hallway openings, unique wall finish, etc) that I am sure many would want left alone. Not saying that the interior should have been changed, but bad tenants sometimes ruin the interior that make major renovations necessary.

That said, they might be able to mimic the interior so that it duplicates what used to be there.

[ac3r]

It'd be easy enough to mimic the interior. You could even just take those old sections and place them in a new structure if you absolutely wanted to save it. TBH I'm on the fence about this project. A condo is just a condo, but this building is not something you can ever replace. Sadly, as nice as it is, it doesn't have enough historical and architectural value on its own to merit saving the original structure and cancel the condo building entirely.