Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Virerra Village | ?m | 35fl, 33fl, 29fl, 29fl | Proposed
#61
(06-01-2017, 07:15 AM)MidTowner Wrote: How can it rhyme with both? There's no 'I' after the first 'R,' so I don't think it could rhyme with 'riviera.'

'Carerra,' 'Ferrero,' 'Virerra,' these are proper nouns (I'm assuming Virerra is a surname, and not just made out of thin air) from other languages and are a bit hard to pronounce in English. It's not the end of the world; I just don't think it's a good name for a development.

I'd feel better knowing for sure it was honouring an actual person (I think Cortés was, for instance). If they did pick it for the name's actual qualities, they could have done much better.

"AIR-ah".  The last two syllables rhyme in each case, n'est-ce pas.  

By the way, am I correct in thinking that "Cortés" is correctly pronounced "Core-TASE"?
Reply


#62
(06-01-2017, 07:53 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(06-01-2017, 07:15 AM)MidTowner Wrote: How can it rhyme with both? There's no 'I' after the first 'R,' so I don't think it could rhyme with 'riviera.'

'Carerra,' 'Ferrero,' 'Virerra,' these are proper nouns (I'm assuming Virerra is a surname, and not just made out of thin air) from other languages and are a bit hard to pronounce in English. It's not the end of the world; I just don't think it's a good name for a development.

I'd feel better knowing for sure it was honouring an actual person (I think Cortés was, for instance). If they did pick it for the name's actual qualities, they could have done much better.

"AIR-ah".  The last two syllables rhyme in each case, n'est-ce pas.  

By the way, am I correct in thinking that "Cortés" is correctly pronounced "Core-TASE"?

Kind of... it is pronounced Cor-tEs "(with a very solid "e", instead of "ey")
Reply
#63
I think that the way Cortés is pronounced, versus the way many people around hear reading it pronounce it, are probably two different things.
Reply
#64
(05-31-2017, 09:11 AM)plam Wrote:
(05-30-2017, 07:31 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: That’s a pretty blanket statement for a concept so general as “an indoor connection”. What exactly is wrong with indoor paths? There are only three things that distinguish indoor paths from outdoor: (1) roof; (2) walls; (3) climate control. Which of these do you claim makes them ineffective?

And what’s so great about being required to go outside to get from one store to another, in this climate? Sure, having the convenient option is good, and frequently very enjoyable, but required?

Also side note, even in California climate this can be screwed up. Once while visiting, I had the distinct displeasure of being rained on … while riding an escalator. I don’t mind that the malls are more open in California, but it doesn’t take a lot of smarts to realize that rain on an escalator should not be something people have to worry about.

As to the street wall, build this development as four buildings with four facades, but continuous instead of with gaps between them, if it is thought that variety is desirable (which is perfectly reasonable in my book).

I think indoor connections can detract from street life in general. In this particular context there's not necessarily a lot of street life to detract from. It may be not the best thing in the context of an otherwise-lively street. Sainte-Catherine in Montreal does have, for the most part, indoor connections running underneath it, but yet is still lively. King St in Kitchener is perhaps precarious enough that indoor connections are not so good.

Part of the issue is that they're not at street level, where street life "ought" to happen.

They were probably happy to have the rain in California but it is not helpful while riding escalators.

I needed something at a store at the "Toronto Premium Outlets". There are a lot of things about that collection of stores that baffle me, but in particular that it's trying to be a California-style mall, in Toronto, with no indoor connections between the stores. ?!

I’m sensitive to the issue of detracting from street life, but on the other hand they can only do so by attracting people inside. If people prefer to be inside, who are planners to say they’re wrong? However, the real solution is to integrate the indoor and outdoor spaces so people have a real choice of which route to take. It should be a realistic choice to decide to take the outside route on a nice day and stay indoors on a crummy day. For example, in the specific case we’re discussing, I would have an exterior path or sidewalk separated from an indoor route only by a glass wall with occasional doors. I would put signs for the businesses inside immediately outside as well to help people find what they want.

You say they’re not at street level. That doesn’t have to be the case, depending on the location, and in this particular case my proposal was that the ground floors (street level floor) of all these buildings should be linked together. But there is a more fundamental issue, which is “what is the street”? Does it have to be where motor vehicles circulate? What is so magical about them? My main gripe is that people talk as if putting a roof and walls around a pedestrian route somehow ruins it. The reason the corridors of Conestoga Mall aren’t ideal pedestrian environments isn’t that they have roofs and climate control.

I took a look at Toronto Premium Outlets on Google Map. I’m not impressed one bit. It’s exactly the same kind of layout as Conestoga or Fairview or any other big “island in a parking lot” mall, except they’ve cheaped out on construction by leaving off part of the roof. There is nothing magical about being rained on that makes shopping more enjoyable. Fail.
Reply
#65
(05-31-2017, 09:50 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I've been mulling over the idea of a continuous indoor connection for these four proposed towers and I can't think of any good rationale.  Although I could be wrong, it does not appear from the renders that the project will include a shared amenities area, which would be the strongest argument for a link.  I suppose a link above ground level might be possible, but anything at grade would reduce the "green space" between the towers (which seems to be intended as publicly accessible space).  I just have trouble seeing the link as useful, or even desireable.

So you don’t think anybody will ever want to go from one tower to the other? There is always a good rationale for linking any two buildings. It would be nice if my house were linked to Waterloo Town Square, and on to the University. The only reason not to link is excessive expense, or if there is no way to route the link without conflicting with other needed routes and requirements of the buildings.

For example, to go to an extreme, the houses on my street can’t reasonably be linked. Doing so would probably cost more than the houses themselves. Also, there is a routing problem: if the link ran at ground level, where would the exterior sidewalks and roads go? If below or above ground level, you run into a problem linking to houses that aren’t designed to have entrances other than on the main floor, not to mention even higher costs. Also going above ground level would have an enormous aesthetic impact, but really in comparison to the other problems that is relatively minor.

In this case we have a bunch of buildings built on a common parking base, each of which will have several retail establishments. It is obviously useful to be able to enter the building once and visit multiple locations. For residents, even more so: they don’t even have to bring a coat. Given the whole thing is effectively one big building anyway, there is no credible expense argument against linking.

In general, the larger the buildings the better the links should be. By the time you’re talking about buildings with hundreds of units built on multiple levels of underground parking, every single one should be linked to its neighbours by fully climate-controlled indoor links. Medium sized buildings should have more overhangs and more zero-setback construction with interior connections. Smaller buildings like my house are inherently unlinkable and that’s OK.

However, better planning should be used. In Calgary, some of the bridges are multi-story affairs that really have a major impact on what the street feels like. I think those should have been kept more slender. Also, the links between street level and the bridge system should be extremely easy to use and very obvious, and the interior passageways should be as easy to navigate as the streets themselves.
Reply
#66
My proposed solution: link the buildings with wide glass-enclosed walkways at the back edge of the courtyards between the buildings. There is nowhere to go in that direction anyway, all that you might get there is a view (and a glass walkway will provide that anyway), and the glass will not substantially change the visuals. As an additional benefit, this might cut down on the strength of the wind that will sweep through the courtyards.
Reply
#67
(06-01-2017, 03:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote: My proposed solution: link the buildings with wide glass-enclosed walkways at the back edge of the courtyards between the buildings.  There is nowhere to go in that direction anyway, all that you might get there is a view (and a glass walkway will provide that anyway), and the glass will not substantially change the visuals.  As an additional benefit, this might cut down on the strength of the wind that will sweep through the courtyards.

That would be very cool, and as you suggest it takes advantage of the specific context.
Reply
#68
Very some exciting proposals have come out in the past few weeks Charlie West, Sixo, the proposed tower on Regina and Virerra Village.

Would love to see a 35 story tower in the region.
Reply
#69
(06-01-2017, 12:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m sensitive to the issue of detracting from street life, but on the other hand they can only do so by attracting people inside. If people prefer to be inside, who are planners to say they’re wrong? However, the real solution is to integrate the indoor and outdoor spaces so people have a real choice of which route to take. It should be a realistic choice to decide to take the outside route on a nice day and stay indoors on a crummy day. For example, in the specific case we’re discussing, I would have an exterior path or sidewalk separated from an indoor route only by a glass wall with occasional doors. I would put signs for the businesses inside immediately outside as well to help people find what they want.

You say they’re not at street level. That doesn’t have to be the case, depending on the location, and in this particular case my proposal was that the ground floors (street level floor) of all these buildings should be linked together. But there is a more fundamental issue, which is “what is the street”? Does it have to be where motor vehicles circulate? What is so magical about them? My main gripe is that people talk as if putting a roof and walls around a pedestrian route somehow ruins it. The reason the corridors of Conestoga Mall aren’t ideal pedestrian environments isn’t that they have roofs and climate control.

tomh009's suggestion seems good to me. I do think that it makes sense in this particular context. But indoor connections among the shops on King St in either Waterloo or Kitchener would be strange, I think for similar reasons to how it would be strange to have indoor connections among the houses on your street.

More fundamentally, it's not the roof and walls. And so Toronto Premium Outlets fails at this also. It's that these spaces are not public spaces. They're private spaces in which we are the guests of the owners. Waterloo Town Square or Kitchener's Speaker's Corner are public spaces, and people who might make us uncomfortable have the right to be there. This is more relevant to spaces where people might congregate for some time, rather than passageways like the ones between buildings on university campuses.

(06-01-2017, 12:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I took a look at Toronto Premium Outlets on Google Map. I’m not impressed one bit. It’s exactly the same kind of layout as Conestoga or Fairview or any other big “island in a parking lot” mall, except they’ve cheaped out on construction by leaving off part of the roof. There is nothing magical about being rained on that makes shopping more enjoyable. Fail.

Not just rain, but also snow and cold!
Reply
#70
I like what I see From this development but I wish the project name would tie into the Blockline station name like 'Blockline Central or Centre'.
Reply
#71
(06-02-2017, 09:34 AM)rangersfan Wrote: I like what I see From this development but I wish the project name would tie into the Blockline station name like 'Blockline Central or Centre'.

BS for short!
Reply
#72
Is that an access road between the middle two towers? Does that line up with Hillmount? Won't that mess with planned GRT stop there? It also looks like there is an access road to Block Line which could be complicated by the bridge.

As for the pedestrian access and faux public spaces they could do something like at the York University bus loop - basically the perimeter is lined by a corridor that is all roll up glass garage doors.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#73
(06-02-2017, 05:01 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Is that an access road between the middle two towers? Does that line up with Hillmount?

Yes and yes.

Quote:Won't that mess with planned GRT stop there?

The buses will turn there, but the stop won't be at the intersection, so it should be fine.

Quote:It also looks like there is an access road to Block Line which could be complicated by the bridge.

There's a good amount of approach space before the bridge, which should work out.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#74
(06-02-2017, 08:43 AM)plam Wrote:
(06-01-2017, 12:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m sensitive to the issue of detracting from street life, but on the other hand they can only do so by attracting people inside. If people prefer to be inside, who are planners to say they’re wrong? However, the real solution is to integrate the indoor and outdoor spaces so people have a real choice of which route to take. It should be a realistic choice to decide to take the outside route on a nice day and stay indoors on a crummy day. For example, in the specific case we’re discussing, I would have an exterior path or sidewalk separated from an indoor route only by a glass wall with occasional doors. I would put signs for the businesses inside immediately outside as well to help people find what they want.

You say they’re not at street level. That doesn’t have to be the case, depending on the location, and in this particular case my proposal was that the ground floors (street level floor) of all these buildings should be linked together. But there is a more fundamental issue, which is “what is the street”? Does it have to be where motor vehicles circulate? What is so magical about them? My main gripe is that people talk as if putting a roof and walls around a pedestrian route somehow ruins it. The reason the corridors of Conestoga Mall aren’t ideal pedestrian environments isn’t that they have roofs and climate control.

tomh009's suggestion seems good to me. I do think that it makes sense in this particular context. But indoor connections among the shops on King St in either Waterloo or Kitchener would be strange, I think for similar reasons to how it would be strange to have indoor connections among the houses on your street.

More fundamentally, it's not the roof and walls. And so Toronto Premium Outlets fails at this also. It's that these spaces are not public spaces. They're private spaces in which we are the guests of the owners. Waterloo Town Square or Kitchener's Speaker's Corner are public spaces, and people who might make us uncomfortable have the right to be there. This is more relevant to spaces where people might congregate for some time, rather than passageways like the ones between buildings on university campuses.

My idea for King St. would be a stepped-back main floor. So immediately beside the sidewalk there would be in effect another sidewalk that is covered. Most likely this would be open on the street-facing side so it wouldn’t actually be “inside” but it would provide precipitation protection. Of course when the old buildings along King St. were built, it was common for stores to have awnings. So during the day when the stores were open, there would have been almost continuous awnings along at least some stretches. On the other side of the street where Waterloo Town Square was re-developed, those buildings should have been built as I describe. Additionally, a roof of some sort (probably glass) joining between the buildings and wrapping around to the back of each would allow travelling all the way down the block under cover. This is a perfect example of medium-sized buildings where interior connections may not be practical but we still don’t have to give up on the concept of making use of the marvelous technology known as a “roof”. Although in this case the whole block was built as one project, please note that coordinated ownership is not required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_(ar...s_-622.jpg

I defy anybody to explain how our streetscapes are in any way better than that.

(That side of King St. should also have been built about one traffic lane further back, which would have allowed both LRT tracks to stay on King St. But that’s another story)

As to the public vs. private, you’re exactly right — it’s not about the roof and walls, meaning it’s not about whether the space is inside or outside, meaning that most complaints about my ideas are off-point. But you are right — most interior spaces are private. To which I say, the city should build some public interior spaces. Also I should mention that there have been issues in Toronto with privately-owned exterior spaces that are supposed to be provided as a public amenity but which end up neglected or excessively restricted, so that problem exists outdoors as well as in.

Another problem that people sometimes raise is that homeless people might be attracted to interior spaces. Well, of course they are — who wants to sleep outdoors? Same reason people live under bridges. The solution there is proper housing, but in the absence of that, ubiquitous public covered areas would spread out the — I don’t want to say “problem” — maybe “symptom”.
Reply
#75
(06-02-2017, 05:01 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Is that an access road between the middle two towers? Does that line up with Hillmount? Won't that mess with planned GRT stop there? It also looks like there is an access road to Block Line which could be complicated by the bridge.

As for the pedestrian access and faux public spaces they could do something like at the York University bus loop - basically the perimeter is lined by a corridor that is all roll up glass garage doors.

Isn't that the access to the parking podium?
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Mill Creek Village |~9m | 3fl | U/C rangersfan 1 2,053 09-27-2014, 02:04 PM
Last Post: rangersfan

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links