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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Victoria Commons
#46
(03-11-2015, 10:26 AM)YKF Wrote: It's cheaper to build with wood than with steel/concrete. Wood-frame construction is permitted to achieve 6 storeys in Ontario.

Based on the latest photos, it's not a wood frame building at all -- it's structural concrete with wood framing only for non-structural walls.
Reply
#47
(05-08-2015, 11:59 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(03-11-2015, 10:26 AM)YKF Wrote: It's cheaper to build with wood than with steel/concrete. Wood-frame construction is permitted to achieve 6 storeys in Ontario.

Based on the latest photos, it's not a wood frame building at all -- it's structural concrete with wood framing only for non-structural walls.

The walls are 100% wood framed, including bearing walls with precast floors on top. The exception being the elevator shaft and stairwells being concrete block for fire resistance.

EDIT: There is a bit of block in some locations on the exterior to allow bearing for balconies etc.. however +/- 4 feet into the building, the walls switch to wood again.
Reply
#48
(05-08-2015, 01:11 PM)JCnb Wrote:
(05-08-2015, 11:59 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Based on the latest photos, it's not a wood frame building at all -- it's structural concrete with wood framing only for non-structural walls.

The walls are 100% wood framed, including bearing walls with precast floors on top. The exception being the elevator shaft and stairwells being concrete block for fire resistance.

EDIT: There is a bit of block in some locations on the exterior to allow bearing for balconies etc.. however +/- 4 feet into the building, the walls switch to wood again.

Indeed you are right ... I didn't look closely enough.  Mostly wood-framed walls with concrete floors and and some concrete walls.  A hybrid wood-concrete construction, I would call it, but there is probably an official term for this ...
Reply
#49
There's something I failed to notice about this development. Although it's on a large site (over 15 acres), the only outlets are on the east side of the site on St. Leger. This is a lot like suburban developments which favour cul-de-sacs and other silly street geometry over grids that are flexible and provide options. When you do something like what's been done here, walking distances are dramatically increased and so too are the chances of car-dependency on the part of the residents.

I know that there weren't that many options on this site since there are existing buildings on Margaret and Blucher. A path to Louisa could easily and should have been included, which would have reduced walking distances by at least two hundred meters when heading in that direction.

The developer could use his imagination and try to negotiate with the owner of the apartment building on Margaret to get a foot path from Victoria Commons to Margaret. This would benefit the residents of that building, too, if there really will be commercial uses in the development. If that could happen, a resident of Victoria Commons wanting to use the bus stop on Margaret Ave would face a negligible walk, rather than a walk of more than 500 meters.

Hopefully I'm wrong, and there is somehow foot access to Adam, but from their site plans it doesn't look like it, and having access only from St. Leger would have a strong negative impact on walkability here.
Reply
#50
(09-11-2015, 07:46 AM)MidTowner Wrote: There's something I failed to notice about this development. Although it's on a large site (over 15 acres), the only outlets are on the east side of the site on St. Leger. This is a lot like suburban developments which favour cul-de-sacs and other silly street geometry over grids that are  flexible and provide options. When you do something like what's been done here, walking distances are dramatically increased and so too are the chances of car-dependency on the part of the residents.

I know that there weren't that many options on this site since there are existing buildings on Margaret and Blucher. A path to Louisa could easily and should have been included, which would have reduced walking distances by at least two hundred meters when heading in that direction.

The developer could use his imagination and try to negotiate with the owner of the apartment building on Margaret to get a foot path from Victoria Commons to Margaret. This would benefit the residents of that building, too, if there really will be commercial uses in the development. If that could happen, a resident of Victoria Commons wanting to use the bus stop on Margaret Ave would face a negligible walk, rather than a walk of more than 500 meters.

Hopefully I'm wrong, and there is somehow foot access to Adam, but from their site plans it doesn't look like it, and having access only from St. Leger would have a strong negative impact on walkability here.

The church was not willing to allow the developers to alter Adam St. The original design had plans for access from Margaret and a new left turn lane off of Margaret onto Adam.

Next to the sales center (and probably using the sales center land when it's no longer needed) are plans for a park and a path with access to Louisa. I don't recall them discussing why they didn't have car access to Louisa.

The developers also said they would have a community trail from the development to Blucher St that would give access to Blucher near the Margaret Ave intersection for people to have easy access to GT and the rec center.
Reply
#51
(09-11-2015, 07:46 AM)MidTowner Wrote: There's something I failed to notice about this development. Although it's on a large site (over 15 acres), the only outlets are on the east side of the site on St. Leger. This is a lot like suburban developments which favour cul-de-sacs and other silly street geometry over grids that are  flexible and provide options. When you do something like what's been done here, walking distances are dramatically increased and so too are the chances of car-dependency on the part of the residents.

I know that there weren't that many options on this site since there are existing buildings on Margaret and Blucher. A path to Louisa could easily and should have been included, which would have reduced walking distances by at least two hundred meters when heading in that direction.

The developer could use his imagination and try to negotiate with the owner of the apartment building on Margaret to get a foot path from Victoria Commons to Margaret. This would benefit the residents of that building, too, if there really will be commercial uses in the development. If that could happen, a resident of Victoria Commons wanting to use the bus stop on Margaret Ave would face a negligible walk, rather than a walk of more than 500 meters.

Hopefully I'm wrong, and there is somehow foot access to Adam, but from their site plans it doesn't look like it, and having access only from St. Leger would have a strong negative impact on walkability here.

While vehicular access is restricted to St. Leger as you have mentioned, the development does provide two other pedestrian accesses to the site. The first one being along the proposed "central park" which will connect the central area of the site to Louisa St. The second connection is at the North-West  back corner where the developer owns a narrow strip of land which will have a sidewalk connecting the back corner of the development with Blucher St. The developer also attempted from the get go to have Adam St. travel through the site however the church on Margaret owning the parking lot in that area which blocked any expansion, wanted nothing to do with it.
Reply
#52
Thank you, Chris and JCnb- I don't know how I missed the plan for a trail to Blucher, and foot access to Louisa. That's pretty well ideal, then, and I retract my negativity. The site plan on their web page didn't seem to show those access points.
Reply
#53
(03-11-2015, 10:26 AM)YKF Wrote: It's cheaper to build with wood than with steel/concrete. Wood-frame construction is permitted to achieve 6 storeys in Ontario.

An interesting story in G&M today: a proposed 13-story building in Quebec, using structural wood (CLT) construction:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e26453443/
Reply
#54
(09-24-2015, 01:21 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(03-11-2015, 10:26 AM)YKF Wrote: It's cheaper to build with wood than with steel/concrete. Wood-frame construction is permitted to achieve 6 storeys in Ontario.

An interesting story in G&M today: a proposed 13-story building in Quebec, using structural wood (CLT) construction:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e26453443/

CLT certainly has an advantage over traditional wood frame construction in that it is a solid wood panel (essentially plywood on steroids) when it comes to fire, sound and structural resistance. The only local example I am aware of using CLT is the new St. Jacobs market building which used CLT floor panels imported from Europe which then received a concrete topping. I am hopeful that wood will become more common as a far superior product from an environmental point of view than steel and concrete for larger projects.
Reply
#55
(03-11-2015, 11:25 AM)mbender123 Wrote:
(03-11-2015, 10:26 AM)YKF Wrote: It's cheaper to build with wood than with steel/concrete. Wood-frame construction is permitted to achieve 6 storeys in Ontario.

That is correct. further to this conversation the developer/sales rep indicate that the second building is now going to be 6 storeys rather than 4. Apparently sales are going really well and they are taking advantage of that and adding 2 more floors to the second condo building!

The second building which was originally to be 4 storeys can be confirmed as being upgraded to 6 through the City of Kitchener GIS permit info

- 14125889 - Status Letter Sent
  Permit Description
  PERMIT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 6 STOREY 114 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING.
  Special Conditions
  site plan Building B
  Contractor
 
  Contractor Contact
 
  Construction Value
  $9200000.00


Update for the site: Building A has most of the glazing installed and brick laying is underway. My understanding is that units will be ready by the end of this year. The rebar has been placed for the base of the parking garage for building B and a new tower crane base installed, presumably the existing crane will simply be re-located.


Attached Files Image(s)
       
Reply
#56
(09-25-2015, 10:33 AM)JCnb Wrote:
(03-11-2015, 11:25 AM)mbender123 Wrote: That is correct. further to this conversation the developer/sales rep indicate that the second building is now going to be 6 storeys rather than 4. Apparently sales are going really well and they are taking advantage of that and adding 2 more floors to the second condo building!

The second building which was originally to be 4 storeys can be confirmed as being upgraded to 6 through the City of Kitchener GIS permit info

The original plan way back at the beginning (first neighbourhood info session) was for both towers to be six stories. They told everyone they could go 16? but thought six was enough with all the rest of the buildings being built. Nice to see a good response to the development, I'm sure they wish they stuck to the original six and six now.

Nice pics JC.
Reply
#57
We talked to them way back then, and as I recall, their thinking was that the final tower(s) could go higher, but the first ones were slated to be six stories. Mix of heights would be good, so let's hope that plan is still active.
Reply
#58
(09-24-2015, 03:32 PM)JCnb Wrote:
(09-24-2015, 01:21 PM)tomh009 Wrote: An interesting story in G&M today: a proposed 13-story building in Quebec, using structural wood (CLT) construction:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e26453443/

CLT certainly has an advantage over traditional wood frame construction in that it is a solid wood panel (essentially plywood on steroids) when it comes to fire, sound and structural resistance. The only local example I am aware of using CLT is the new St. Jacobs market building which used CLT floor panels imported from Europe which then received a concrete topping. I am hopeful that wood will become more common as a far superior product from an environmental point of view than steel and concrete for larger projects.

Just adding on to the topic of wood: there's a website called reThink Wood, promoting its use as a sustainable building material even on tall structures. Here is a list/gallery of some beautiful projects using wood: http://www.rethinkwood.com/case-studies/...ulti-story
Reply
#59
I've heard through the grapevine that RHC Contractors (Reid's Heritage) are no longer the General Contractor on this project and that Melloul Blamey has picked it up. Apparently it was RHC's decision to leave. Anyone know what's going on?
Reply
#60
(01-21-2016, 11:55 PM)The85 Wrote: I've heard through the grapevine that RHC Contractors (Reid's Heritage) are no longer the General Contractor on this project and that Melloul Blamey has picked it up. Apparently it was RHC's decision to leave. Anyone know what's going on?

I can confirm that RHC is no longer on site and that Melloul Blamey signs and trucks are now present. I came to ask the same question as to what happened?

Site progress on the condo buildings has been painfully slow since day one. I wonder if they weren't able to handle this type/size of project?

That said I hope progress on the remaining work & buildings progresses much quicker going forward. Occupancy for the first building is scheduled (after many delays) for May. The second building now under construction has the pit dug with geothermal drilling & foundation work happening for some time now.

The townhomes (Losani Homes) have also been progressing quite nicely with only a few blocks left to be started.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)