Garment Street Condos | 25 & 6 fl | U/C

[jeffster]

Updated pics by any chance?

I was just driving by but the zehr group has some pictures on there instagram.

While not to my tastes, both of these towers look better than I expected from the renders.

I was on the page for Garment Street Condos, and their contractor (ones putting in the slabs) said "16 down, 11 to go". That means this is 27 floors rather than 25? I am thinking this isn't total floors, as there are 16 floors above ground already.

Also, someone mentioned that Young Condo went from 25 floors to 27 floors.

If this is all accurate, it a few short months, our skyline will be changed for good. And, I mean, for good. As in good. It won't feel like driving into a small sleepy city anymore. Once this covid shit is all over, and a couple years from now, DTK will be a much better place. Jeff Young (City of Kitchener) should be able to get some fabulous stuff happening there. Although Dave McLaren will be pulling a lot of the heavy weight (another huge gift that the city has).

My tone here might come across as antagonistic, but I really mean for this to be inquisitive. I see this sentiment (taller = better city) in threads for almost every tower, and I really don't get it. First of all, the implication I get from this is that the city is currently "not good" (not necessarily bad, but in need of positive change) which I won't debate either way. What I don't understand here is why more height or more people will fix this? There are plenty of highrise cities around the world that I think are worse cities than KW, so to me it's an issue of quality, not quantity. If we failed to be an excellent mid-sized city, why should we expect anything different as a large city?

A counterargument I expect here is that our issues as a mid-sized city stem from sprawl and a lack of density. This brings me to my second issue with this sentiment: Why highrises, instead of midrises? I'm sure someone with urban planning expertise will tell me what this is called and why I'm wrong, but I've often seen it suggested that people are most comfortable in streets with a street width to building height ratio of 1:1 to 2:1. Personally, I feel this rings true. When I walk through highrise districts of Toronto, it never feels like a comfortable place to be. It's not warm and welcoming. It's not a neighbourhood.

High density is achievable without highrises, as most of Europe shows, and people here continually praise European cities for their successful planning and design. I fear the lack of high-density midrise neighbourhoods will push people who reject highrise living away to suburbia (this is how I feel, personally). Of course there are cities in the world where the only choice is up, like Tokyo (which is also a city of extremely high quality), but KW could densify insane amounts within our footprint without a single highrise (which isn't to say we shouldn't have any for those who want them).

And on the topic of skylines: so what? I don't care how my city looks from the outside, when I'm living inside of it.

Again, I don't mean for this post to be negative, I just want to prompt some discussion and understand why you all feel so differently from me.

No, I understand your points. We could have mid-rise all through the surrounding areas of DTK -- this will never happen, though, due to heritage assignments to homes around the core. As for DT itself, taller builds give a better presence, in my opinion, and larger population to the downtown. To be honest, though, most of our builds aren't considered tall, not like what you'd see walking down Yonge St in Toronto (mind you, I enjoy DTT). I really think adding thousands of people in the core, will be a magnet for businesses as well. As Yogi Berra once said "No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Not that DTK will become crowded, but having more people downtown, and walking about, is a good thing, and mid-rise buildings in the core won't help much.

I grew up with this gay friend that I went to school for about 6 years, plus we hung out a little after that. He moved from Kitchener to Toronto, and would come back to visit family and check-in on friends. After his experience in Toronto, he was much more open about his sexuality, and he had quite descriptive terms for Kitchener, -- referring it to a 'cross corners' and 'hamlet'. The way he presented it, it was hard to argue with him. Having grown up too in Scarborough (silence, people) and being a train and subway ride away from Union Station, just the vastness and large buildings, his points, exaggerated for sure, but they brought home the point. I think with the city growing as much as it has since I last saw him, and seeing our downtown grow, seeing the area around uptown Waterloo, and Northdale (though I really don't like this spot), we have a much more metropolitan feel. I like that. But I understand for many, they don't want that.

I do believe, though, that having for condensed populations, will make for less car dependence. And I do believe when businesses come looking around to wear to build their business, KWC will be closer to the top. Quite frankly, 5 years from now, this city is going to look great.

[plam]

Kitchener, -- referring it to a 'cross corners' and 'hamlet'.

My spouse was just referring to KW as small-town Ontario. I think it's more like mid-size-town Ontario, but it's certainly not a big city and won't be one in our lifetimes. But mid-size can get redefined.

[Momo26]

I think collectively we want to see WR grow and thrive. I've had to justify why I 'still' live here to colleagues from Toronto/GTA and i feel like I'm always making a case for why it's a good place to be constantly. Any one else feel this way ?

[jamincan]

I definitely can relate to that. Most people I know have very outdated and limited experiences of KW. It's still not really a great place to visit for a day-tripper. A combination of St. Jacob's market and Elora are a far easier sell. I don't want to live in a city for tourists, though, and as far as living goes, I think KW punches above its weight for a person with my values. For me, Ottawa is a far more attractive model to emulate than the GTA.

[panamaniac]

Comparing K-W to Ottawa would be comparing an entry-level mid-size Canadian city to a mature model.

[ac3r]

High density is achievable without highrises, as most of Europe shows, and people here continually praise European cities for their successful planning and design. I fear the lack of high-density midrise neighbourhoods will push people who reject highrise living away to suburbia (this is how I feel, personally). Of course there are cities in the world where the only choice is up, like Tokyo (which is also a city of extremely high quality), but KW could densify insane amounts within our footprint without a single highrise (which isn't to say we shouldn't have any for those who want them).

I completely agree with you. As much as I love tall buildings, they are ultimately not something most people want to live in and have a lot of negative aspects. The architectural theorist Christopher Alexander has a chapter on this in his incredible book titled A Pattern Language (this is highly recommended reading for anyone interested in how we can use design patterns to build everything from homes, neighbourhoods to entire cities and regions - interestingly his architecture theory has long been adopted in software and product design fields). In one section, he cites some studies that have demonstrated that in most cases, people who live in tall buildings have negative impacts on everything from mental health, sunlight to how well children grow up. Section 21 "Four-story Limit" explores this and I'll quote some specific lines:

High buildings have no genuine advantages, except in speculative gains for banks and land owners. They are not cheaper, they do not help create open space, they destroy the townscape, they destroy social life, they promote crime, they make life difficult for children, they are expensive to maintain, they wreck the open spaces near them, and they damage light and air and view. But quite apart from all of this, which shows that they aren't very sensible, empirical evidence shows that they can actually damage people's minds and feelings.

...

A simple mechanism may explain this: high-rise living takes people away from the ground, and away from the casual, everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and on the gardens and porches. It leaves them alone in their apartments. The decision to go out for some public life becomes formal and awkward; and unless there is some specific task which brings people out in the world, the tendency is to stay home, alone. The forced isolation then causes individual breakdowns. Fanning's findings are reinforced by Dr. D. Cappon's clinical experiences reported in "Mental Health and the High Rise," Canadian Public Health Association, April 1971:

There is every reason to believe that high-rise apartment dwelling has adverse effects on mental and social health. And there is sufficient clinical, anecdotal and intuitive observations to back this up.

...

At what height do the effects described by Fanning, Cappon, Morville, and Newman begin to take hold? It is our experience that in both housing and office buildings, the problems begin when buildings are more than four stories high.

At three or four stories, one can still walk comfortably down to the street, and from a window you can still feel part of the street scene: you can see details in the street - the people, their faces, foliage, shops. From three stories you can yell out, and catch the attention of someone below. Above four stories these connections break down. The visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene below as if it were a game, from which they are completely detached. The connection to the ground and to the fabric of the town becomes tenuous; the building becomes a world of its own: with its own elevators and cafeterias.

Section 96 expands on this point and suggests ways to determine a humane (my word) way to limit the heights of buildings when possible: http://www.iwritewordsgood.com/apl/patterns/apl096.htm

Of course, I think we can go slightly above 4 stories. 6-7 is quite common to see throughout Europe, whether they are residential or office buildings. Nonetheless, it would be nice to see more mid-rise developments being constructed of this size here. Both high rise and mid rise have their merits, but mid-rise buildings - generally speaking - provide a better day to day "experience" to those who live in and around them all day as opposed to spending your days existing within an urban realm that is primarily made up of of 40+ floor monoliths, as one would experience in downtown Toronto, Manhattan. Mid-rise buildings provide high density but not so high that those living there become alienated from the world around them as one would feel living trying to raise a family on the 48th floor of a little condo.

For anyone who wants to check out A Pattern Language, you can find it on this website (albeit the layout is quite bad). The preceding book called The Timeless Way of Building is also a fascinating exploration on architecture and planning in a way that attempts to truly benefits human beings. (I don't wish to derail this thread, but nonetheless wanted to share these points as the subject was brought up).

[westwardloo]

Thanks for the book recommendations. I know what I am doing during my Christmas break.

[jeffster]

I think collectively we want to see WR grow and thrive. I've had to justify why I 'still' live here to colleagues from Toronto/GTA and i feel like I'm always making a case for why it's a good place to be constantly. Any one else feel this way ?

I think it depends where you live, and where they live. I have friends in North York so the attitude there is different, as it is considered "small town". But for people living (or moved) in the original Toronto, like my friend, we're a hamlet.

That said, I grew up in Kitchener-Waterloo, with some time in The Hammer and younger years in Scarborough, and I never have had to justify why I live here. It may have been different if I had spent more time in the original Toronto.

[tomh009]

High density is achievable without highrises, as most of Europe shows, and people here continually praise European cities for their successful planning and design. I fear the lack of high-density midrise neighbourhoods will push people who reject highrise living away to suburbia (this is how I feel, personally). Of course there are cities in the world where the only choice is up, like Tokyo (which is also a city of extremely high quality), but KW could densify insane amounts within our footprint without a single highrise (which isn't to say we shouldn't have any for those who want them).

Your last quote really sums it up. It's not that the European cities don't have high-rise residential buildings: they do. But, more than that, they generally have a large stock of mid-rise/medium-density housing, whereas we have endless suburbs that enforce the limitation to single-family housing.

[catarctica]

One thing I don’t get about North American city design is why it’s so hard to commute on foot. Like the stores are so far apart because of the parking lot. Why aren’t there requirements to hide them in the back so it’s easier to walk. Anyway back to the building I think Garment Street is shaping up well and their Instagram account has been giving regular updates which is nice.

[Momo26]

One word catarctica...cars...and petrol...and selling lots of both of them, constantly and always.


Re: book recommendations - thanks. Those sound worth reading. Good use of time. The concept of being disconnected from the street and society for anything above 3/4 floors is really interesting, never thought of it that way but it makes a heck of a lot of sense!

I will say, I was dissapointed when Avenue M was scrapped - the definition of mid-rise (3 stories?)...high quality (at least high quality looking). Had a large footprint but seemed like it would have been a nice edition nestled in the urban core.

[panamaniac]

One word catarctica...cars...and petrol...and selling lots of both of them, constantly and always.


Re: book recommendations - thanks. Those sound worth reading. Good use of time. The concept of being disconnected from the street and society for anything above 3/4 floors is really interesting, never thought of it that way but it makes a heck of a lot of sense!

I will say, I was dissapointed when Avenue M was scrapped - the definition of mid-rise (3 stories?)...high quality (at least high quality looking). Had a large footprint but seemed like it would have been a nice edition nestled in the urban core.

Six storeys.

[Momo26]

Six - so 2 more than the mid rise definition eh. Didn't realize. Still, would have been nice.

[panamaniac]

Six storeys is the classic measure of mid-rise, afaik.

[kwcc]

I think tall buildings guidelines kick in at 9 storeys.