Welcome Guest!
WIn 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
70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed
#31
Who didn't see this battle coming?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/831...il-warned/

I really don't think that the proposed height along King St is extreme, this is the central district of a growing city.
Reply
#32
(03-08-2018, 07:08 AM)rangersfan Wrote: Who didn't see this battle coming?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/831...il-warned/

I really don't think that the proposed height along King St is extreme, this is the central district of a growing city.

And what’s this about destroying the “historic streetscape”? Along King, half of the site is currently the parking lot, and half is the front of the post office, which immediately before it closed had a single public entrance and no windows worth mentioning.

I think the heritage advocate should encourage Council to decide now which buildings on King are to be preserved, so that in the future it’s clear that a developer cannot, for example, buy up the block south of Erb and knock it all down. But they should grant that this particular proposal isn’t destroying anything that needs special protection.
Reply
#33
(03-08-2018, 07:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(03-08-2018, 07:08 AM)rangersfan Wrote: Who didn't see this battle coming?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/831...il-warned/

I really don't think that the proposed height along King St is extreme, this is the central district of a growing city.

And what’s this about destroying the “historic streetscape”? Along King, half of the site is currently the parking lot, and half is the front of the post office, which immediately before it closed had a single public entrance and no windows worth mentioning.

I think the heritage advocate should encourage Council to decide now which buildings on King are to be preserved, so that in the future it’s clear that a developer cannot, for example, buy up the block south of Erb and knock it all down. But they should grant that this particular proposal isn’t destroying anything that needs special protection.
  
I totally agree. I don't know why the heritage advocate is fighting such a silly battle when there are bigger fish to fry. The site itself has no heritage features and is begging for redevelopment. People like this give heritage preservation a bad name.
Reply
#34
To be clear, Kae Elgie is arguing that having a development that does not appear to be in keeping with heritage buildings will ruin the heritage buildings. She likely means that allowing this means that eventually we'll allow the Town Square site to have towers, eventually the Alexandra condos will go forth, and all these things will ruin the ability of King Street in UpTown to resemble King Street in St. Jacob's. It's the logical extension of heritage buildings in UpTown leading to no shadow-casting or style-differentiated neighbours for those heritage buildings, leading to heritage neighbourhoods and streetscapes, and an overall blanket over UpTown. It's not insignificant that when people who could attend a weekday afternoon charette on UpTown developments for pedestrianization, the results they came up with did not touch improving the pedestrian experience anywhere in any neighbourhoods. Even for pedestrians, they only suggested change along the Laurel creek, lest someone get the wise idea that change of any kind should enter any of the neighbourhood associations. They even had a nickname for their proposed focus area from Silver Lake to Laurel Creek, based on its shape: the BANANA. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (as the urban acronym denotes). A perfect mascot.
Reply
#35
I kind of agree with the concerns.

The heritage of King Street in uptown Waterloo is short, brick buildings, many of them factories. Plopping an 11 storey tower in the middle of it is going to be disruptive.

I understand that the old post office building on the site is no gem, but it is not obtrusive in any way. It is just kind of there.

This building could be a pivotal moment in deciding whether we want to "preserve heritage" or have a vision for the future.
Reply
#36
(03-08-2018, 03:54 PM)timc Wrote: I kind of agree with the concerns.

The heritage of King Street in uptown Waterloo is short, brick buildings, many of them factories. Plopping an 11 storey tower in the middle of it is going to be disruptive.

I understand that the old post office building on the site is no gem, but it is not obtrusive in any way. It is just kind of there.

This building could be a pivotal moment in deciding whether we want to "preserve heritage" or have a vision for the future.

I second this.  Could the face along King Street be simplified and brought to a more compatible feel?  Tower and flash pushed back into the site?

Personally I like the density there.  However it would be nice if the retail frontage was 'more traditional' and allowed for smaller shops and restuarants.

Tough life pleasing everyone....
Reply
#37
This is why we cant have nice things. If people want St. Jacobs, then please move to St. Jacobs.
Reply
#38
(03-08-2018, 08:56 PM)Archetype Wrote: This is why we cant have nice things. If people want St. Jacobs, then please move to St. Jacobs.

Quite. Waterloo is not St Jacobs, and will never be.  I am happy to see that the Kitchener council is considerably more forward-looking on development.

Quote:Elgie said there's lots to like about the project but warned it is in the wrong place, undoing public effort to preserve historic King Street.

If course there is nowhere else in central Waterloo to build this kind of project. Maybe to her the "right place" would be in Kitchener? Not that I would mind that at all. (Of course she was also opposed to the Schneider Haus expansion, so maybe DTK wouldn't be acceptable to her, either.)
Reply
#39
Quote:This is why we cant have nice things. If people want St. Jacobs, then please move to St. Jacobs.

Are you saying that uptown isn't nice? The building as proposed is far out of the scale with the rest of the area.

Quote:If course there is nowhere else in central Waterloo to build this kind of project. Maybe to her the "right place" would be in Kitchener?

Yeah, it does seem like it would fit better in DTK, now that you mention it.
Reply
#40
(03-09-2018, 11:14 AM)timc Wrote:
Quote:This is why we cant have nice things. If people want St. Jacobs, then please move to St. Jacobs.

Are you saying that uptown isn't nice? The building as proposed is far out of the scale with the rest of the area.

Quote:If course there is nowhere else in central Waterloo to build this kind of project. Maybe to her the "right place" would be in Kitchener?

Yeah, it does seem like it would fit better in DTK, now that you mention it.

Have you seen the Bauer lofts? when they were built they were "out of scale with the rest of the area". Now they fit, and it works. King and Bridgeport in Uptown is the CENTRE of the city. If an 11 storey 'tower' does not fit here, then it shouldn't go anywhere.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



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