Barra on Queen | 7 fl | Complete

[westwardloo]

I wouldn't say this build looks great. I would even say you don't have to eat crow on this. There are much better looking mid-rise building. I get a very 90's feeling from this design. I think this is an example of the neighbor demanding the design fits the neighborhood.

[tomh009]

I wouldn't say this build looks great. I would even say you don't have to eat crow on this. There are much better looking mid-rise building. I get a very 90's feeling from this design. I think this is an example of the neighbor demanding the design fits the neighborhood.

Certainly, they made an effort to fit into the neighbourhood. Yet they were able to make a decent-looking building without resorting to the kitsch we're now seeing in some urban Waterloo proposals.

[panamaniac]

What material is the top floor behind the street fronting section? Stucco?

It’s a different coloured brick, is it not?  The current taste seems to require multiple external claddings on new buildings, for some reason.

[ac3r]

Is it real brick, though?

Also, I don't think this looks that interesting. I wish they went with something a bit more contemporary. It does indeed look like a generic 90s apartment building.

[panamaniac]

That I don’t know. One Victoria is all “fake brick” iirc. It would seem to be a bit of a waste of time to go fake for the top floor if you’ve gone to the trouble of laying real brick for the floors below (did they?).

[jamincan]

Some people here clearly didn't live in the 90s.

[westwardloo]

Some people here clearly didn't live in the 90s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4472813,-80.4909645,3a,69.3y,35.85h,110.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIFYU0uirUSNqBe_0F0RPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Opened 2001 designed in the 90's


https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6875977,-79.3967852,3a,86.4y,348.39h,124.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNLt2aCJ_9DexMXveKpQogA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

complete in 2007 probably design early 2000's

Maybe I was off by 5 years. Either way I don't get the argument that a new building should blend in with the current architecture of a neighbourhood. It hardly ever turns out.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4536918,...312!8i6656

In my opinion it is better to contrast the existing feel of the neighborhood to highlight both the old and the new. They all can't be winners though. It is good that this will add more residents  within walking distance to the downtown.

[tomh009]

Some people here clearly didn't live in the 90s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4472813,-80.4909645,3a,69.3y,35.85h,110.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIFYU0uirUSNqBe_0F0RPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Opened 2001 designed in the 90's

Sure. But I would argue that this example is not a "generic 90s apartment building".

In any case, the developer worked pretty hard to get the neighbourhood on board. They added a lot of density, and the end result looks decent to many people. Given that we don't have any architectural approval process in Kitchener (or any other Canadian city that I know of), I think this is a pretty good outcome.

[tomh009]

What material is the top floor behind the street fronting section? Stucco?

It’s a different coloured brick, is it not?  The current taste seems to require multiple external claddings on new buildings, for some reason.

The top floor near Queen St uses a light-coloured brick. The portions (of the top floor) further back, on the walls of the top-floor terraces, look like EIFS based on this photo of the part that is still under construction.

   

[westwardloo]

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4472813,-80.4909645,3a,69.3y,35.85h,110.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIFYU0uirUSNqBe_0F0RPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Opened 2001 designed in the 90's

Sure. But I would argue that this example is not a "generic 90s apartment building".

In any case, the developer worked pretty hard to get the neighbourhood on board. They added a lot of density, and the end result looks decent to many people. Given that we don't have any architectural approval process in Kitchener (or any other Canadian city that I know of), I think this is a pretty good outcome.

I said it feels very 90's, but either way. It looks like they just used concrete blocks as an exterior cladding. The best architectural feature they could come up with was adding lines of white brick. I think the nieghbours got exactly what they asked for. I just don't agree that it is the right approach to celebrating our architectural past.  I guess i am just questioning some of the praise of this building, which I am not sure is warranted. 

Unless I am mistaken that is not true. Toronto has a Site plan control board that specifically reviews the design of buildings before granting approval. Vancouver has the development permit board. I think both may only apply to major developments or if the proposal does not fit current zoning.

[ac3r]

A building should be permitted to be architecturally interesting - in fact, it should be architecturally interesting. It shouldn't be entirely designed in a manner that it doesn't piss off a few NIMBY neighbours. I mean, yeah, you don't go build a 15 floor brutalist skyscraper in the middle of a suburban street, because that doesn't suit the area, but this is in the heart of downtown, on the lot of what used to be a "landmark" building. Why build something so generic and bad? There's nothing interesting about this building now...it's just there. A first year UW architecture student could have come up with something better than this thing. It looks like 20 St George (as posted above) or those Gresham Place Apartments near Fairview Park Mall, which were most definitely built in the 90s.

Though, maybe I'm just being overly critical, because this is my line of work and it's unnerving seeing prime real estate in this city being for such mediocre architecture.

[tomh009]

Very few developers have beautiful architecture as their highest priority. They need to keep costs down in order to be more profitable. They need to increase density in order to be more profitable, and to increase density they need to overcome the neighbours' objections. The end result, whether done by a first-year architecture student, is usually much closer to uncontroversial than to stunning.

[embe]

Without getting too critical, the work to date looks close enough to the render on the first page.

...which we should all be able to agree is way better than the derelict property that was there before...

...so I'd put this on the positive side of the scale.

[jamincan]

I'm strongly in the camp that architecturally interesting is nowhere close to the top of my list on criteria for judging a building. Materials are important in so much as it doesn't look decrepit in 10 years. Street-presence is important. Does it have facilities for people who don't use cars? Is there mixed-use, especially in urban areas? Fundamentally a building needs to be functional before it's beautiful. I think it can also look nice without being ground-breaking or innovative in design. There's a wide range between poor design and innovative design and I think it's reasonable to expect satisfactory, which this surely is. I'd even go so far as saying it's good.

[tomh009]

I said it feels very 90's, but either way. It looks like they just used concrete blocks as an exterior cladding.

They are not concrete blocks, I think you'll be able to see that from the photos. It looks like some type of large brick, but this is not my area of specialty.