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
Barra Castle on Queen | ? m | 7 fl | Proposed
#16
Quote:“I hate to see this thing go,” he said. “My job is to preserve the heritage and culture of the city of Kitchener. If a developer wants to develop, then let him develop and spend those costs. Unfortunately, that’s not the way it goes.

Mr. Kirby has been in the news lately. In my opinion any one that defends the cheap movie set prop looking Barra Castle is overzealous.

The point of a heritage committee is not to defend every odd smelling fart to come out of a builders imagination (pardon the expression), but to cull and select the best of the best. To choose those few buildings that are worth passing to future generations.
Reply
#17
How far does that go? On one hand, we could suggest that there be no heritage preservation (which would never happen). On the other, I would suggest that while we have one heritage neighbourhood in Waterloo, every neighbourhood organization surrounding UpTown, the heart and core of Waterloo, would want to preserve every building within their association, as well as many outside of it, and restricting everything else immensely. Where is the balance point that actually works well enough for enough people, current and future, and can move forward? Or are we destined to perpetual conflict and the passing by of vast opportunities, not only in built form, but to say "yes, you are welcome here in Waterloo, we have and are making space for you."?
Reply
#18
The first thing they need to do is to stop saying "no" and say "yes but..." instead. For example in 144 Park, I think the furniture building should have been preserved. The answer from the heritage committee should have been "build around it". This would have given character to 144 (e.g. Seagram's lofts) thus adding value. A missed opportunity by all parties concerned.

Second they need to be very selective about which structures are worth defending. Otherwise people/city council just tunes them out.

Third, every member of the heritage committee should be made to pay say, $300 for every building they designate as worth saving. It is rather easy to defend mediocre buildings when you are not the one paying for it. Let's see if they think Disney-prop castle is worth $300 each of their own money.

Fourth, their work is valuable and I fully support a heritage committee. We do have certain structures worth preserving and the town is better off for having them.
Reply
#19
(02-02-2015, 11:57 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Where is the balance point that actually works well enough for enough people, current and future, and can move forward?

I forget where I saw this idea, but it's to have a limited number of officially heritage designated buildings (possibly proportional to population or building count). So once you've got a full basket of heritage protected buildings, adding a new one means removing one.
Reply
#20
(02-02-2015, 09:44 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I forget where I saw this idea, but it's to have a limited number of officially heritage designated buildings (possibly proportional to population or building count). So once you've got a full basket of heritage protected buildings, adding a new one means removing one.

I like this idea. In KW where there is relatively little character the Old Bauer building (two story one in the South West corner of Allen and King) is worth saving whereas say, in Paris such a building would be in the bottom 50% of structures. It would make a lot of sense then to shift the scale upwards by removing protection from the lesser heritage structures as time goes by.

People forget that one of the reasons Paris is so nice is that they are merciless with their average buildings, some of which are actually quite pleasant. Walk up and down champ Elysees to see the mixture of old and new architecture that takes place there. Here are two recent examples neither one of which is my cup of tea, but they do illustrate my point to a tee.

[Image: champs-elysees-neighborhood-6.jpg]

[Image: 1572096653_d0aa7fda96_z.jpg?zz=1]
Reply
#21
They could have totally incorporated that furniture building into the podium of a condo by encasing most of the block in glass curtain wall. It would have been neat to have green space and trees inside too rather the bland and ugly thing they build on that block instead.
Reply
#22
(02-02-2015, 09:44 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I forget where I saw this idea, but it's to have a limited number of officially heritage designated buildings (possibly proportional to population or building count). So once you've got a full basket of heritage protected buildings, adding a new one means removing one.

This would work well.  You can't designate everything as heritage, you will just get a backlash (just see the comments on therecord.com when heritage buildings come up), you need to prioritize and decide which buildings are actually important.
Reply
#23
Looks like this is finally moving forward:

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5344...ove-ahead/

[Image: B821869429Z.1_20150218170310_000_G1E1E4T...allery.jpg]
 [Image: K9JISmLt.png]
Reply
#24
I still think that any new development along Queen St should be mixed use with retail at ground level.
Reply
#25
I guess I must have missed the garages facing Benton Street the first time around. Disappointing that they didn't make them face inwards.
Reply
#26
(02-19-2015, 12:18 AM)rangersfan Wrote: I still think that any new development along Queen St should be mixed use with retail at ground level.

I agree 100%
Reply
#27
Withdrawn from and closed off to the street. Not charmed.
Reply
#28
(02-19-2015, 12:27 AM)mpd618 Wrote: I guess I must have missed the garages facing Benton Street the first time around. Disappointing that they didn't make them face inwards.

(02-19-2015, 09:13 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Withdrawn from and closed off to the street. Not charmed.

Agree on both counts.  It could have been much better.

Yet it's not atrocious, takes care of a long-overdue development, and gets some more people living downtown.  As long as most other developments are better than this (and they generally are) I'm willing to accept some mediocre ones in the mix.  You can't win them all ...
Reply
#29
Don't love this. Little to no street interaction. The goal with the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor was to promote this and unfortunately it's been ignored.
Reply
#30
I'm just waiting with baited breath for a food service outlet to open up closer to home. Currently, The Boathouse and Egg Roll King are tied at 300m from my apartment. On Queen St, Northern Thai is 350m away, and Nougat is 450m away. My extreme laziness must be sated!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)