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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
242-262 Queen St S | 10 fl | Proposed
#91
Print only maybe? I'm not seeing anything online
Reply


#92
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/902...age-homes/
Reply
#93
Well I'm glad there's some movement in the right direction here from a density standpoint.  I hope for good things from a design perspective, but this quote doesn't leave me excited:

Quote:Others hoped the design would be improved as it works its way through site plan approval and heritage approvals.

"I feel it is very much the minimum," said committee chair Ashley Reid. "Frankly, I find the building just kind of boring. I was hoping for something a little bit more creative."
Reply
#94
I prefer the original design, but the new one is not terrible. It certainly could be much better if the heritage advocates (hello, Ms Reid!) had not forced Vive to keep the two old houses on the property. That constraint significantly reduces the degrees of freedom for the development project.
Reply
#95
Where exactly on Queen is this? That pic close to the GO station? What does the new rendering look like? And are these going to be corp owned rentals only or sold condos?
Reply
#96
(11-07-2018, 04:02 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Where exactly on Queen is this? That pic close to the GO station? What does the new rendering look like? And are these going to be corp owned rentals only or sold condos?

It's on Queen S between Joseph and Courtland, across from the Conestoga Towers high rise. Not close to the GO station.

I think corp owned rentals, that seems to be Vive's business model.
Reply
#97
(11-07-2018, 03:56 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I prefer the original design, but the new one is not terrible. It certainly could be much better if the heritage advocates (hello, Ms Reid!) had not forced Vive to keep the two old houses on the property. That constraint significantly reduces the degrees of freedom for the development project.

Yeah, it is pretty rich for the heritage committee to be saying that. They're the ones who caused the design to be so plain. Frankly, I feel they have caused themselves to be a net detriment to the city. I wasn't around during peak urban renewal times, and maybe such a committee is justified, but in my experience, all I've seen is harm from heritage advocates.
Reply
#98
(11-07-2018, 05:27 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Another important detail that isn't in the article is how the unit type will be changing. Are average square-footages going down, are average rents going up, are affordable components going down? Any of these are a cost that council and heritage has to answer to.

Average rents are going up: the project is more expensive than the original. I don't have answers yet for the other questions though.
Reply
#99
(05-21-2018, 08:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote: 242 Queen St E in Kitchener doesn't really exist … so where is this project? This is from
http://neoarchitecture.ca/our-work/

[Image: 04_242QueenStreetEastCondo_Kitchener_Con...24x532.jpg]

This is the original render (seen from behind the building) -- which was rejected by the council.
Reply
Thanks Tom. Curious to see the new project. I'm always interested how developers will integrate heritage buildings.
Reply
Vive's target in general is in the mid-market rentals; the Queen St S project will likely be an exception due to the heritage committee requirements, and David St even more so.
Reply
Updated renders below for the revised design, which preserves the two century houses:

     

   


         


    ]
Reply
(2 hours ago)tomh009 Wrote: Updated renders below for the revised design, which preserves the two century houses:

Now that needs an LPAT hearing by the owners. They should get rid of the houses !!! Just awful..to me..
Reply
(2 hours ago)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(2 hours ago)tomh009 Wrote: Updated renders below for the revised design, which preserves the two century houses:

Now that needs an LPAT hearing by the owners.  They should get rid of the houses !!!  Just awful..to me..

I think you know who we can thank for the retention of those houses!
Reply
(1 hour ago)tomh009 Wrote:
(2 hours ago)Rainrider22 Wrote: Now that needs an LPAT hearing by the owners.  They should get rid of the houses !!!  Just awful..to me..

I think you know who we can thank for the retention of those houses!

Yup  and with  a new council now, perhaps a re-vote is in order....
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  588-600 Queen St S | 11 fl | Proposed taylortbb 31 11,374 10-15-2018, 10:56 PM
Last Post: mpd618

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 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