One Young (née Mayfair Hotel) | 5 fl | Complete

[panamaniac]

Say goodbye to both buildings... http://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitch...upancy.pdf

I don't understand why the Mayfair can't be demolished FIRST and then the other building re-evaluated. This whole thing makes me sick/upset/angry/etc.

You are correct, they are both coming down.  The City Building Officer got a new engineers' report, following another building inspection last Friday, that 11 Young Street could not be demolished without threatening the integrity of 156-158 King, which resulted in that building also being declared unsafe.  The three storey original building was built as a single building.  The threat of collapse of 11 Young is apparently such that it would not be possible to shore up 156-158 King quickly enough and without putting 11 Young at even greater risk of collapse.  The demolition permit will be issued tomorrow and it seems that demolition could follow within days.  By end of day tomorrow, hoardings will be up to close the King St frontage as well as the laneway at the rear of the buildings.

Their was some concern that demolition could put Weber Chambers at risk, but the CBO was confident that shoring could be installed to keep that building safe.

It is going to leave a bad taste in many mouths, but the decision had a certain inevitability to it, once the newest engineers report on 156-158 King was received and the second unsafe building order issued.  A motion to defer a decision on the designation of 156-158 was considered but defeated (had it passed, the CBO made clear that he would retain independent council to pursue a court order for demolition - not because he is a fan of demolition but because public safety is his legal mandate and obligation).  It won't help that some delegations to City Council dismissed the various engineers' reports as "opinion"  - it seems inevitable that, rightly or wrongly, the Mayfair will be added to the list of bad heritage demolition decisions in some people's minds.  There will be those who will not be convinced that the buildings could not have somehow been saved - we will never know for sure.

In his comments, Bernie Nimer seemed to suggest that he wants to proceed with a new project on the site sooner rather than later.  He also mentioned that, after the work now going on at 41 King W., his next renovation priority is the building on Queen St S, behind the Walper Hotel.

[Rainrider22]

I watched most of the debate on Rogers and I was astounded at the lack of understanding by the counselors with respect to the information presented. Further, when they didn't even understand they voted to pass on an opportunity to have an "in camera" discussion to fully understand the ramifications of  revoking client/counsellor privilege, I was in disbelief. Their questions where based on emotion and opinion. There was no desire to seek truth and facts. 


I recognize that our City has not had favourable results in saving heritage properties, however, with all the self proclaimed experts I watched speak, I couldn't help but notice they had easy answers to the situation when they were not fiscally accountable. In other words. it is easy for all of us to judge the situation when we don't have to write the cheques!  

[DHLawrence]

Was there any word on preservation of the facade, or is that doomed too?

[Rainrider22]

Was there any word on preservation of the facade, or is that doomed too?

No.  It seems to me that the owners want it demolished.  They talk about preservation of materials to be possibly introduced into the new project.  My sense is that they already have a plan from a blank drawing board and it is unlikely that any current materials will be utilized.

[Spokes]

Say goodbye to both buildings... http://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitch...upancy.pdf

I don't understand why the Mayfair can't be demolished FIRST and then the other building re-evaluated. This whole thing makes me sick/upset/angry/etc.

You are correct, they are both coming down.  The City Building Officer got a new engineers' report, following another building inspection last Friday, that 11 Young Street could not be demolished without threatening the integrity of 156-158 King, which resulted in that building also being declared unsafe.  The three storey original building was built as a single building.  The threat of collapse of 11 Young is apparently such that it would not be possible to shore up 156-158 King quickly enough and without putting 11 Young at even greater risk of collapse.  The demolition permit will be issued tomorrow and it seems that demolition could follow within days.  By end of day tomorrow, hoardings will be up to close the King St frontage as well as the laneway at the rear of the buildings.

Their was some concern that demolition could put Weber Chambers at risk, but the CBO was confident that shoring could be installed to keep that building safe.

It is going to leave a bad taste in many mouths, but the decision had a certain inevitability to it, once the newest engineers report on 156-158 King was received and the second unsafe building order issued.  A motion to defer a decision on the designation of 156-158 was considered but defeated (had it passed, the CBO made clear that he would retain independent council to pursue a court order for demolition - not because he is a fan of demolition but because public safety is his legal mandate and obligation).  It won't help that some delegations to City Council dismissed the various engineers' reports as "opinion"  - it seems inevitable that, rightly or wrongly, the Mayfair will be added to the list of bad heritage demolition decisions in some people's minds.  There will be those who will not be convinced that the buildings could not have somehow been saved - we will never know for sure.

In his comments, Bernie Nimer seemed to suggest that he wants to proceed with a new project on the site sooner rather than later.  He also mentioned that, after the work now going on at 41 King W., his next renovation priority is the building on Queen St S, behind the Walper Hotel.

This is what has surprised me.  In talking to people with no expertise whatsoever in the field, they're convinced they know more than an engineer.  I'm not saying we shouldn't think critically, but for me personally, when I'm not an expert in a field, I like to trust the experts.  

[Spokes]

Was there any word on preservation of the facade, or is that doomed too?

No.  It seems to me that the owners want it demolished.  They talk about preservation of materials to be possibly introduced into the new project.  My sense is that they already have a plan from a blank drawing board and it is unlikely that any current materials will be utilized.

I'm not sure where you got that, but I heard the developer say what you said in your second sentence, that preserved materials could be integrated but he would leave that up to the architects.  

[clasher]

I am glad an unsafe building is coming down. I can't believe people are basically asking for some workers to risk their lives to save a pile of bricks. Engineers spend a lot of time in school studying the stuff they need to know to make these conclusions. Open pits and excavations are very dangerous and if you've never worked in that kind of environment or even any construction environment I can see why a casual observer might not understand how dangerous they can be.

If the foundation was sketchy it was only a matter of time before something happened and personally I'm glad it happened when the building was unoccupied rather than having a washout put a renovated building at risk when people were working or living there.

[Rainrider22]

I am glad an unsafe building is coming down. I can't believe people are basically asking for some workers to risk their lives to save a pile of bricks. Engineers spend a lot of time in school studying the stuff they need to know to make these conclusions. Open pits and excavations are very dangerous and if you've never worked in that kind of environment or even any construction environment I can see why a casual observer might not understand how dangerous they can be.

If the foundation was sketchy it was only a matter of time before something happened and personally I'm glad it happened when the building was unoccupied rather than having a washout put a renovated building at risk when people were working or living there.

Amen

[panamaniac]

Just to note that the demolition permit could be issued on Friday (not today), if the demolition plan is approved. When I posted earlier, I forgot what day it was. (Hey, I'm retired - it happens!)

[Spokes]

I am glad an unsafe building is coming down. I can't believe people are basically asking for some workers to risk their lives to save a pile of bricks. Engineers spend a lot of time in school studying the stuff they need to know to make these conclusions. Open pits and excavations are very dangerous and if you've never worked in that kind of environment or even any construction environment I can see why a casual observer might not understand how dangerous they can be.

If the foundation was sketchy it was only a matter of time before something happened and personally I'm glad it happened when the building was unoccupied rather than having a washout put a renovated building at risk when people were working or living there.

This!

[Coke6pk]

I am glad an unsafe building is coming down. I can't believe people are basically asking for some workers to risk their lives to save a pile of bricks. Engineers spend a lot of time in school studying the stuff they need to know to make these conclusions. Open pits and excavations are very dangerous and if you've never worked in that kind of environment or even any construction environment I can see why a casual observer might not understand how dangerous they can be.

If the foundation was sketchy it was only a matter of time before something happened and personally I'm glad it happened when the building was unoccupied rather than having a washout put a renovated building at risk when people were working or living there.

( ((
 \ =\
__\_ `-\
(____))(  \----  
(____)) _  
(____))
(____))____/----

Coke

[white_brian]

I was quite taken when I heard the Heritage Architect suggest they fill the basement with concrete and the shore up door to door, wall to wall and so on. That sounded like the least educated statement I've ever heard!

[MacBerry]

I was quite taken when I heard the Heritage Architect suggest they fill the basement with concrete and the shore up door to door, wall to wall and so on. That sounded like the least educated statement I've ever heard!

Architects design and do the drawings but NO building can be built in Canada without a professional engineer signing all the right pages. It is the engineer who has the building structure expertise not the designer/architect. 

The politicians playing professional building experts need to remember the Elliot Lake building collapse (2012) and the many lawsuits still under way. The five dissenting councillors need to be reminded to take the advice of the excellent professionals that work for the City. 

Well done Michael Seiling for protecting the councillors from their own stupidity.

Lastly, whether you are the "Save the Mayfair" architect(s) or Frank Geary, your building won't be built without the engineers stamp, signature and number/mark.

[white_brian]

I was just surprised that a reputable seasoned architect would go on record with such ridiculous notions.
Don't get me wrong I have had my fair share of dealings with well educated architects when I was in construction but this one took the cake!!

[ookpik]

Meanwhile there's fencing in front of the Mayfair Hotel that covers the entire sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk on the busy street. There was even a car parked with 4-way flashers beside the fencing when I walked past earlier this morning.

How safe is that arrangement?

P.S.  And this is happening right under the noses of City Hall bureaucrats who are just next door.