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
District Condos | 22 + 14 fl | Proposed
#31
I'm cautiously optimistic about it's design. Honestly, it's verging on the ugly side and I'm not setting my standards high. I just don't see the direction the design is going (i.e. what's with the boxes around some window blocks?? Didn't we learn from this mess?). It's a bit of a dog's breakfast in my opinion and taking several steps backward to the towers of 5 years ago in Northdale...That all being said, it's more difficult to make the facades of a slab tower such as this more pleasing than a more slender point tower. They need to start with simplifying the design and increasing the amount of glazing.

The only thing I really like about it is how they've wrapped and concealed the above ground parking on the first few levels/building podium.
Reply
#32
I can't say that I like it. It seems a long way off from simple and sophisticated; at first glance, there just seems to be too much going on. It's hard to tell, though.

I love the idea of the house being preserved in the lobby. It's hard to understand why this effort would be taken with a structure with no designation, and I wouldn't be chocked if someone is surprised by the cost and it is cut. If it were to be done, though, that would set a great precedent for preservation of honest-to-goodness heritage buildings in this way in the future, which would be great.
Reply
#33
My goodness. What a hodgepodge of design themes.

The heritage house looks like the captive animal pacing back and forth in its cage at the zoo.

We have occupied very quickly a lot of prime real estate with undistinguished structures. Is now perhaps the moment for this metropolis to start insisting on design which is coherent and imaginative, before it is too late to address the growing mediocre norm?

Given that current taste runs to geometric and shiny, there is still room for creativity.

It’s a shame that the imagination of the late Frank Lloyd Wright could not have been channeled by circumstance and era to the highrise structure. This is one of his rare realized tall buildings. I have not viewed it in person, as Bartlesville, Oklahoma is not on my bucket list of cities to see.

   


http://www.chron.com/news/article/Tower-...587513.php

http://www.wrightontheweb.net/his-works/...ice-tower/



I can’t ignore the issue of shadow raised by a previous poster. I just looked at the developer’s Urban Design Brief, which is blunt but muted.

 Rather than saying:
     “If you don’t like living in the shadow world, either suck it up or sell to an assembler and move on. You are no longer needed.”

…it proposes:
     “Urban Design Brief
     Existing conditions surrounding the Site have created a shadow impacted environment. The tall towers that already exist have a heavy impact on the surrounding area. Properties within the area are cast in shadow for portions of the day already. As central locations of the City intensify, the current and future development of taller buildings within the vicinity will have a cumulative shadow effect. As more tall buildings are constructed, neighbouring properties will be increasingly affected. However, most low density properties in the vicinity are likely to be assembled and redeveloped as medium or high density developments.”
Reply
#34
Odd that they didn't propose the obvious solution: put your house on stilts so that it becomes tall enough to see the sun.
Reply
#35
This location is particularly notable. The view of this tower from the south (Uptown) is protected by the school's yard. The south face of this tower will become a staple of the view north from Uptown for decades to come.

The tower proposed doesn't really do anything particularly special with that honour. Though, at least it will be a little more interesting than the relatively stark brick-and-small-window wall of its neighbour to the north that currently has the view.
Reply
#36
(10-08-2015, 08:11 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I can't say that I like it. It seems a long way off from simple and sophisticated; at first glance, there just seems to be too much going on. It's hard to tell, though.

I love the idea of the house being preserved in the lobby. It's hard to understand why this effort would be taken with a structure with no designation, and I wouldn't be chocked if someone is surprised by the cost and it is cut. If it were to be done, though, that would set a great precedent for preservation of honest-to-goodness heritage buildings in this way in the future, which would be great.

Simple and sophisticated.....  Why is it so hard to put a nice simple building design together?  Why does it need to have so much going on?

I think of 1 Victoria which imo nails that - simple and won't look dated in 5 years due to a bad material choice (I hope).
Reply
#37
I'm ok with the building and frankly rather surprised at the lukewarm reception it got here. Here's why I think it is a building we should support:
  • It takes the trouble to preserve the heritage house
  • Enclosed in glass houses, while new to some, work well in practice. Check out Bell Canada place in T.O. for an example.
  • It would the tallest building in town. It's been almost 30 years since the previous record holder got built. Time to build a taller one.
  • It continues connecting Uptown with Northdale. This is a good thing.
  • It casts a shadow on the school during the hottest months of the summer while allowing sun light in the winter, just the way a properly planted tree is supposed to.
  • It's full of single units where vacancy rate is lowest.
  • It hides the parking spots.
  • It's mixed usage.
  • It's street facing.
  • It's podium and tower.
Sure the design isn't exactly the most daring, but it isn't horrid either.
Reply
#38
(10-08-2015, 04:15 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: I'm ok with the building and frankly rather surprised at the lukewarm reception it got here. Here's why I think it is a building we should support:
  • It takes the trouble to preserve the heritage house
  • Enclosed in glass houses, while new to some, work well in practice. Check out Bell Canada place in T.O. for an example.
  • It would the tallest building in town. It's been almost 30 years since the previous record holder got built. Time to build a taller one.
  • It continues connecting Uptown with Northdale. This is a good thing.
  • It casts a shadow on the school during the hottest months of the summer while allowing sun light in the winter, just the way a properly planted tree is supposed to.
  • It's full of single units where vacancy rate is lowest.
  • It hides the parking spots.
  • It's mixed usage.
  • It's street facing.
  • It's podium and tower.
Sure the design isn't exactly the most daring, but it isn't horrid either.

On point one, I'm surprised since you're often the one to take pains to point out that a given building isn't heritage. This one isn't, and probably has not a lot of heritage. However...

Point two- yes, enclosing houses in glass is great. It would be great to try it out in the Region, if only to prove that it's a valid way to preserve heritage while allowing development in the future.

Point three...the tallest building in the city should have a lot demanded of it design-wise.

You're right on the rest. It's street-facing and podium-and-tower and mixed use. It's good. But the design is only not horrid. I never would have thought of the prominence of the site, but Markster is right that it will be very visible. So something really not horrid would be called for.
Reply
#39
(10-08-2015, 06:04 PM)MidTowner Wrote: On point one, I'm surprised since you're often the one to take pains to point out that a given building isn't heritage. This one isn't, and probably has not a lot of heritage.

The builder chose to preserve it. I'm Ok with that. Had the city demanded it be preserved I would have researched it further and given my opinion.
Reply
#40
I don't think a 26-storey building should be a particularly remarkable thing in this area. This one seems quite positive in most of the ways that matter, and I don't find its architecture offensive. So I'm with BuildingScout on this one.

As for the house not being a designated building - there's a lot of "non-designated properties of heritage interest", which is (I believe) a category that allows Council a chance to formally designate it prior to a demolition. So taking some pains to preserve a facade is not an unreasonable thing for a developer to do in order to get support for a rezoning.
Reply
#41
(10-08-2015, 06:35 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:
(10-08-2015, 06:04 PM)MidTowner Wrote: On point one, I'm surprised since you're often the one to take pains to point out that a given building isn't heritage. This one isn't, and probably has not a lot of heritage.

The builder chose to preserve it. I'm Ok with that. Had the city demanded it be preserved I would have researched it further and given my opinion.

Very fair. For the record, I was just poking fun. I'm pleasantly surprised that the developer would entertain this, though I'm not convinced it will actually happen.

I don't think this was even a property of interest.
Reply
#42
(10-08-2015, 06:04 PM)MidTowner Wrote: On point one, I'm surprised since you're often the one to take pains to point out that a given building isn't heritage. This one isn't, and probably has not a lot of heritage. However...

Point two- yes, enclosing houses in glass is great. It would be great to try it out in the Region, if only to prove that it's a valid way to preserve heritage while allowing development in the future.

Point three...the tallest building in the city should have a lot demanded of it design-wise.

You're right on the rest. It's street-facing and podium-and-tower and mixed use. It's good. But the design is only not horrid. I never would have thought of the prominence of the site, but Markster is right that it will be very visible. So something really not horrid would be called for.

It's not a house, but we already have a successful example of a glass-encased building preserving heritage in the region.

[Image: Library-in-Hespeler-by-Gary-Simmons.jpeg]
Reply
#43
Given how the larger development companies have cobbled up most of the suitable sites along the King St corridor and the ION route I like how this development shows what's possible to do.
On a number of other threads we have talked about how developers are moving out from the corridor. With the cities and region's hopes of intensification along with preservation, in my mind this shows as a well played card in placing themselves on the map and having the city's attention going forward. My only hope is they don't foul it up and become a scapegoat for future development!
Reply
#44
(10-08-2015, 06:04 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(10-08-2015, 04:15 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: ...
You're right on the rest. It's street-facing and podium-and-tower and mixed use. It's good. But the design is only not horrid. I never would have thought of the prominence of the site, but Markster is right that it will be very visible. So something really not horrid would be called for.

If the City holds a branding contest for this part of town, you should claim a copyright on that slogan before someone steals it: "Northdale: It's not entirely horrid!"

If there are municipal ambitions to persuade trophy developments to fill the gaps, the corollary marketing will be a tough sell: "Exult in the serene shade of your Trumpet Tower suite, surrounded by views which are not entirely horrid."
Reply
#45
I thought I remembered that house being almost right up against the sidewalk there, not set back like it appears to be in the rendering.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)