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
Schneiders Site Redevelopment
(02-03-2018, 09:46 PM)timc Wrote:
(02-03-2018, 09:32 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m confused. Where is this house? I agree the red outline on the map extends outside of the apparent boundaries of the Schneider’s site (north boundary Palmer Ave., it appears), but the extra area appears on Google Maps to be some sort of storage yard with no buildings on it, which it’s entirely believable they have also bought. The only building I see on Stirling (south side) between Courtland and the tracks is a commercial building closer to Courtland.

There aren't any houses on Stirling, but there are some on Courtland north of Palmer that seem to have disappeared.

OK, thanks. However it’s not just that house — a large area around the Schneider’s lands is coloured, with the colour obscuring the base map. The area in question (southwest corner of Stirling and Courtland, as far as Palmer) is outside of the red line indicating the Schneider’s development area. It is purple, but that just indicates mixed-use medium density as an eventual redevelopment target.

So, I don’t think it’s a mistake but rather a question of what the map is intending to show.
Reply
Sorry! Vernon and Courtland.
Reply
I can at least confirm that they never sought to expand and take any of the south side Kent houses which will get surrounded a bit.
Reply
The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation. I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument. It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.
Reply
(02-09-2018, 12:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.

True, but only in part. A considerable percentage of the complex was demolished.
Reply
(02-09-2018, 12:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

It depends on the intended use... if the building/site is intended to be redeveloped as residential, then more thorough remediation is required; if it is intended for office and retail, just superficial interior remediation is required.
Reply
(02-09-2018, 12:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

In this case the contamination is not the issue, the structural integrity is.
Reply
Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors. The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 12:24 PM)nms Wrote: Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors.  The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.

Sure, anything could be rebuilt, given sufficient time and money. Even Pompeii.

But in the real world commercial viability is also necessary. Of course the city can designate any building they so wish as historic, forcing the buyer to retain the said building. But too many (expensive) restrictions will make the properties more difficult (expensive) to develop and more difficult to find developers for.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 12:24 PM)nms Wrote: Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors.  The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.

Somehow I doubt structural integrity is an issue here. I think the issues are something else. Quite possibly Ontario accessibility law might make converting the manufacturing portion too complex and expensive.

Who knows for sure, looking forward to see what's in store. Can't save everything.
Reply
Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.

And some of the buildings are in that weird state where they are only a step away from being accessible. I feel like the King St. project started last year would have been a good opportunity to fix some of those. Wouldn’t help with upper floors, but most retail establishments are on the ground floor.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the last comment about racist zoning and related oppression. That is gone, and in any case there is no need to replace the buildings to eliminate it. By contrast, inaccessibility of a building may require expensive or even infeasible renovations to fix (depending on all sorts of circumstances including the use and size of the building).
Reply
SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 05:42 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

WOW  that is strong words.  Please provide some evidence or hard statistical information to back up a comment like this...
Reply
(02-12-2018, 05:42 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

OK, but I don’t think that has anything to do with heritage preservation.

Heritage preservation does sometimes mean preserving inaccessibility of some buildings, but it in no way preserves racist or otherwise problematic zoning: there is nothing wrong with the buildings that makes them unusable by black people, for example, even if the zoning regime under which they were built was explicitly racist (and just to be clear, I know very little of the history of zoning and even less of the history of zoning specifically in this city so I haven’t a clue what influence racism might have had on our zoning).

I guess I’m saying I think you’re raising two separate issues, both of which are reasonable topics for discussion, but it’s probably best to keep them separate as they both may be contentious and combining them together isn’t going to improve the situation.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 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 a news reporting service, opportunities for event promotion and other user-driven content complemented 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