The Metz (Schneiders site redevelopment)

[mastermind]

I feel like this was designed solely from a plan (top) view perspective by someone who likes structure and symmetry.  It's a very poor plan if you ask me.  I compare this to any interesting place I've ever visited and I think "wow, I'll never go there".

Auburn is saying all the right words like "mixed use" and "neighbourhood involvement" but then they make a plan like this.  Just like the Barrel Yards which other than the names has no hint or memory of the previous use, I believe this will also end up as a big bland clump of buildings.

I wonder why my wife always calls me such a skeptic...!

[panamaniac]

I feel like this was designed solely from a plan (top) view perspective by someone who likes structure and symmetry.  It's a very poor plan if you ask me.  I compare this to any interesting place I've ever visited and I think "wow, I'll never go there".

Auburn is saying all the right words like "mixed use" and "neighbourhood involvement" but then they make a plan like this.  Just like the Barrel Yards which other than the names has no hint or memory of the previous use, I believe this will also end up as a big bland clump of buildings.

I wonder why my wife always calls me such a skeptic...!

Sceptics can call things correctly.  My hopes for this development disappeared with the original Schneiders structures.

[plam]

I can't see GRR lasting 10 years at that location - land that LRT-adjacent will be too valuable. Hopefully they find new digs at a favourable location.

They are apparently building a bouldering location near the University of Waterloo. They are quite good at building climbing structures these days.

I have, in the past, strongly recommended to them that they buy out the land where they're located, but I guess that real estate speculation is not in their skillset (as perhaps it shouldn't be). There were quite a few Toronto climbing gyms that got bulldozed by condos about 5-10 years ago.

They'll be able to build another location somewhere if they can find it, but there's a good chance that it'll be worse than the current location. Climbing gyms usually are in pretty out of the way locations, though there has been some change in that recently, as gym admission prices go up. Toronto and Boston certainly have some new centrally located gyms.

[jeffster]

About as disappointing as I expect from Auburn, another Barrel Yards but without having the redeeming factor of being close to uptown.

Even the buildings are Auburn quality and disappointing. They are essentially the exact same thing, but at different heights. It runs the risk of looking like mammoth developments in Toronto, such as Cresent Town. Of course, what Auburn has is nicer than that, but it's the lack of architectural diversity that makes the entire thing look very boring. I would not want to stare at that all day if I lived in the area.

Boring = cheaper. It's not Drewlo (as my daughter said "Copy and paste"), at least, and certainly not The Ghetto, aka, Northdale though.

Unsure how you can convince developers to have better vision, when all they think about money, and really, why wouldn't they? Not like we're going to have people with vision pony up the cash for nicer developments, as I have never seen that happen unless it's goburment. And even then, they like to copy and paste (new courthouse) things to cut costs nowadays. The old courthouse (on Weber) are things we likely won't see any time soon.

Damn, we have some majestic buildings in this area, sadly, most of them were built pre-1970.

[taylortbb]

Boring = cheaper. It's not Drewlo (as my daughter said "Copy and paste"), at least, and certainly not The Ghetto, aka, Northdale though.

Unsure how you can convince developers to have better vision, when all they think about money, and really, why wouldn't they? Not like we're going to have people with vision pony up the cash for nicer developments, as I have never seen that happen unless it's goburment. And even then, they like to copy and paste (new courthouse) things to cut costs nowadays. The old courthouse (on Weber) are things we likely won't see any time soon.

Damn, we have some majestic buildings in this area, sadly, most of them were built pre-1970.

I'd take Northdale over the Schneiders plan any day. The new buildings in the interior of Northdale are generally pretty urban, have great street frontages, little parking, an interesting mix of retail, etc. I expect the Auburn towers to just be more suburban towers with zero pedestrian or retail activity. First rule of retail is "be on the way" (unless you're a major destination like a mall), but the Schneider's plan has no connectivity through the site, dooming the units to be visited mostly by residents, who will mostly be driving. It'll support a few local businesses, but nothing significant.

The city can control this through zoning. It's not even about costs, many of the zoning rules actually increase costs while making sites worse. The new development at Erb and Westmount for example, the proposed towers are too tall only because they're at the edge of the property by the road, where they're walkable. If they were in the middle of the site, surrounded by parking, they'd be totally okay within the current zoning at the same height. Building the urban walkable version therefore costs more, in direct re-zoning costs and in time-value-of-money delays to the redevelopment. Kitchener has done a good job of re-working its zoning for the multi-use corridors, but the zoning in much of the rest of the city remains horribly out of date and suburban.

[jamincan]

Generally speaking, monolithic developments like this are always going to end up looking rather uniform and boring and it's not surprising that a single developer (with a single architect/planner etc.) would end up having a uniform feel. If you want diversity, hire different architects for different parts. The Montreal Metro was initially built like this and its architecture it very well regarded.

[ac3r]

A single architect wouldn't have worked on this alone - it would take an entire team to do a project of this size. Whoever was in charge was most likely directing them to be pretty basic with things. And...it is Auburn. They are known more for cookie cutter suburban single family home communities, rather than dense urban developments, so their experience is limited.

The architecture/development firm I work for also expressed interest and began to work on proposals for this site. We are based in Toronto and have done such large projects before. What our architectural designers and planners were piecing together at the start was leagues better than this. Much more diversity in building design, a higher degree of mixed-used potential, greater pedestrian access and atmosphere on the street. But to go back to the costs, we are not exactly a cheap firm, so our work didn't go anywhere.

I wonder why another local developer didn't take on the job? Zehr Group has some great work, for example. Maybe they felt like they had too many projects going on at the time?

[panamaniac]

Does Auburn alwasy work with the same architects?

[ac3r]

They use different architects. Turner Fleischer did the Barrelyards. William Haas Limited did Arrow Lofts. I don't know who did the work for most of their suburban developments, but probably a mix of people.

[ijmorlan]

For connectivity, at a minimum, the City should require that a broad double-path (one for cyclists, one for pedestrians, like in Waterloo Park) be included immediately beside the railway, all the way from Borden to Stirling. Also, I understand there was a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks; if I have that right, it should be re-opened and connected to said path. This is just a matter of ensuring that obvious city planning takes place and should go without saying.

[tomh009]

Generally speaking, monolithic developments like this are always going to end up looking rather uniform and boring and it's not surprising that a single developer (with a single architect/planner etc.) would end up having a uniform feel. If you want diversity, hire different architects for different parts. The Montreal Metro was initially built like this and its architecture it very well regarded.

This is what happens in suburbia, too: a single developer buys a huge chunk of farmland and develops it, and the result is a sea of sameness, along the lines of Edward Scissorhands. Even the older neighbourhoods in the city have this pattern apparent, albeit on a smaller scale: often you can see how all the houses on a given street have essentially the same design, apparent even after 100 years of living, renovations and updates.

[tomh009]

Boring = cheaper. It's not Drewlo (as my daughter said "Copy and paste"), at least, and certainly not The Ghetto, aka, Northdale though.

Unsure how you can convince developers to have better vision, when all they think about money, and really, why wouldn't they? Not like we're going to have people with vision pony up the cash for nicer developments, as I have never seen that happen unless it's goburment.

And builders generally won't spend much money on better design, because most condo buyers are not willing to pay much more for units in buildings with better design.

[Spokes]

From the moment Auburn bought the site, this was it's destiny.

[Acitta]

Editorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

[ijmorlan]

This is what happens in suburbia, too: a single developer buys a huge chunk of farmland and develops it, and the result is a sea of sameness, along the lines of Edward Scissorhands. Even the older neighbourhoods in the city have this pattern apparent, albeit on a smaller scale: often you can see how all the houses on a given street have essentially the same design, apparent even after 100 years of living, renovations and updates.

I think part of the problem is modern zoning. Almost every development requires a zoning amendment. This means that in order to build anything, one has to be an expert in navigating the zoning system. This in turns means that the person who already owns the property for whatever reason (maybe they’ve been farming for generations, maybe they bought a house with a large lot not far from downtown) is not equipped to develop it themselves, or sever pieces to others. As a result they sell it to a developer.

I remember seeing a sign advertising a property available for sale, and it said something about being a future strip mall. My thought was, “how do they know a strip mall belongs here?”. The answer of course is that it was zoned for such, and building anything else would be a huge challenge. In that past property use could change in a flexible manner as needed. Now it’s a huge process. Some of this is legitimate — obviously, a propane plant shouldn’t be allowed to move in next door to houses — but in general it pretends that a small number of municipal bureaucrats know better than the entire populace what is needed in the city.