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
Circa 1877 - Brick Brewery Redevelopment | ?m | 20fl | U/C
#46
(04-08-2016, 10:35 PM)panamaniac Wrote: How much separation between towers does Waterloo require? 

As best as I can tell the minimum separation between towers is 25m, i.e. 12.5m from side lot line on each property. This is for zoning NMU-25. Other zoning has different regulations.
Reply
#47
(04-08-2016, 10:35 PM)panamaniac Wrote: How much separation between towers does Waterloo require?  I see what you're saying wrt Red, but it seems to me that there is adequate space for another tower on the Adult Rec Centre site.   Given the depth of the Brick site, I don't see how you could develop a condo that did not have units opening out to that side.

There are a number of ways in which the developer could address the fact the likelihood of towers being built on either side of this structure is high to assure long term quality of sunlight and views for the buyers from whom they will be taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in a swanky sales centre.

If the builder won't think long term, then it should be required for the city to do so. This lack of long term thinking in local planning is why 100 Vic is being held up by OMB hearings (and justly so), with the site situation of the proposed structures severely limiting high rise redevelopment of the adjoining site at some point in the future. 

Here are a couple of examples.

One is to create side yard setbacks on a lower part of the structure allowing them to maximize the site while the portions of the building abutting the adjoining sites have no units facing directly onto the inside of the block at the property line. Something like this with the lower portion clearly intended for this purpose as an example:
[Image: 1545pine.0.jpg]

Or this:
[Image: 20534-70290.jpeg]

An alternative is to build a point tower, taller than you otherwise would (say 30 stories in this case, rather than 20) but with a smaller footprint. The remainder of the site can then be used for townhomes or small businesses. This would force the builder to construct an alley on either side of the building, thereby sacrificing some space but this is made up in height of the point tower. We see that a few doors down with what was done at Bauer. This enables a future developer to build another tower on the opposite end of the block from the existing one (beside where the townhouses are). Here is an example:
[Image: 20337-69619.jpeg]
Reply
#48
(04-08-2016, 06:02 AM)Lens Wrote: [Image: 181king_0.png?itok=x72BkcEj]


The Brick Brewery building will one way or the other be part of this development. There is no way the City could stand the embarrassment of allowing the demolition of one of Waterloo’s very few remaining historic Uptown anchors. Even recent converts to architectural conservancy in the form of the Brick and Beam Workforce would be crying “Foul”.

So to make necessity a virtue, why doesn’t the developer come up with a design which capitalizes upon the cachet of the historic structure and draws a thematic link to it? It wouldn’t take much and wouldn’t give up much. I’m no designer, but even some yellow brick accents in the new build could be a link. The published render sends the message: “We have to keep this crummy relic, but we really want to build a Toronto Glass Tower, so behold a Glass Tower squatting on a crummy relic! – with a pretend relic on the other side for balance!" I’m also no couturier, but I don’t wear plaid pants and a paisley shirt together.

Surface "textures" seem to be going out of fashion. But I don’t see why a sleek modern structure can’t have some texture besides glass and spandrel. The Marsland Centre isn’t a fusty antique, and it gets some visual character from it’s pink stone accents. (Actually, upon close inspection, the recent addition is legitimate pink granite, and the original structure has a sort of terrazzo-like imitation pink granite, but…) I think it has always been an attractive modern landmark.

I know there are posters to this forum who have architectural training, so help me out here! How could the Brewery Tower be improved? I will take advice from any architect who wears the requisite black ensemble with pointy shoes. Any who fancy plaid pants with a paisley shirt and clogs need not apply.
Reply
#49
The glass tower isn't the only thing Toronto about it - random incorporation of "stuff" into the base seems to be "perfected" there too...

http://mycondopro.ca/33-avenue-road-cond...rettyPhoto
Reply
#50
Is this site considered to be "Uptown" by most people? I would have called it "Midtown". Or perhaps Midtown only starts after Union? Since it doesn't actually exist, it seems a bit vague as to what is and isn't Midtown. At the other end, the train tracks make for a clearer division.
Reply
#51
Why are people so critical of this development? It resembles City Centre which was received here with high praise.
Reply
#52
Good question. I find the new brick portion a bit kitsch but overall it seems pretty benign. I do think it might be bulkier from front to back than the render suggests - it's a pretty deep lot.
Reply
#53
(04-20-2016, 08:39 PM)notmyfriends Wrote: The glass tower isn't the only thing Toronto about it - random incorporation of "stuff" into the base seems to be "perfected" there too...

http://mycondopro.ca/33-avenue-road-cond...rettyPhoto

Ha. “the exact nature of the landscaping program—including what kind of plantings will be used—is not yet known”. I think that means they know their renderings are a barefaced lie (because trees have roots).
Reply
#54
(04-20-2016, 07:35 PM)eizenstriet Wrote: The Brick Brewery building will one way or the other be part of this development. There is no way the City could stand the embarrassment of allowing the demolition of one of Waterloo’s very few remaining historic Uptown anchors. Even recent converts to architectural conservancy in the form of the Brick and Beam Workforce would be crying “Foul”.

Really? Waterloo's demolished so many historic buildings, what's one more? I mean: city hall, the Canbar buildings, most of the Seagram buildings, the entire west side of King Street, and most recently the old Waterloo Bedding Co building on Allen St. I don't see anything inevitable about any historic preservation in Kitchener-Waterloo.

And while I like the building and want to see it around, I don't see what's particularly valuable historically about the building.
Reply
#55
(04-20-2016, 08:45 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is this site considered to be "Uptown" by most people? I would have called it "Midtown". Or perhaps Midtown only starts after Union? Since it doesn't actually exist, it seems a bit vague as to what is and isn't Midtown. At the other end, the train tracks make for a clearer division.

We've talked about this in the past, and I think mostly agreed to disagree. I personally think that Union is the division between Midtown and Uptown, but am not married to that.

I think that design is fine. I want to see the building preserved and incorporated into a new development, but I don't know how much effort can reasonably be expected on the part of the developer to make the new parts really go together- the building is notable and I think really nice, but not actually a heritage building. I'll be happy to see it not torn down.
Reply
#56
(04-20-2016, 08:49 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Why are people so critical of this development? It resembles City Centre which was received here with high praise.

I like it a lot.  My only criticism is how "thick" it will look when looking at it from the sides.
Reply
#57
(04-21-2016, 07:51 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(04-20-2016, 08:45 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is this site considered to be "Uptown" by most people?  I would have called it "Midtown".  Or perhaps Midtown only starts after Union?  Since it doesn't actually exist, it seems a bit vague as to what is and isn't Midtown.  At the other end, the train tracks make for a clearer division.

We've talked about this in the past, and I think mostly agreed to disagree. I personally think that Union is the division between Midtown and Uptown, but am not married to that.

I think that design is fine. I want to see the building preserved and incorporated into a new development, but I don't know how much effort can reasonably be expected on the part of the developer to make the new parts really go together- the building is notable and I think really nice, but not actually a heritage building. I'll be happy to see it not torn down.

I'm almost tempted to call it Half-town. The main "divide" for me is Sunlife/GRH parking, hence Union, but when I think of it, between Sunlife, GRH, and KCI, the majority of the West side is neither residential, pedestrian-friendly, or retail/commercial. Crossing King Street is almost the biggest divide between (possibility of) something and nothing.
Reply
#58
I'm the one who considers William the division point. North of union definitely feels more urban, but it still seems very distinct from north of William to me.
Reply
#59
(04-21-2016, 10:06 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote:
(04-21-2016, 07:51 AM)MidTowner Wrote: We've talked about this in the past, and I think mostly agreed to disagree. I personally think that Union is the division between Midtown and Uptown, but am not married to that.

I think that design is fine. I want to see the building preserved and incorporated into a new development, but I don't know how much effort can reasonably be expected on the part of the developer to make the new parts really go together- the building is notable and I think really nice, but not actually a heritage building. I'll be happy to see it not torn down.

I'm almost tempted to call it Half-town. The main "divide" for me is Sunlife/GRH parking, hence Union, but when I think of it, between Sunlife, GRH, and KCI, the majority of the West side is neither residential, pedestrian-friendly, or retail/commercial. Crossing King Street is almost the biggest divide between (possibility of) something and nothing.

That is certainly the biggest "gap", at least on the west side of King, but the "gap" on the west side of King where the seniors residence and funeral home are (and, one assumes, will remain) is why I have doubts about Uptown vs Midtown, not that it matters in any practical sense.  I suspect some residents of Bauer Lofts might object to the idea that they are not "Uptown".  Smile
Reply
#60
(04-21-2016, 10:15 AM)jamincan Wrote: I'm the one who considers William the division point. North of union definitely feels more urban, but it still seems very distinct from north of William to me.

I tend to agree and that would certainly have been the traditional start/end point of what is now called "Uptown".  In Kitchener's case, however, what is considered to be "Downtown" has extended beyond Francis to Victoria St and the railway line, so the definitions are flexible it seems.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)