+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1546)
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 04-21-2022
(04-21-2022, 10:52 AM)jeremyroman Wrote:(04-21-2022, 08:59 AM)CP42 Wrote: Floor Plans
403 Forbidden
Here's a link to the google drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1svLXs_dVrPsnZmTno98oBvr4ZPm-JEmN?usp=sharing
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-08-2022
Heritage Kitchener unanimously rejects Developers plans to save just the facade
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecord.com%2Fnews%2Fwaterloo-region%2F2022%2F06%2F07%2Fit-makes-a-mockery-of-us-talking-about-heritage-heritage-kitchener-pushes-back-against-downtown-condo-boom.html
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - KaiserWilhelmsBust - 06-08-2022
I have been following this.
The "Heritage" comittee is made up almost entirely of elite, elderly, white people. These people are power-hungry and rarely make any comments on actual heritage issues. Furthermore, they do not even understand what their role was supposed to be and just decided to vote against it. Key point - they are not the authority on this, all their vote does is become a recommendation to council.
The developer was looking for feedback and input and got none, instead, the committee lied, made accusations about developer intent, and voted to not recommend the development
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-08-2022
This is one of the few cases where I'm glad they're not recommending it. This building is one of a kind in our region. In contrast, this skyscraper is nothing but a bland, generic, uninspiring building. There are plenty of other locations they could build this same pile of crap where they wouldn't have to destroy a unique historical building.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 06-08-2022
I still do not understand, with the exclusion of a parking structure to boot, why there is no way for them to reasonably preserve, even improve, the old structure into a new venue / commercial space downtown. In the same boat that I don't find the rejection wrong here, unlike others that are less unique buildings.
Maybe I'm missing something engineering wise but this feels like it could be a Danforth Hall style venue if they restored it back to the single large volume space by removing the second floor and opening that area up with a stage at the rear. So many potential uses with even a little creativity.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-08-2022
That would require the City of Kitchener to care about cultural funding in the city... :'P It would make a nice venue for things, but yeah, when it comes to arts and culture...who would honestly fund a project like that? It would probably require some significant structural changes to be able to remove the second floor to increase the volume and that would be costly to achieve - though not impossible. I'd love to see architectural drawings of the place to figure it out (though honestly, my PhD was more focused on design and theory rather than engineering, so I might not even know).
Hopefully - if this condo does not go ahead and the building itself is preserved - it doesn't just fall into disrepair due to lack of use/investment. It's honestly a gorgeous structure so I hope we don't lose it.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - KaiserWilhelmsBust - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 02:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: That would require the City of Kitchener to care about cultural funding in the city... :'P It would make a nice venue for things, but yeah, when it comes to arts and culture...who would honestly fund a project like that? It would probably require some significant structural changes to be able to remove the second floor to increase the volume and that would be costly to achieve - though not impossible. I'd love to see architectural drawings of the place to figure it out (though honestly, my PhD was more focused on design and theory rather than engineering, so I might not even know).
Hopefully - if this condo does not go ahead and the building itself is preserved - it doesn't just fall into disrepair due to lack of use/investment. It's honestly a gorgeous structure so I hope we don't lose it.
If the development doesn't go ahead, the heritage building is 100% lost. The developer has spent millions and will walk before doing some social heritage vanity project
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 02:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: That would require the City of Kitchener to care about cultural funding in the city... :'P It would make a nice venue for things, but yeah, when it comes to arts and culture...who would honestly fund a project like that? It would probably require some significant structural changes to be able to remove the second floor to increase the volume and that would be costly to achieve - though not impossible. I'd love to see architectural drawings of the place to figure it out (though honestly, my PhD was more focused on design and theory rather than engineering, so I might not even know).
Hopefully - if this condo does not go ahead and the building itself is preserved - it doesn't just fall into disrepair due to lack of use/investment. It's honestly a gorgeous structure so I hope we don't lose it.
If this is the building I think it is, the second floor is a more recent addition — the main floor used to be really tall but the floor was built in the space to increase floor area. So structurally one might expect it to be just a matter of reversing the earlier renovation.
That being said, who knows what other changes have happened and whether the structure now depends on some of the more recent additions.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 12:40 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Heritage Kitchener unanimously rejects Developers plans to save just the facade
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecord.com%2Fnews%2Fwaterloo-region%2F2022%2F06%2F07%2Fit-makes-a-mockery-of-us-talking-about-heritage-heritage-kitchener-pushes-back-against-downtown-condo-boom.html
The heritage committee doesn't have a veto, though: they will only recommend that the council reject this project.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - dtkmelissa - 06-09-2022
(06-08-2022, 01:24 PM)ac3r Wrote: This is one of the few cases where I'm glad they're not recommending it. This building is one of a kind in our region. In contrast, this skyscraper is nothing but a bland, generic, uninspiring building. There are plenty of other locations they could build this same pile of crap where they wouldn't have to destroy a unique historical building.
I don't understand the value in saving a building just for the sake of saving it - when most people never has access to this space. What's the point of saving it if it's essentially locked away from most of us? When this was being discussed (last year?) some delegations made a big deal about the fact that once (in 2016 I think) for one day this building was open to the public for Doors Open. But other than that, most people have never been, nor ever will be in this building. I'd rather see it used to house people (while saving and reusing as much as they can).
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote:(06-08-2022, 01:24 PM)ac3r Wrote: This is one of the few cases where I'm glad they're not recommending it. This building is one of a kind in our region. In contrast, this skyscraper is nothing but a bland, generic, uninspiring building. There are plenty of other locations they could build this same pile of crap where they wouldn't have to destroy a unique historical building.
I don't understand the value in saving a building just for the sake of saving it - when most people never has access to this space. What's the point of saving it if it's essentially locked away from most of us? When this was being discussed (last year?) some delegations made a big deal about the fact that once (in 2016 I think) for one day this building was open to the public for Doors Open. But other than that, most people have never been, nor ever will be in this building. I'd rather see it used to house people (while saving and reusing as much as they can).
Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - dtkmelissa - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote:I suppose I was questioning the community benefit of 'heritage preservation' in general, when the community can't even access those spaces. But yes, I'm not surprised by the decision of the heritage committee as this is exactly the kind of thing I suspect this committee was created for.(06-09-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: I don't understand the value in saving a building just for the sake of saving it - when most people never has access to this space. What's the point of saving it if it's essentially locked away from most of us? When this was being discussed (last year?) some delegations made a big deal about the fact that once (in 2016 I think) for one day this building was open to the public for Doors Open. But other than that, most people have never been, nor ever will be in this building. I'd rather see it used to house people (while saving and reusing as much as they can).
Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-09-2022
Right. All people can see today (and for almost every day for the past 40+ years) is the facade. The interior may be stunning and historical, but it's not a museum, so no one can see it anyway.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(06-09-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: I don't understand the value in saving a building just for the sake of saving it - when most people never has access to this space. What's the point of saving it if it's essentially locked away from most of us? When this was being discussed (last year?) some delegations made a big deal about the fact that once (in 2016 I think) for one day this building was open to the public for Doors Open. But other than that, most people have never been, nor ever will be in this building. I'd rather see it used to house people (while saving and reusing as much as they can).
Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
Panamaniac, you lived in Kitchener for a rather long time. How many times did you have the opportunity to see the interior of the building? If you only saw the facade (all I have ever seen in my 45 years in this town) then there is little difference between a preserved original building and a preserved facade on a new building (that provides housing for hundreds of people).
Yes, maybe they will open the doors in 2057, or something. But is that so valuable as to give up hundreds of additional housing units?
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 08:36 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote:(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.I suppose I was questioning the community benefit of 'heritage preservation' in general, when the community can't even access those spaces. But yes, I'm not surprised by the decision of the heritage committee as this is exactly the kind of thing I suspect this committee was created for.
(06-09-2022, 09:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
Panamaniac, you lived in Kitchener for a rather long time. How many times did you have the opportunity to see the interior of the building? If you only saw the facade (all I have ever seen in my 45 years in this town) then there is little difference between a preserved original building and a preserved facade on a new building (that provides housing for hundreds of people).
Yes, maybe they will open the doors in 2057, or something. But is that so valuable as to give up hundreds of additional housing units?
Dr Peta was my optometrist for many years, so I was in her office from time to time. I recall going in to the rest of the building on two occasions, one of them a Doors Open. The other time, I just dropped in and wandered around because I was curious.
The idea that heritage stops being heritage because it’s not open to the public seems strange to me.
Given its track record, I suspect that City Council will end up approving something close to what is being proposed.