+- 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: Strata | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1147)
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - KingandWeber - 03-14-2018
From this week's Chronicle:
Quote:Elgie isn’t alone in her concerns, either. Other area residents, like Stephen Herzog, are equally worried.
“I value the mid-century modern King Street facade of the post office building and the existing green space in front of the building along King Street. I would like to see this preserved in any redevelopment,” said Herzog.
I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 03-14-2018
(03-14-2018, 05:06 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: From this week's Chronicle:
Quote:Elgie isn’t alone in her concerns, either. Other area residents, like Stephen Herzog, are equally worried.
“I value the mid-century modern King Street facade of the post office building and the existing green space in front of the building along King Street. I would like to see this preserved in any redevelopment,” said Herzog.
I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I would say that the post office is a familiar, attractive building, especially when it still had the Canada coat of arms on it. It’s a part of the city. That doesn’t mean that it needs to stay. Especially if the new building is something really high quality, then that is just part of the evolution of the city. I can even expect to miss the way things were and still be favour of proceeding. Heritage preservation shouldn’t be about stasis but about preserving enough of the right stuff to allow the best of different time periods to co-exist.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - timc - 03-14-2018
I do like the trees in front of the building. I don't care about its facade though.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 03-14-2018
If Waterloo prefers the abandoned mid-century modern post office building with the large expanse of surface parking, we would certainly welcome this development in Kitchener.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 03-14-2018
(03-14-2018, 05:59 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If Waterloo prefers the abandoned mid-century modern post office building with the large expanse of surface parking, we would certainly welcome this development in Kitchener.
Nope! This one’s ours.
At least I hope some version of what is being proposed goes ahead.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - plam - 03-15-2018
Meanwhile in Montreal...
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/villeray-condo-plan-tests-projet-montreals-principles-residents-say
Similar complaints as in this project even when the project has 3br units and underground parking. Well, not the part about heritage. But the project is permitted as of right by the zoning. Residents seem to just not want new neighbours. Good way to be like SF!
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - Tony_Plow - 03-15-2018
I'm not sure if the new renderings have been posted here:
http://www.waterloo.ca/en/contentresources/resources/Planning_approvals/Z-18-02-70-King-Design-Package.pdf
Looks amazing! Way more high end than I ever expected we'd see at this end of King Street.
IMO this will be one of the Region's most iconic mixed-use developments.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - Viewfromthe42 - 03-15-2018
Not sure I'd agree. Bridgeport Road is incredibly constraining, pedestrial hostile. King street is also pretty underwhelming for the gateway corner of UpTown (Bridgeport from 85 brings you to King/UpTown here; you'd hardly know you should turn left to reach our main promenade). Amazing that they can't see fit to put any more trees in than what I expect are the existing ones? Wouldn't this be the kind of site where you could get away with less parking and put something more welcoming on Bridgeport and Regina? My previous guess at how few 2 bedroom options existed seems woefully inaccurate, perhaps, given how many studio (0 bedroom) units there are...
I for one am a champion of intensification, but this really doesn't do anything for me.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - REnerd - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 01:10 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Not sure I'd agree. Bridgeport Road is incredibly constraining, pedestrial hostile. King street is also pretty underwhelming for the gateway corner of UpTown (Bridgeport from 85 brings you to King/UpTown here; you'd hardly know you should turn left to reach our main promenade). Amazing that they can't see fit to put any more trees in than what I expect are the existing ones? Wouldn't this be the kind of site where you could get away with less parking and put something more welcoming on Bridgeport and Regina? My previous guess at how few 2 bedroom options existed seems woefully inaccurate, perhaps, given how many studio (0 bedroom) units there are...
I for one am a champion of intensification, but this really doesn't do anything for me.
Solution = push it down 4 floors so the parking is underground. And parkspace is grade level.
Instead we get 4 floors of above grade parking. Classic development for this area and this developer.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - Viewfromthe42 - 03-15-2018
I don't mind the parking, though I think it could be less. At 1Vic, on a smaller lot size, the parking only fronts 2 sides of the podium, whereas here on a bigger lot size, it fronts 3. At the42, they have one floor of underground parking (and if you look at the building, they actually raised the first floor to the westernmost elevation to make this underground even more elevated), and they said that this single underground level was under the water table with quite a bit of work needed to keep it dry. It would flood, and they even had a chamber to fill with water during storms, underneath the ramp off of Peppler. So to have the same concerns about water, you could go down one level, plus howevermany levels of elevation exist between the two sites, with 70 King being noticeably higher than 42 Bridgeport.
None of that should preclude the consideration of active uses on either of Regina or Bridgeport.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 03:44 PM)REnerd Wrote: Solution = push it down 4 floors so the parking is underground. And parkspace is grade level.
Instead we get 4 floors of above grade parking. Classic development for this area and this developer.
So you do that, and we lose the podium with the wave. Cue more complaints about uninteresting design.
Anyway, if we don't want parking podiums, we need to change the zoning regulations. Can't blame the developers for taking advantage of them.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 12:36 PM)Tony_Plow Wrote: I'm not sure if the new renderings have been posted here:
http://www.waterloo.ca/en/contentresources/resources/Planning_approvals/Z-18-02-70-King-Design-Package.pdf
Looks amazing! Way more high end than I ever expected we'd see at this end of King Street.
IMO this will be one of the Region's most iconic mixed-use developments.
(03-15-2018, 09:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(03-15-2018, 03:44 PM)REnerd Wrote: Solution = push it down 4 floors so the parking is underground. And parkspace is grade level.
Instead we get 4 floors of above grade parking. Classic development for this area and this developer.
So you do that, and we lose the podium with the wave. Cue more complaints about uninteresting design.
Anyway, if we don't want parking podiums, we need to change the zoning regulations. Can't blame the developers for taking advantage of them.
Is that interesting design or eccentric design? I'm not seeing any relationship between the curvy glass podium curtain and the rest of the structure. I'm also not a fan of the skybridge thingy. Is it intended to house the buildings' common elements?
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - KevinL - 03-15-2018
Page 11 of the PDF lays it out as the amenities: lounge and fitness area.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - Pheidippides - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 01:10 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Not sure I'd agree. Bridgeport Road is incredibly constraining, pedestrial hostile.
It doesn't have to be though; the road can, and should, be rebuilt at a more human(e) scale that would fit better with the building. The current state of the road isn't a good reason not to build the building though.
RE: 70 King St N | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed - urbd - 03-16-2018
(03-15-2018, 09:29 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:(03-15-2018, 01:10 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Not sure I'd agree. Bridgeport Road is incredibly constraining, pedestrial hostile.
It doesn't have to be though; the road can, and should, be rebuilt at a more human(e) scale that would fit better with the building. The current state of the road isn't a good reason not to build the building though.
We could start by trying to convert Bridgeport and Erb back to two-way streets. One way roads are terrible... especially for pedestrians and cyclists.