+- 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 - Bjays93 - 06-28-2021
(06-28-2021, 12:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote:As someone who is going into politics and also loves history I politely disagree. The merit of the value of heritage items is not based on what is more easily seen by the public eye and what isnt. Its about preserving our history which I believe is incredibly important.(06-28-2021, 12:15 PM)ac3r Wrote: I think it should be based on the architectural merit of the interior in addition to the exterior. So yes, I think that buildings with significance should have their value assessed and developers ought to get permission before making extensive changes first. If I bought up a city block somewhere with a beautiful ancient cathedral, I should not get the freedom to demolish the entire thing as I see fit just because I own it. The value of the building in all regards should supersede my ownership because it has value to everyone. This building, for example, has some beautiful architecture inside but in addition to that, there is a historical significance. As the article mentions "the woodworking was done by Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the plaster and stone work by Berlin general contractor Casper Braun". To me, that's an interesting part of our local history and should be protected as much as it possibly can be.
Arguably interior design is less "valuable" for preservation because generally only the owner of the building is able view and enjoy it. I can see the other side of the argument, too, but then it's a big change to the heritage preservation policies, and would require the heritage committee to view the interiors of all the heritage properties in order to determine which ones should be preserved inside as well.
Heritage gives us a glimpse into the past and reminds us of where we came from. It also allows us to better understand generations, styles building and art techniques and so on. Obviously not all buildings are worth saving but not everything should be razed to the ground. This is clearly a timeless building and one of the nicest in the core. 200 years from now if it remains as is it will be a total standout, even more so than now. That's why I think some buildings like this, are absolutely worth saving.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-28-2021
(06-28-2021, 01:00 PM)Bjays93 Wrote:(06-28-2021, 12:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Arguably interior design is less "valuable" for preservation because generally only the owner of the building is able view and enjoy it. I can see the other side of the argument, too, but then it's a big change to the heritage preservation policies, and would require the heritage committee to view the interiors of all the heritage properties in order to determine which ones should be preserved inside as well.
As someone who is going into politics and also loves history I politely disagree. The merit of the value of heritage items is not based on what is more easily seen by the public eye and what isnt. Its about preserving our history which I believe is incredibly important.
Heritage gives us a glimpse into the past and reminds us of where we came from. It also allows us to better understand generations, styles building and art techniques and so on. Obviously not all buildings are worth saving but not everything should be razed to the ground. This is clearly a timeless building and one of the nicest in the core. 200 years from now if it remains as is it will be a total standout, even more so than now. That's why I think some buildings like this, are absolutely worth saving.
As I said, I can see the point. But the heritage regulations should then be updated to enable the city to inspect interiors and approve interior work as well, in addition to the exterior approvals. At this time no one has done any inventory of the interiors of the hundreds of protected heritage buildings we have.
As of right now, if there were not a condo proposed, the owner of the building (yes, it's Momentum) would be fully within their rights to completely strip out the interior and put in drywall, California ceilings and oak strip flooring everywhere. It's simply not regulated.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - Nextasy - 06-28-2021
I'm pro-intensification (obviously, I mean I'm on this website) but I really hope they vote to preserve this building and it's interior. It's a unique case.
The existing circumstances carry strong heritage value in a very unique circumstance. The proposed condo does not carry anything unique whatsoever. It's a small lot, with an existing borderline heritage structure, and contamination underneath.
When compared to everything nearby, it has extremely high value as a historical/cultural site, but frankly no special value as a redevelopment site (in fact, probably lesser value than other nearby sites). Why allow a developer take something valuable and reduce it to something mediocre for personal profit?
Or from another perspective: If not this, then what is worth preserving? To be honest, if we decide not to preserve this, we might as well roll back to 1975 and not designate anything, because I doubt we'll find something more deserving.
If this were the 70s, would we let a developer buy and knockdown the old city hall for a condo?
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-28-2021
I have a strong feeling that heritage planning staff will not designate this and Momentum will go ahead with the project and ruin it forever. Profits prevail over all else in this world, history, culture and climate be damned.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-29-2021
Did anyone go to the community meeting last night
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - jeffster - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 07:59 AM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Did anyone go to the community meeting last night
16-20 Queen Street heritage preservation.
Council is directed staff to publish Notice of Intention to provide a heritage designation for the entire front facade and a portion of the side of the property. The proposal includes select interior features. The proposal from Momentum includes saving the front facade and portions of the interior.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - jeffster - 06-29-2021
(06-28-2021, 03:48 PM)ac3r Wrote: I have a strong feeling that heritage planning staff will not designate this and Momentum will go ahead with the project and ruin it forever. Profits prevail over all else in this world, history, culture and climate be damned.
I’m going to say if people feel so strongly about these things: start putting money where your mouth is. Pool your resources with other like minded people. Save those buildings that you want saved and preserve to their original build.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-29-2021
Momentum is a multimillion dollar property development company. You can't really expect private citizens to be able to buy up buildings our their own to save our history.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 10:26 AM)jeffster Wrote:(06-29-2021, 07:59 AM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Did anyone go to the community meeting last night
16-20 Queen Street heritage preservation.
Council is directed staff to publish Notice of Intention to provide a heritage designation for the entire front facade and a portion of the side of the property. The proposal includes select interior features. The proposal from Momentum includes saving the front facade and portions of the interior.
I wonder if that extends to preserving the original front entrance(s)? It would be unfortunate to see them become "faux", imo.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 06-29-2021
Neither the interior architectural beauty nor the potential future condo development is accessible or beneficial to a medium-income single person like myself. While I have no vested interest in this project, I do hope that future generations are able to appreciate the uniqueness of this property in one way or another. Keeping a heritage building locked up behind closed doors doesn't benefit anyone.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - jeffster - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 10:45 AM)ac3r Wrote: Momentum is a multimillion dollar property development company. You can't really expect private citizens to be able to buy up buildings our their own to save our history.
So are we suggesting multi-million dollar property developers purchase buildings simply to spend millions to restore them?
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t let this happen, but I am saying that if you add conditions like that, then properties simply don’t get redeveloped, and you have to hope that the current owner takes good care of the building.
But I did suggest private citizens COULD buy up building. As a collective unit. If you had 1,000 individuals willing to finance $100,000 a piece, that gives you $100,000,000 of buying power. That is what I mean by putting your money where your mouth is.
Always easy to spend others people money when you don’t have to put a penny of yours in.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 02:31 PM)jeffster Wrote: So are we suggesting multi-million dollar property developers purchase buildings simply to spend millions to restore them?
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t let this happen, but I am saying that if you add conditions like that, then properties simply don’t get redeveloped, and you have to hope that the current owner takes good care of the building.
But I did suggest private citizens COULD buy up building. As a collective unit. If you had 1,000 individuals willing to finance $100,000 a piece, that gives you $100,000,000 of buying power. That is what I mean by putting your money where your mouth is.
Always easy to spend others people money when you don’t have to put a penny of yours in.
It's definitely a tricky thing to balance. I think this is ultimately a problem of a capitalist system. In the end, profit and ownership is what dictates how we manage these things. How to balance it becomes a complex thing to figure out. If it's historically valuable, do we put the burden of protecting and preserving that on the public - i.e. designating it heritage, maybe turning it into something akin to a museum or public facility to share with the broader public, using tax dollars or donations? Or do we designate things as historically significant while permitting private developers to take ownership of that, but obligate them to preserve as much as possible?
In the lecture by Eric Haldenby I linked in a previous comment he argues something like "maybe we should place the burden on developers - if they want to develop a historically significant building, then they should pay the money to preserve it". And yeah, I would agree with that. It's our history and that's an important thing, though not everyone understands that because it's not necessarily a tangible thing (the building is, but the why is not). But then that gets you into the territory of developers that take ownership of something, who then neglect it for whatever reason and ultimately tear something down once it gets to a point it's no good (Forsyth Factory, Preston Springs Hotel).
I think, ultimately, we need to improve how we designate and legislate the use of old buildings. The rest of the world - Europe, for example - have fairly strong laws and rules that dictate the protection of historical buildings. It's why they still have so many old structures there that are in impeccable condition. They stand next to or are often incorporated into modern buildings and urban environments. You can have a beautiful glass office tower next to a 400 year old building. In North America, where we are much younger, we tend to view our tangible history a little differently...and that makes protecting old structures more complex if not ambiguous. You definitely see that all over the world when it comes to things like modernist architecture. Brutalism or post-modernism, for example, are not the most loved architectural movements but we still cannot neglect their importance. The same thing applies to this old building. It ought to be saved in its entirety, in my opinion.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - CedarHillAlum - 06-29-2021
For decades and decades nobody gave a rat's ass about this building and now suddenly it's become as important to preserve as Stonehenge.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - taylortbb - 06-29-2021
Here's a photo I took of what all the debate is about. The rest of the interior has actually been rennovated a bit already. The building still has the old wood panelling in the common areas, but the units asides from this one have mostly had some work done (the bank vault that's talked about is painted a definitely-not-original bright orange IIRC). The ceiling in this room is the main point of contention with the heritage committee though. Momentum will be saving some of it, but not as much as the heritage committee wants.
RE: Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 01:01 PM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: Neither the interior architectural beauty nor the potential future condo development is accessible or beneficial to a medium-income single person like myself. While I have no vested interest in this project, I do hope that future generations are able to appreciate the uniqueness of this property in one way or another. Keeping a heritage building locked up behind closed doors doesn't benefit anyone.
Where does the idea come from that this building is/was inaccesible to the public? I was in it a number of times, including at least once as a casual visitor just to check out the interior. Iinm, it has also been included in Doors Open.