Ophelia (242-262 Queen St S) | 11 fl | U/C

[MacBerry]

I think the goal is to provide as many residential units as possible. 

Looking at the shadows on the renders, I think Melissa may be right and the houses do not connect to the new building. But whether connected or not, there certainly is not going to be any back yard to those houses. But is it really much worse than a unit in the main building? I do expect that they'll find people happy to live in those, as long as the prices are right.

You may be right Tom. There was a lot of discussion about whether they should be attached or not. At one point they were to be separate, even fenced in at the back but it left a vacant space between there and the main building which several people identified as a dark, unused space. They may have improved the plan since then.

Again, going by memory, I think the hope was that the duplex homes would be a bit more upscale, hoping to fetch a higher rental price to help cover some of the expenses associated with keeping the older homes.

Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.

[Spokes]

Have we seen much, if any of this practice?

[mastermind]

Have we seen much, if any of this practice?

I remember reading in the paper about 10 years ago about an old stone farmhouse that was moved in Eby Estates (the suburban area behind Williamsburg area).  When the land was cleared and being re-graded they moved the house over a kilometer or something, and it was to be the centerpiece of the new development.  That is somewhat different though since they did not have to move the house along any roads.

Interestingly, shortly after they moved it it burned down and had to be demolished.

[Momo26]

Is it a logistical nightmare moving a house that has been sitting there for over a century? Is it usually structurally sound enough to up heave off of the foundation (or including some/parts of foundation) without completely falling apart?

[Spokes]

The key words there are over a century. That makes things uncertain. At the end of the day, just about anything is "possible" but with a cost.

[Momo26]

Well you know what, some of these century homes give Kitchener it's charm, there is no doubt. Not many cities (ie. the 'suburb cities' of GTA) can boast having unique infrastructure like K-W has, for better or worse. Of course upkeep is paramount, especially with some of these commercial areas. And the house aren't cheap to heat either with often times many a leaks (air).

[tomh009]

You may be right Tom. There was a lot of discussion about whether they should be attached or not. At one point they were to be separate, even fenced in at the back but it left a vacant space between there and the main building which several people identified as a dark, unused space. They may have improved the plan since then.

Again, going by memory, I think the hope was that the duplex homes would be a bit more upscale, hoping to fetch a higher rental price to help cover some of the expenses associated with keeping the older homes.

Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.

From the point of view of the heritage committee (which I disagreed with), these houses had value specifically because they were on this stretch of Queen St S.

[Spokes]

Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???

[tomh009]

Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???

Basically they admitted that the houses weren't unique or particularly historic; their case was based on preserving century residential houses on Queen St S (between Courtland and Charles) to show the original character of the street.

[Viewfromthe42]

The original character of the street they specifically mentioned was to show how people could live near and walk to work. So we preserve that memory at its historic scale, and in doing so, help to prevent modern day people from enjoying this benefit. Especially important given this is a development aimed to not be up-market, with more affordable options.

[Spokes]

Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???

Basically they admitted that the houses weren't unique or particularly historic; their case was based on preserving century residential houses on Queen St S (between Courtland and Charles) to show the original character of the street.

Oh wow.  Ok, so on one hand, I now understand why they protected these houses.  On the other hand, what the hell???

[MacBerry]

Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.

From the point of view of the heritage committee (which I disagreed with), these houses had value specifically because they were on this stretch of Queen St S.

"Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location." 

My apologies, I wasn't clear I was thinking of the two "heritage" buildings beside the new GOOGLE building.

[tomh009]

Building permit (19-106276 RM) now issued.

[Spokes]

Rubber stamp central in DTK!!

[tomh009]

Building permit (19-106276 RM) now issued.

They now also have permits for the alterations to the two houses that will remain.