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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C
Looks like it was inspired by a cartridge filter for water.
Reply


(11-26-2021, 12:46 PM)CP42 Wrote: As long as it stays true to the renderings, I don’t mind it at all.

That's part of the problem though, this is the same developer and architect as DTK condos. While the DTK render didn't look as good as some other projects, it certainly looked okay, sort of like this project currently does. But then the cost cutting happened, and the results are pretty ugly. Given In8's history I expect them to do the same here.
Reply
(11-26-2021, 12:42 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote:
(11-26-2021, 12:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote: The curved corners are likely to be the first thing to go in the inevitable cost-cutting.

And the frosted glazing balcony glass - this could be promising but will probly be cut too

I don't believe frosted glass is a substantial incremental cost compared to the usual tinted glass.
Reply
(11-26-2021, 02:57 PM)taylortbb Wrote: That's part of the problem though, this is the same developer and architect as DTK condos. While the DTK render didn't look as good as some other projects, it certainly looked okay, sort of like this project currently does. But then the cost cutting happened, and the results are pretty ugly. Given In8's history I expect them to do the same here.

Agreed. Especially when you consider before DTK, IN8 had only built the Sage condos in the university area - one which I lived in - and those are just cheaply thrown together.
Reply
Both IN8 and SRM are basically get rich quick scammers. Companies like this are not uncommon during a construction boom. A developer comes in and realizes they can make a cheap building, marketing it as a beautiful new luxury development. They hire the cheapest possible architect firm they can to design it. Corners get cut after approval to save money and then they end up building an ugly eyesore that begins to fall apart.

Thankfully we're getting more respectable developers and architecture firms working here, as well as some decent local talent that has been doing great work. And the City of Kitchener is not exactly approving every bad development that gets proposed, unlike Waterloo, which has now created a ghetto of student buildings with some of the ugliest architectural designs and coldest/hostile pedestrian environments you can get.
Reply
(11-26-2021, 03:18 PM)ac3r Wrote: Both IN8 and SRM are basically get rich quick scammers. Companies like this are not uncommon during a construction boom. A developer comes in and realizes they can make a cheap building, marketing it as a beautiful new luxury development. They hire the cheapest possible architect firm they can to design it. Corners get cut after approval to save money and then they end up building an ugly eyesore that begins to fall apart.

Thankfully we're getting more respectable developers and architecture firms working here, as well as some decent local talent that has been doing great work. And the City of Kitchener is not exactly approving every bad development that gets proposed, unlike Waterloo, which has now created a ghetto of student buildings with some of the ugliest architectural designs and coldest/hostile pedestrian environments you can get.

Maybe you can shed some light on this for me: if the city is approving things like above-zoned density or whatever bylaw exceptions they need, why can't some mode of architectural integrity or clear statement of these exterior features be built into their approval? It seems like the render-porn bait and switch is a favourite in town here but I can't figure out why there is no way to protect against it.

If the developers are crowing it will affect the business case for the building then maybe they should suck less at their proposal level planning?
Reply
(11-27-2021, 02:50 PM)cherrypark Wrote:
(11-26-2021, 03:18 PM)ac3r Wrote: Both IN8 and SRM are basically get rich quick scammers. Companies like this are not uncommon during a construction boom. A developer comes in and realizes they can make a cheap building, marketing it as a beautiful new luxury development. They hire the cheapest possible architect firm they can to design it. Corners get cut after approval to save money and then they end up building an ugly eyesore that begins to fall apart.

Thankfully we're getting more respectable developers and architecture firms working here, as well as some decent local talent that has been doing great work. And the City of Kitchener is not exactly approving every bad development that gets proposed, unlike Waterloo, which has now created a ghetto of student buildings with some of the ugliest architectural designs and coldest/hostile pedestrian environments you can get.

Maybe you can shed some light on this for me: if the city is approving things like above-zoned density or whatever bylaw exceptions they need, why can't some mode of architectural integrity or clear statement of these exterior features be built into their approval? It seems like the render-porn bait and switch is a favourite in town here but I can't figure out why there is no way to protect against it.

If the developers are crowing it will affect the business case for the building then maybe they should suck less at their proposal level planning?
You can't start policing design because it's inherently subjective. You can have something like the design review panel in Toronto that makes non binding suggestions for developers. However as soon as you create a body that has the ability to shoot down a project purely on the merits of its design you risk ruining potentially perfectly good, or maybe even standout developments because the members of the panel weren't fans of whatever that particular design was. It's something that's very hard to objectively quantify even if there is near unanimous agreement in some cases.
Reply


Ottawa's design review panel makes extensive comments on new proposals. Their mandate covers all proposals above 4 storeys that would require height or density above that permitted by zoning.

I'm surprised that Kitchener and Waterloo wouldn't have similar panels. I would have thought it standard practice.
Reply
(11-28-2021, 11:38 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Ottawa's design review panel makes extensive comments on new proposals.  Their mandate covers all proposals above 4 storeys that would require height or density above that permitted by zoning.

I'm surprised that Kitchener and Waterloo wouldn't have similar panels.  I would have thought it standard practice.

OK, so they would only review projects that request FAR or height variances beyond that permitted. Do they make the decision on what is acceptable or not (effectively being able to veto the project) or do they just provide a recommendation to council or staff?
Reply
(11-28-2021, 02:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-28-2021, 11:38 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Ottawa's design review panel makes extensive comments on new proposals.  Their mandate covers all proposals above 4 storeys that would require height or density above that permitted by zoning.

I'm surprised that Kitchener and Waterloo wouldn't have similar panels.  I would have thought it standard practice.

OK, so they would only review projects that request FAR or height variances beyond that permitted. Do they make the decision on what is acceptable or not (effectively being able to veto the project) or do they just provide a recommendation to council or staff?

Their (public) recommendations are directed at the developers.  They are not binding, but they seem to carry considerable weight.
Reply
(11-28-2021, 04:30 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(11-28-2021, 02:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: OK, so they would only review projects that request FAR or height variances beyond that permitted. Do they make the decision on what is acceptable or not (effectively being able to veto the project) or do they just provide a recommendation to council or staff?

Their (public) recommendations are directed at the developers.  They are not binding, but they seem to carry considerable weight.

So, I think the big difference to the approach here is that the recommendations are public, whereas here the city will work with the developer behind closed doors to improve the design.
Reply
(11-28-2021, 09:25 PM)Etomh009 Wrote:
(11-28-2021, 04:30 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Their (public) recommendations are directed at the developers.  They are not binding, but they seem to carry considerable weight.

So, I think the big difference to the approach here is that the recommendations are public, whereas here the city will work with the developer behind closed doors to improve the design.

The problem then being, apparently, that the City has no taste ...
Reply
There is no arguing with (the lack of) taste! Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

More seriously, I think the architecture is not the top priority for the Kitchener, at least; it's well behind housing affordability, for example.
Reply


https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/tek-condos

Listed as TEK Condos now
Reply
(11-28-2021, 11:18 PM)tomh009 Wrote: There is no arguing with (the lack of) taste! Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

More seriously, I think the architecture is not the top priority for the Kitchener, at least; it's well behind housing affordability, for example.

Considering how low a priority housing affordability is, that really says something.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links