88 Queen St S | 44 fl | Proposed

[Belmonster]

Really getting tired of IN8/SRM giving all the ammunition the density haters need in this city.

Even as a development enthusiast, it's dispiriting. I had hoped that increased density downtown would result in more and more interesting shops and restaurants opening to serve the new residents, but so far that doesn't seem to be happening. Adding 44 floors of residential while actually reducing available commercial space... it makes me think I was totally mistaken about the effect increased density would have on downtown.

More housing is good regardless. Still, this kind of thing sure dampens my enthusiasm.

[panamaniac]

Really getting tired of IN8/SRM giving all the ammunition the density haters need in this city. Considering their pattern of getting worse post render, I shudder to think about how this one could be made to look worse. This and the other are both ugly slabs and I hope the city somehow forces a change around their urban design guidelines, insufficient as they may be.

Is there likely to be much opposition to either of these?   Part of me wonders whether either will ever be built, given the coming downturn.

[KingandWeber]

Carving a driveway into the streetfront on Queen would be a big loss in my opinion. As I mentioned in the thread for 26 Charles, it may be worth writing councilors on this (assuming there's any approval required) to encourage them to hold IN8 to account for design standards and to try to push the developer to not proceed with this driveway design.

[tomh009]

I'm usually in favour of maintaining the facade of heritage buildings over losing them entirely, but this is almost insulting.

This isn't even a heritage facade -- it's a faux heritage facade. If the render is correct, those are new facades that only vaguely resemble the current ones. (The one on the right looks like Pearl Laundry, but that's not where Pearly Laundry is actually located.)

[the_conestoga_guy]

This is an interesting tidbit buried in the 88 Queen Staff Report. 

---

“88 Queen Street South is proposed to be demolished to accommodate the road widening of Charles Street West and the construction of a traffic visibility triangle as part of a joint venture being undertaken by the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. The road widening is proposed to be undertaken in tandem with the construction of the development.”

---

I wonder if they meant widening Queen St here. The site plan on page 312 of the OP provides some details.

[ijmorlan]

I just noticed the image shows the sidewalk stopping at the driveway, with the crossing area paved as a road. Thumbs down.

[cherrypark]

Really getting tired of IN8/SRM giving all the ammunition the density haters need in this city. Considering their pattern of getting worse post render, I shudder to think about how this one could be made to look worse. This and the other are both ugly slabs and I hope the city somehow forces a change around their urban design guidelines, insufficient as they may be.

Is there likely to be much opposition to either of these?   Part of me wonders whether either will ever be built, given the coming downturn.

I expect there will be the usual opposition from those both with legitimate concerns about the plans (I would hope continuing to point out that not all developers here are created equal) and others just not wanting development of downtown with any density. There is also the hanging question of whether Councillor Chapman's initiative for a moratorium lands. 

I would say 30 Francis passed with less opposition than I expected, but the NIMBYs tend to care less about these ones inside of the downtown area (vs. say, 660 Belmont or what is to come for Park & Victoria).

[Lebronj23]

Carving a driveway into the streetfront on Queen would be a big loss in my opinion. As I mentioned in the thread for 26 Charles, it may be worth writing councilors on this (assuming there's any approval required) to encourage them to hold IN8 to account for design standards and to try to push the developer to not proceed with this driveway design.

I believe approval will still be required. Even though there is no Zoning bylaw amendment needed, staff still needs to give their recommendation of increasing the FSR( even with no height limit zoned here) and it will need to go before council. I would recommend emailing city staff (Craig Dumart) as well as councillors with the concerns about no street activation, commercial spots etc. That was they can work with the developer to implement them before it gets as far as council

[dtkvictim]

I'm usually in favour of maintaining the facade of heritage buildings over losing them entirely, but this is almost insulting.

How so?

See below:

I'm usually in favour of maintaining the facade of heritage buildings over losing them entirely, but this is almost insulting.

This isn't even a heritage facade -- it's a faux heritage facade. If the render is correct, those are new facades that only vaguely resemble the current ones. (The one on the right looks like Pearl Laundry, but that's not where Pearly Laundry is actually located.)

Yes, this is mostly what my comment was directed at. Though you may count this approach as "losing them entirely" regardless. Running a driveway through the faux heritage facade is just all the more insulting.

The only good thing I see from replacing the existing buildings would be improved sidewalks widths, especially on the corner with Charles St.

[robdrimmie]

From the render and based on the comments about road widening above, my read is that the Pearl Laundry facade will be kept, and the units closer to Charles knocked down to make space. There's a little notch in the proposed building at the corner.

That's a really poor corner, so more space around it will be great. That is the only thing about this render that isn't garbage.

[ac3r]

There isn't any commercial space in this project. It's purely residential with 567 units in total. The existing façade being retained is up to the developer to decide. Whether or not IN8 chooses to will remain to be seen.

It does say "mixed residential", that does imply some commercial usage, I think.

Unfortunately not. It says 0 ft² of commercial space in the architecture plans. I'm not sure what "public amenity" implies on page 4...but it's not commercial. There's 78.9 m² of outdoor public amenity space - likely just some sort of tiny area with benches, plants etc - and 186.6 m² of indoor public amenity space.

[taylortbb]

This isn't even a heritage facade -- it's a faux heritage facade. If the render is correct, those are new facades that only vaguely resemble the current ones. (The one on the right looks like Pearl Laundry, but that's not where Pearly Laundry is actually located.)

This drawing makes it a (bit) clearer what's going on. The road widening (road means the entire street here, including sidewalk) takes the land of the end building, making the Pearl Laundry building the new end building along Charles St. So I think they are keeping the facades, just demolishing the end building. It's probably the best part of the proposal, Charles St is too narrow right there and a wider sidewalk is good for the future.

   

[westwardloo]

If I were confident that both these towers would somewhat resemble the renders I would be happy to see two 44 storey towers move forward and add more people to the core, but I have absolutely no faith in this developer, I blame the architects only so much as their continues relationship with the developer, but if they didn't take the money some other architecture firm would and the results would be the same. Unfortunately it seems like this developer was smart enough to buy up a lot of prime real-estate dtk, I just wish they had a little pride in what they produce. The lack of commercial space is incredibly disappointing. They are basically building 1000 units over three buildings with little to no commercial space. I guess there will be a constant flow of delivery trucks from amazon dropping off parcels for all these residents. If this were a 1000 detached home subdivision there would be a large parking lot and power centre required to provide them amenities. Urban format retail works in other large urban centres, but Kitchener doesn't seem to be able/ want to attract these spaces. they would rather make us drive to the boardwalk, along fairway road or sportsworld. It will require a developer willing to take a chance and actually build the space for a tenant. Retail is not going to move into a unit that does not exist.

Also it pisses me off that these two towers will be approved with no issue, but the much nicer designed towers along victoria and park will take years and probably require redesign before approval. I used to be excited about all the development in this region, but it seems like none of the developer cares about the impact they have on our regions built form. I hardly blame NIMBY's anymore, the crap that developers have been able to build in this region makes me more and more on their side. Developers in Mississauga and Vaughn can build a well designed tower/ podium and still manage to make a profit, why can't the regions developers do the same?

[tomh009]

This isn't even a heritage facade -- it's a faux heritage facade. If the render is correct, those are new facades that only vaguely resemble the current ones. (The one on the right looks like Pearl Laundry, but that's not where Pearly Laundry is actually located.)

This drawing makes it a (bit) clearer what's going on. The road widening (road means the entire street here, including sidewalk) takes the land of the end building, making the Pearl Laundry building the new end building along Charles St. So I think they are keeping the facades, just demolishing the end building. It's probably the best part of the proposal, Charles St is too narrow right there and a wider sidewalk is good for the future.

More sidewalk is good.

But the end building is currently about 11m wide. In the above drawing, the edge of the new building is about 6m from the property line. So, the Pearl facade is moving (?) or being "reconstructed" about 5m closer to the corner.

[robdrimmie]

More sidewalk is good.

But the end building is currently about 11m wide. In the above drawing, the edge of the new building is about 6m from the property line. So, the Pearl facade is moving (?) or being "reconstructed" about 5m closer to the corner.

On the diagram above there is a notch that is demarcated by a dotted line labelled with "LEVEL 1-4 PODIUM OUTLINE". I think this accounts for the difference in distance you're referring to here, though I'm really bad at reading these sorts of documents so it's very likely I'm the confused one.

The "EX HERITAGE FACADE" with the "EX LIGHT STANDARD" right in front of it match up pretty well to the front of the Pearl Laundry building