Eureka (534 Charles St E) | 32, 27, 15 fl | U/C

[ac3r]

I guess I don't get many chances to talk to architects...

In your opinion, what structural changes are needed to incentivize beauty? Does this come from clients who don't care, or overworked/uninspired firms cranking out projects as soon as possible?

If we want beautiful buildings again, do we need to have robber barons to pay for it like a century ago or is there a way to incentivize it on a bigger scale?

The problem really starts with the developers. In almost all cases a developer is in the business of developing a property to make a profit. The bar thus ends up pretty low in terms of what they will find acceptable for a building project based on what they're willing to spend upfront. "Good enough" is the ethos. If it isn't obscenely bad then it's good enough. Since they have a very low bar to pass, they don't go out hiring expensive firms. Why hire Bjarke Ingels Group or Cyril Chênebeau Architecte when people are going to pay you enough money to turn a profit to live in an ugly building either way?

Of course the architects get the blame too. I have forgotten who has (re)designed this building, so let's just take SRM for example since everyone here knows they're not good. They obviously have a lack of talent there whether it's low level B.Arch's working in the tech or design department or the project managers who oversee projects. But it isn't all the staff. I know one person who once worked for them in the past and, naturally, absolutely hated it. She had some decent talent herself and has been involved in the design of other projects in the region for other firms and most people like those buildings. But as she would often explain, while at SRM she was stuck working within the confines of what SRM wanted and more so what the developer wanted (the latter of which was usually most problematic, forcing the architects to change design plans to save money on materials and so on).

As for how you fix that, I don't know. It's tricky. Obviously, you need your city to have a culture that expects this stuff from the get-go. Berlin, Toronto, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City etc have wonderful urban spaces and while they definitely have objectively bad buildings, the cities are important enough to have a culture where developers, architects, residents etc expect their built environment to look nice and so it tends to evolve in ways that allow it to be as such. Waterloo Region kind of lacks this unfortunately (though it didn't always because look at how deep of an impact Lingwood had on the urban fabric of this region).

Design Review Panels like the one in Toronto and other cities are also extremely important. They don't guarantee every building is going to look spectacular, but they nonetheless have an impact on what gets approved. Waterloo Region really could use this though getting one set up is a lot of work. We'd need a dedicated team of engineers, architects, designers, artists etc to be willing to form such a thing...and a region/city council willing to listen to their input.

Another option is for everyday people to get involved. That's obviously asking a lot out of people, but it's an important thing to do. By attending public meetings or writing council the developer, the architects etc regarding the project they get more input. If enough people said to HIP "hey guys your Gaslight project is absolutely hideous, we demand better because this is going to be a permanent part of our everyday urban experience for the rest of our lives" then maybe they would have not cut corners and designed such a horrific podium. That's why it looks so bad, btw! The design team on that had great ideas initially, but HIP was like "lol no those materials cost too much, use prefab plz" and we ended up with that disgusting mess we see today and will be around for at the very least a century.

At the end of the day though...it's like what Wu-Tang Clan said: cash rules everything around me. It's perpetual fight between the harsh truth that money reigns supreme versus the reality that there are also deeper things in life including having a built environment that people feel good in and appreciate, whether that means nice neighbourhoods and buildings we call home or workspaces, or things like the necessity for good parks/gardens or safe streets at the expense of using every bit of land for development or endless roads.

[ZEBuilder]

This is in the planning committee meeting tonight and it did pass. But by listening to the meeting it really shows the differing views of the many people on council. Other than the normal complaints from Chapman (particularly about the HIA), Councillor Clancy was talking about how all the buildings going between Weber and King are all too tall and that we should look at every building along there such as 1668 King, Weber/Montgomery and this one and see how they all affect the surronding neighborhoods instead of a case by case basis. (Even though it is within the Rockway PARTS plan). Then Councillor Schneider proceeded to really support this after Councillor Clancy opposed it. So there is definitely a really big divide on council when it comes to this.

Link to the Meeting:
Council Meeting 1001 King St E
It starts at 1 hour and 55 minutes

[ac3r]

Just dropping full sized renders of the updated building design. The architecture is certaily interesting...it reminds me of the sort of designs you see in England or Netherlands.

Whether or not this even gets built is up in the air. Like most recent Vive projects, they never seem to actually do them even though they get them approved. Also, the heights are confusing. The architectural plans say 11 and 30 floors. The City of Kitchener site plan application document says 11 and 29 floors. I guess we'll see...should it ever get built.

[westwardloo]

Not going to win any design rewards that is for sure. I don't hate it, pretty bland design, but that is pretty typical of Vive. I do wish the staggered balconies were larger, those balconies are basically useless.  

I have concerns that the garage podium will get a similar treatment to DTK and gaslight. They will just end up using the stubbes precast grey, white and black panels to make a "Design".

Is there any retail space being provided?

[ZEBuilder]

Not going to win any design rewards that is for sure. I don't hate it, pretty bland design, but that is pretty typical of Vive. I do wish the staggered balconies were larger, those balconies are basically useless.  

I have concerns that the garage podium will get a similar treatment to DTK and gaslight. They will just end up using the stubbes precast grey, white and black panels to make a "Design".

Is there any retail space being provided?

In the most recent plans there's two fairly large retail units fronting King, one on either side of the parking garage entrance.

[Square]

Also wondering which projects will start in 2024. This is a continuation of my last post in the 88 Queen Street thread. On one of the council meetings I heard VIVE say they usually start construction 1 year after getting approved. So this project should start in April 2024. Now I think about it, didn't the project at 926 KIng and Dane street get approved like 3 or more years ago? Edit: OLT gave the green light on January 12, 2022, so will be 2 years now with nothing going on. So Litt is fibbing, Lol

[ac3r]

Unsure when this may start, but you're correct that they've had a few projects approved that have thus far gone nowhere. 926 King is a good example, which is a shame because the architecture is unique. Then there's also the project where the Schwaben Club currently is. That was approved but has turned into basically a free for all drug injection site and shelter...right next to a school full of children lol. Yet they do have projects that have been rapidly started and/or completed, so hopefully they can get this going along with their other projects.

[ZEBuilder]

Also wondering which projects will start in 2024.  This is a continuation of my last post in the 88 Queen Street thread.  On one of the council meetings I heard VIVE say they usually start construction 1 year after getting approved.  So this project should start in April 2024.  Now I think about it, didn't the project at 926 KIng and Dane street get approved like 3 or more years ago? Edit: OLT gave the green light on January 12, 2022, so will be 2 years now with nothing going on.  So Litt is fibbing, Lol

Vive is currently working on their project at 3241 King St E as well as finishing work at the Victoria/Margaret project, the 3241 King site is by far their largest project to date, it's their first highrise project. At the 3241 site they've recently started installing precast so realistically it will be topped out next year and onto interior finishings.

The 926 King St E site has been stuck in the permitting process for months now, generally that means the city has an issue with some portion of the plans. A few months ago a permit showed up for the foundation/shoring/site servicing so there is progress albeit slowly.

Then the only other project that shows signs of life from Vive is this one with the site plan being submitted (the city has 120 days to approve it), then it's onto permits.

Even in terms of other projects there really isn't much expected to start next year, the only real hope in terms of condos are Q Condos and Station Park D if they manage to sell enough. In terms of rentals we might see some of the Vive projects start to move or maybe Auburn might start working on The Metz. Then there's whatever IN8 is doing with 88 Queen, they have applied for permits but haven't started sales which is very odd from them. Other than those projects unless something drastically changes in the economy 2024 will be a very slow year in terms of construction starts, 2025/2026 is definitely looking like the next major wave of construction starts for Kitchener though.

[Spokes]

To answer your question from your other thread, I think we're in for a boring 2024 when it comes to new projects

[ZEBuilder]

Demolition permits have been applied for each property on the site. The earliest demo can occur at the Onward building is late May. The height has now been dropped to 29 floors instead of 30 as per the HIA that is submitted for the Onward building. Within the HIA there are a few new renders of the podium and overall site, compared to the most recent renders (page 5 in this thread) there are some major changes, there is no longer a massive painted concrete wall on the Ottawa side it's now full of windows in the render, the King St facade also has some attempt to recreate the existing art deco tower, it's called a art deco mural in the HIA and the tower is interesting to say the least.

HIA 1001 King

Render (Ottawa/King)
   

Render (King Facade)
   

[westwardloo]

Oh no. I just defended Vive on another thread. What have they done. Why are developers insistent on changing the design of their towers for the last 5-10 floors?  This would be a fine proposal if the white with random balconies all the way up.

[ibuildstuff]

Oh no. I just defended Vive on another thread. What have they done. Why are developers insistent on changing the design of their towers for the last 5-10 floors?  This would be a fine proposal if the white with random balconies all the way up.

This is the work of the city staff that have job titles "Urban Designers" that keep forcing these terrible elevation designs on every developer in order to get site plan approvals.

[panamaniac]

Why would they consider slapping a multi-storey grey box onto the top of the tower. It's so unsightly.

[ac3r]

Was the last design not ugly enough or what?

I might need to start working pro bono for local architecture companies because good god everything just seems to get worse and worse. They aren't even trying anymore.

[bravado]

This is a true abomination. Are architects really that beholden to the people paying the bills? Why consult an "expert" if this is what experts give you? If you're an expert, surely part of being one is to be able to push back on awful decisions by the customer...