The Barrel Yards | 25 fl | U/C

[Spokes]

I find the whole complex to be dark, bulky, and uninviting so far, although I've been inside and the apartments are beautiful.  Apart from the hotel, I can't see any reason for non-residents to set foot there, based on what's there so far.

I'd agree with this.  I'm curious what, if anything, will be done to address this.  

Or is it even possible at this point?

[BuildingScout]

I find the whole complex to be dark, bulky, and uninviting so far, although I've been inside and the apartments are beautiful.  Apart from the hotel, I can't see any reason for non-residents to set foot there, based on what's there so far.

I'd agree with this.  I'm curious what, if anything, will be done to address this.  

Or is it even possible at this point?

I'm all for mixed usage, but this doesn't mean every place has to be that way. This development has a hotel and two office towers. Does it really need to have a restaurant at the bottom of each apartment tower to classify as ok? Will we demand that every house from now on should have a room dedicated for nonresident attraction? Or do we hold it to the more reasonable "something interesting not too far away"? 

Because this development certainly more than meets this criterion with their commercial development in site and literally dozens of points of interest (rec complex, PI, CCGG, CIGI, Proof, Sole, Church, Waterloo town shoppes, the atrium, uptown, waterloo park, the westmount mall, the button factory) all within a block and a half distance.

[darts]

I'd agree with this.  I'm curious what, if anything, will be done to address this.  

Or is it even possible at this point?

I'm all for mixed usage, but this doesn't mean every place has to be that way. This development has a hotel and two office towers. Does it really need to have a restaurant at the bottom of each apartment tower to classify as ok? Will we demand that every house from now on should have a room dedicated for nonresident attraction? Or do we hold it to the more reasonable "something interesting not too far away"? 

Because this development certainly more than meets this criterion with their commercial development in site and literally dozens of points of interest (rec complex, PI, CCGG, CIGI, Proof, Sole, Church, Waterloo town shoppes, the atrium, uptown, waterloo park, the westmount mall, the button factory) all within a block and a half distance.

I agree, every location in waterloo doesn't need to be a destination, some palces will just be where people live and the only people who happen to go there will be people who live there. Otherwise we will run into the problem of if you really wanted to get to 2 particular destinations you will need a car because they are fairly far apart or would need 2 bus transfers to get there.

[eizenstriet]

The BarrelYards buildings are impressively tall, but otherwise unremarkable, in my view. One leaden tower might be seen as classy, but a whole constellation of them is tending towards boring.

This need not have been the result of the City selling the whole zone to one developer. With the water table challenges, which required a co-ordinated strategy, this approach may well have incentivized movement forward. However, the one developer has adopted a monoculture design theme which is massively bland. I think of the entire development as The Grey Area. Its major sales pitch is not the architecture, but the park panoramas. Though we provided the park, they provided the tall, so I guess that boast at least is fair.

The same monoculture spectacle manifests in one-developer/builder subdivisions (where it would be good to focus on your house number to make sure you don’t walk into someone else’s place). On the other hand, “organic” growth by different entities or over time tends to be more stimulating in the end, and may even mollify taste resistance. For example, I have never really taken to the brutalist look of the Allen Square office building. But when The Red was built beside it, I thought the two buildings looked interesting together.

I am open to the possibility that the very “sameness” of The BarrelYards, when combined with its undeniable scale, may turn out to be a feature of positive distinction. But it’s not my bet.

[mpd618]

I think having the BarrelYards is good for the city, but the lack of vision by the city and the developer reflects Waterloo's lack of confidence at the time in itself as a place for urban investment. Same as the eagerness to sell out the Iron Horse Trail for the 144 Park / 155 Caroline bland mess, and the townhomes north of it.

I don't know if the city's attitude has changed yet, but I sure hope Waterloo gets the guts to say no to some proposals.

[nms]

Hindsight is everything. Today, the City might have a better chance of seeing 'more appealing' developments that include 'insert design request here.' See Northdale Round 1 construction vs Northdale Round 2 construction. But would the City have been praised if they waited a very long time to have any development here?

[Pheidippides]

I still can't believe people willing pay such high rents to live in the middle of a construction zone with no end date for construction in sight.

[dubya]

I'm all for mixed usage, but this doesn't mean every place has to be that way. This development has a hotel and two office towers. Does it really need to have a restaurant at the bottom of each apartment tower to classify as ok? Will we demand that every house from now on should have a room dedicated for nonresident attraction? Or do we hold it to the more reasonable "something interesting not too far away"? 

Because this development certainly more than meets this criterion with their commercial development in site and literally dozens of points of interest (rec complex, PI, CCGG, CIGI, Proof, Sole, Church, Waterloo town shoppes, the atrium, uptown, waterloo park, the westmount mall, the button factory) all within a block and a half distance.

I agree, every location in waterloo doesn't need to be a destination, some palces will just be where people live and the only people who happen to go there will be people who live there. Otherwise we will run into the problem of if you really wanted to get to 2 particular destinations you will need a car because they are fairly far apart or would need 2 bus transfers to get there.

Every street doesn't need to be a destination but it should animate the streetscape in some way. The issue people are taking with the development is that the interior of the site is not likely to encourage people to stroll and feel engaged in their surroundings doing so, as it should in an urban setting. It will be transient and encourage people to drive through it rather than walk / bike and experience it (never mind the incredibly high parking spot count enforcing just that).

Below are two sets of images, both very similar, high density, fairly urban streets; the first in each case has doors to people's homes fronting onto the sidewalk every few feet, the other does not. One set is from Toronto, the other from Vancouver and none of these blocks have any retail on them. The question you need to ask yourself is which image in which set would you be more likely to walk... after dark... with a kid... as a senior... woman? And even if you aren't all those things, research shows the same influencing factors will play out (perhaps to a lesser degree) if you are a 6 foot 3, 220 pound male. 

Set 1, Toronto:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6606398,...56!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.635922,-7...312!8i6656

Set 2, Vancouver:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.290146,-1...56!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2625942,...56!6m1!1e1

The differences are subtle but even something as small as doors into people's homes makes a huge difference. There are many other things they can do without that like install lots of benches, greenery, things of visual interest, play areas, narrow the streets, etc. so I'll hold back opinion for now on how this will actually turn out as they have done some good and some bad here.

Good:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4649749,...56!6m1!1e1

Bad:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4643134,...56!6m1!1e1

[curiouschair]

Here is a picture from today. Doesn't seem to be too much activity on the site.
   

[tomh009]

What's the completion level on the different towers?

[Spokes]

Im guessing a lot of interior work at this point. Hard to see that happening

[tomh009]

So no significant exterior construction at this point?

[Cmb]

No. They topped out on the mirror towers for The Cooperage and Onyx - Onyx Tower 2 is further along (has most glazing and balconies done)

Cooperage Tower 2 is progressing SLOWLY. I see maybe 10 panes of glass go in each week. The Onyx rents for more than Cooperage, so they are likely prioritizing Onyx Tower 2.

The Onyx is also getting an above ground patio and pool this summer, so there has been a fair bit of work on that.

The Live/Work units on FDB are also being finished up.

[tomh009]

Thanks. Sounds like they'll be working on finishing the buildings until well into 2017. Cooperage and Onyx are fully open for occupancy, though, right?

[Cmb]

Correct, both the Cooperage and Onyx first towers are fully open for occupancy. The second towers of each will be next, and then supposedly they are doing a 10 story residential next. Not sure of the status of the two office towers and second hotel. The Townhouse will be last.