203-207 King St S | 30 fl | Proposed

[ac3r]

Yeah. I give this like...a 2 out of 10 but at least they're trying given the limitations. I would assume the developer wanted to maximize units, resulting in yet another rectangular slab, so this at least gave the architects a way to make it more visually interesting.

[Spokes]

I'm curious from your professional perspective, what things stand out as being that bad? (not saying I love it, but I'm curious to hear your opinion)

[ac3r]

I'm curious from your professional perspective, what things stand out as being that bad?  (not saying I love it, but I'm curious to hear your opinion)

For me it's honestly just the massing of the building I dislike. These rectangular shaped buildings just become these giant, impenetrable walls that are forever going to be part of the urban environment for the next century. They don't look good from the ground or from afar.

The design itself is...not something I would have done myself. Personally - whilst I really dislike designing towers these days - I always opt for something simple as a homage to modernism: this would be an example (secondary view) of what I'd design. That said, this tower design isn't objectively bad. It's certainly visually unique compared to most other proposals or existing towers in the region. It's colourful (in a tasteful way, unlike many student buildings) and has visual dynamism to the façade which should help it appear interesting to people.

If I was the architect and could boss the developer around I would have made it skinnier by cutting out one of the columns of balconies, adding 10 more floors and maybe some plants/small trees that can be grown on the side of the building. Or if extra height is not possible, simply sacrifice a few units and just put two towers on the podium. One at 26 floors and one at, say, 16. A good looking building ought to take precedence over how much value the building has to earn the developers. But alas...

Sadly since this is is proposed for Waterloo that would never happen both due to the height limit and due to developers usually caring about profit and space utilization. So even though the tower isn't terrible, it's still going to be this giant wall that blocks the sky and makes the design of the building feel overwhelming and repetitious due to that wall.

[Lebronj23]

Waterloo’s 25 storey limit is the max height zoning. A developer can opt for a ZBA to go above that height but it’s a much more lengthy and expensive process and they can probably sense it’s a tough sell to council, hence why we get all rectangles at 25 floors

[taylortbb]

Waterloo’s 25 storey limit is the max height zoning. A developer can opt for a ZBA to go above that height but it’s a much more lengthy and expensive process and they can probably sense it’s a tough sell to council, hence why we get all rectangles at 25 floors

I think it goes beyond "lengthy and expensive", the city tells developers that their ZBA will never be passed by council and that they prefer the 25fl slab towers. I strongly suspect the 26 floors in this proposal is just so that they have a ready-to-go concession they never really intended to build.

[Spokes]

Thanks for sharing your insights!

[Lebronj23]

“Neighbours tell Waterloo Council to reject two Downtown high rises”

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...oreys.html

[ac3r]

Surprise surprise haha. Not like there are 4 or 5 other towers right beside this... Funny how the complaints live in one too. Might as well just be honest and say "I am going to lose the view I paid for".

[taylortbb]

“Neighbours tell Waterloo Council to reject two Downtown high rises”

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...oreys.html

Of course it's John Shortreed. He was also a key member of T4ST, the anti-LRT (and generally anti-transit) group. He was a pretty pro-transit planning professor at one time, but seems to have decided to spend his retirement opposing the development of the city.

[Spokes]

I forgot about him 🙄

[ijmorlan]

“Neighbours tell Waterloo Council to reject two Downtown high rises”

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...oreys.html

Of course it's John Shortreed. He was also a key member of T4ST, the anti-LRT (and generally anti-transit) group. He was a pretty pro-transit planning professor at one time, but seems to have decided to spend his retirement opposing the development of the city.

Ah, yes, Taxpayers “4” Shitty Transit. I haven’t thought about them in some time.

Essentially, he got upset when the success of his Transitway in Ottawa (not literally his, of course, but I understand he played a major role in its construction) led to it being replaced by LRT. Somebody needs to tell him that the replacement is not a repudiation of his life’s work but the fulfillment of it.

[taylortbb]

Neighbours oppose 30-storey tower near Waterloo’s downtown, citing height, density, shadows and ‘quality of life’

https://archive.ph/dZxKw

WATERLOO — City planners have endorsed a 30-storey residential tower that exceeds height limits by five storeys and has 216 more bedrooms than currently allowed.

The tower is proposed on John Street between King and Caroline streets, beside a number of other highrises that are built or planned near Waterloo’s downtown. The Allen Street rail transit station is adjacent.

[Chris]

My favourite objection “a building of this height would also obscure the views of the beautiful adjacent neighbourhood.”

Oh no, this tower blocks our view of all the other towers in this intersection....

[Lebronj23]

I think we have a thread for this one

https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...p?tid=1723

Funny how it’s such a big deal in Waterloo to go above the 25 storey mark. At least the planners support it

[danbrotherston]

Lol...Guys, I think I got bingo...

NIMBYs are just throwing everything at the wall...it's so tiresome.

I have zero respect for people who won't at least be honest with their objections.

"I don't want more people living near me and don't particularly care about the housing crisis."

Rather than, "I'm going to pretend that the building will make wind blow the furniture off my balcony." Like, I'm sure maybe these people have convinced themselves this is a real risk, but they have every opportunity to know it's bullshit. This is not the first tower, nor tower adjacent to a tower...this isn't rocket science.

The councillor's comments are a bit...weak too, just once I'd like politicians to take to task NIMBYs a little bit. Like instead of lending credibility to the incredible claim that this building will "completely disrupt" people's lives, she could say something like "this building will change the landscape and cause minor disruptions during construction, and of some people's view, but we're a growing city and in the grand scheme, these changes are minor."

And that's to say nothing of the fact that at least some of people who complained apparently LIVE IN NEIGHBOURING HIGHRISES that were themselves demonized by people when they were built.

*sigh*...

Whatever...