Posts: 720
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
92
10-05-2015, 08:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015, 09:09 PM by Lens.)
Vogue Residences
Address: 151-161 King St. N.
Developer: Vogue Residences Inc.
Architect:
"26-storey 21-storey apartment building with ground-floor commercial space"
Current render:
Original render from 2015:
Posts: 1,935
Threads: 102
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
18
Would this be the tallest building in Waterloo Region?
Posts: 1,095
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
58
(10-05-2015, 08:58 PM)Lens Wrote:
Oh wow, I love this. This is incredible.
Posts: 213
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
6
is that a heritage building?
Posts: 1,521
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
123
(10-05-2015, 09:41 PM)Smore Wrote: is that a heritage building?
The planning report says it's not protected and doesn't meet criteria for protection, but it's locally unique so the builder is doing it voluntarily. Presumably to get out in front of the heritage argument with a good compromise (they're only preserving the facade).
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
10-05-2015, 09:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015, 09:59 PM by BuildingScout.)
(10-05-2015, 09:41 PM)Smore Wrote: is that a heritage building?
No. It's just an old building from the late XIX century.
Quote:Presumably to get out in front of the heritage argument with a good compromise (they're only preserving the facade).
...and the cynic in me says that the facade will be found to be irreparably damaged during construction and sadly it couldn't be saved.
Posts: 395
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
9
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
298
Condominiums, it looks like?
Posts: 4,913
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
119
(10-05-2015, 09:28 PM)GtwoK Wrote: (10-05-2015, 08:58 PM)Lens Wrote:
Oh wow, I love this. This is incredible.
Very nice indeed. I've seen this type of thing done very effectively elsewhere, but I don't believe here yet. Nice to see developers getting creative!
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
I think they were taking comments on this yesterday. I wonder if local opposition materialized, along lines I'd heard circulating, suggesting that it would cast too much shadow on the school, making it dangerous, and create unacceptable traffic, endangering the children.
Posts: 23
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
(10-05-2015, 09:28 PM)rangersfan Wrote: Would this be the tallest building in Waterloo Region?
If Wikipedia is accurate, then yes, this would be the tallest building in the region.
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
10-06-2015, 10:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2015, 10:47 AM by Markster.)
(10-05-2015, 09:45 PM)taylortbb Wrote: (10-05-2015, 09:41 PM)Smore Wrote: is that a heritage building?
The planning report says it's not protected and doesn't meet criteria for protection, but it's locally unique so the builder is doing it voluntarily. Presumably to get out in front of the heritage argument with a good compromise (they're only preserving the facade).
The actual text:
"The retention of the original break-front façade of this house is being proposed as a voluntary effort to preserve and highlight the heritage of the City of Waterloo. The original building has been listed on the City‘s Heritage Registry as a property of interest, but it is not formally designated under the Heritage Act as a property of cultural heritage value. A detailed analysis is available in the Heritage Impact Assessment."
(10-06-2015, 09:59 AM)firex Wrote: (10-05-2015, 09:28 PM)rangersfan Wrote: Would this be the tallest building in Waterloo Region?
If Wikipedia is accurate, then yes, this would be the tallest building in the region.
The Urban Design Brief claims the height will be 83m.
That will top the SunLife tower, which is 78m. (according to that wikipedia page)
One Columbia however, being on a hill, will continue to look like the tallest building in Waterloo, when observed from a distance.
Posts: 1,312
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
40
(10-06-2015, 08:55 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I think they were taking comments on this yesterday. I wonder if local opposition materialized, along lines I'd heard circulating, suggesting that it would cast too much shadow on the school, making it dangerous, and create unacceptable traffic, endangering the children.
The shadows probably won't be cast on the school at all since this building lies almost directly north of the school. K2 probably casts more shadow on the schoolyard in the morning but I imagine they've already done a shadow study with computer models.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
I agree with you, I'm just bringing up that it was circulated to local residents to perhaps oppose the tower based on shadows.
Posts: 262
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
22
My god! It ate the house!
Seriously, that looks bizarre to me.
|