Duke Tower Kitchener | 39 fl | completed

[cherrypark]

Yeah the tower turned out alright, at least for what it was. Podium is just a complete tire fire; the only reason that awful spandrel mess on the Duke side isn't as notable is this hulking parking garage.

[jeffster]

I really don't think DTK is bad. I am upset that it doesn't look like the original renders, but overall, it looks nice, IMHO.

Though it does look like typical Toronto condo, maybe that's why people are upset.

[kwlifer]

I really don't think DTK is bad. I am upset that it doesn't look like the original renders, but overall, it looks nice, IMHO.

Though it does look like typical Toronto condo, maybe that's why people are upset.

I agree, not sure why all the fuss?! It looks fine by me, it's not that bad (do agree bottom podium part doesn't look great and probably look much worse as the building ages), I'm just tickled pink that we finally have a tall building, I didn't think I'd ever see the day.  I guess my standards are low, lol, i just want to see tall buildings in the city.

[ac3r]

I don't know what kind of standards you guys have if you think this looks good or on par with buildings you'd find in Toronto. Good architecture looks like the work by Hariri Pontarini, KPMB or BDP Quadrangle. This is just wack...SRM sucks hard. Even their employees hate their work. I mean, just look at the entire profile, it's trash. Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

[Bjays93]

I don't know what kind of standards you guys have if you think this looks good or on par with buildings you'd find in Toronto. Good architecture looks like the work by Hariri Pontarini, KPMB or BDP Quadrangle. This is just wack...SRM sucks hard. Even their employees hate their work. I mean, just look at the entire profile, it's trash. Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

To add to this, this isn't even on par with Toronto infill developments. Even some of the worst projects in toronto like Daniel's waterfront at least have decent podiums, and buildings that have horrible podiums like YC condos and Aura a still decent towers. There is next to nothing about this building that is good. Charlie West is passable at best, Garment St condo's are like Toronto suburbia towers. The only condos in the city right now that are about the quality of what you would expect in Toronto, is station park. 

Even then station park would be inoffensive infill at best. A development that isnt hated but certainly would not garner much praise either. Not to mention toronto is hardly known for it's striking architecture. I get were a mid tier city in Ontario, we're not going to attract world renowned architects and developers, but we have a world class university and a massive google office, BlackBerry headquarters, and a huge tech startup industry. Demanding Toronto quality skyscrapers is the least we can do.

[ac3r]

For what it's worth, we do have some decent architecture here. Patkau did the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery, the John M. Harper Branch of WPL and Perimeter Institute by Saucier+Perrotte and Teeple (I was happy to have worked with them heh), CIGI by Barton Myers Associates and a number of great small projects scattered around Cambridge. But when it comes to towers, we have some real bad work. I think the issue is that most of the work is done by local firms and no offence to them, but they're fairly substandard. Our best has probably been by Edge or MartinSimmons (if you forget about the Gaslight District at least). As more projects get built, I think we'll see more out of town developers/architects work on things here, such as Station Park.

[tomh009]

I don't know what kind of standards you guys have if you think this looks good or on par with buildings you'd find in Toronto. Good architecture looks like the work by Hariri Pontarini, KPMB or BDP Quadrangle. This is just wack...SRM sucks hard. Even their employees hate their work. I mean, just look at the entire profile, it's trash. Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

Maybe 20 years from now, the condo corporation will decide to paint the podium all one colour or something. One can hope.

The actual skyline is less bad. Not a pretty building but the tower is not nearly as bad as the podium.

[ac3r]

Re: the façade on this pile of crap, this clip from the illustrious German architectural publication house ARCH+ illustrates why a good façade is important. There is more to a building than just the structure itself. There are serious political, social, economic, aesthetic and relational issues with them and the uglier the building, the less people want to live in it. It's no wonder why things like Khrushchoba or public housing failed in the last century - they're ugly, inhumane: https://vod-progressive.akamaized.net/ex...nifest.mp4

Assuming you can read German, I'd suggest reading the latest ARCH+ edition (paywalled, regrettably) or the publication in general if you're into architecture on a serious, theoretical level. This stuff goes deeper than "cool we have some tall buildings here", which is why it irks me so much to see our region progressing in such ways. These things are ugly and should worry people.

[nms]

Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

I agree. Out of curiosity, what's the shelf life of a building façade for a building built in the last 50 years? The Mutual Life/Clarica/Sunlife tower (1987?) had its exterior updated in the last few years and it is barely 30 years old. First Canadian Place (1975) was reclad between 2009-2012.

When a building is entirely owned by one landlord, is it more likely to have an ambitious outside renovation? (or for that matter a complete top to bottom, inside and out renovation; or ultimately demolition and rebuild?) I can't imagine how any condominium tower can ever have a major type of, back to the beams, renovation that some post-Second World War buildings need from time-to-time.

[ijmorlan]

I can't imagine how any condominium tower can ever have a major type of, back to the beams, renovation that some post-Second World War buildings need from time-to-time.

That’s easy. If the owners of 80% of the units vote to terminate the condominium and sell, the entire building can be sold. A few changes to a condominium require 90% approval, including if I recall correctly adjusting the proportions of the common expenses due from each unit, but terminating only requires 80%. So the Condominium Act is designed to avoid problems with holdouts.

[tomh009]

I can't imagine how any condominium tower can ever have a major type of, back to the beams, renovation that some post-Second World War buildings need from time-to-time.

That’s easy. If the owners of 80% of the units vote to terminate the condominium and sell, the entire building can be sold. A few changes to a condominium require 90% approval, including if I recall correctly adjusting the proportions of the common expenses due from each unit, but terminating only requires 80%. So the Condominium Act is designed to avoid problems with holdouts.

However, 80% of all units is really, really hard to get. There would need to be either a super good offer on the table, or massive issues with the building, to get 80% of all owners to agree.

Major renovations can be done without that level of agreement. Not down to the steel beams, but then that level of renovation really isn't all that common.

[ijmorlan]

That’s easy. If the owners of 80% of the units vote to terminate the condominium and sell, the entire building can be sold. A few changes to a condominium require 90% approval, including if I recall correctly adjusting the proportions of the common expenses due from each unit, but terminating only requires 80%. So the Condominium Act is designed to avoid problems with holdouts.

However, 80% of all units is really, really hard to get. There would need to be either a super good offer on the table, or massive issues with the building, to get 80% of all owners to agree.

Major renovations can be done without that level of agreement. Not down to the steel beams, but then that level of renovation really isn't all that common.

I think the kind of renovation I’m imagining that involves the whole building is the kind that would have no trouble attracting 80% support. I imagine the Board presenting a repair costing (with massive special assessments) as an alternative to a buyout, and convincing enough hesitant people that it’s time to move on. That’s not to say that a problematic situation is impossible, but you can’t have 1 or 2 unit owners in a building with hundreds of units holding up needed renewal.

[jeffster]

Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

I agree. Out of curiosity, what's the shelf life of a building façade for a building built in the last 50 years? The Mutual Life/Clarica/Sunlife tower (1987?) had its exterior updated in the last few years and it is barely 30 years old. First Canadian Place (1975) was reclad between 2009-2012.

When a building is entirely owned by one landlord, is it more likely to have an ambitious outside renovation? (or for that matter a complete top to bottom, inside and out renovation; or ultimately demolition and rebuild?) I can't imagine how any condominium tower can ever have a major type of, back to the beams, renovation that some post-Second World War buildings need from time-to-time.

That's going to depend a lot on what the condominium board and their members want. I have seen condos facade redone (though it only need painting). Example is those two smaller towers on Highland across from Shoppers drug mart - one is landlord, one is a condo. The condo got its paint first, eventually when the rental unit got paint, they painted it black.

Also applied to townhomes, many upgrades will be done if all the owners agree to surcharges on their condo fees.

As for the work involved, I suppose if it is more complicated, like the newer condos will be, I'd imagine a team would come in and work one or two units at a time, to minimize time spent so people still have privacy when night falls.

[tomh009]

However, 80% of all units is really, really hard to get. There would need to be either a super good offer on the table, or massive issues with the building, to get 80% of all owners to agree.

Major renovations can be done without that level of agreement. Not down to the steel beams, but then that level of renovation really isn't all that common.

I think the kind of renovation I’m imagining that involves the whole building is the kind that would have no trouble attracting 80% support. I imagine the Board presenting a repair costing (with massive special assessments) as an alternative to a buyout, and convincing enough hesitant people that it’s time to move on. That’s not to say that a problematic situation is impossible, but you can’t have 1 or 2 unit owners in a building with hundreds of units holding up needed renewal.

I do think those kinds of massive special assessments will be much more rare (at least in Ontario) now that all condo corporations must do reserve fund studies and maintain their reserves.

[skyrise32]

I don't know what kind of standards you guys have if you think this looks good or on par with buildings you'd find in Toronto. Good architecture looks like the work by Hariri Pontarini, KPMB or BDP Quadrangle. This is just wack...SRM sucks hard. Even their employees hate their work. I mean, just look at the entire profile, it's trash. Now we've got a 39 floor skyscraper that'll be a blight on the skyline for probably the next century or so.

To add to this, this isn't even on par with Toronto infill developments. Even some of the worst projects in toronto like Daniel's waterfront at least have decent podiums, and buildings that have horrible podiums like YC condos and Aura a still decent towers. There is next to nothing about this building that is good. Charlie West is passable at best, Garment St condo's are like Toronto suburbia towers. The only condos in the city right now that are about the quality of what you would expect in Toronto, is station park. 

Even then station park would be inoffensive infill at best. A development that isnt hated but certainly would not garner much praise either. Not to mention toronto is hardly known for it's striking architecture. I get were a mid tier city in Ontario, we're not going to attract world renowned architects and developers, but we have a world class university and a massive google office, BlackBerry headquarters, and a huge tech startup industry. Demanding Toronto quality skyscrapers is the least we can do.

The interior also shows, more to homeowners only but walk through Charlie west vs any condo in toronto and its a huge difference. Finishing, design, amenity spaces etc.