26 Charles St W | 44 fl | Proposed

[Lebronj23]

Application submitted May 11th, 2022 - Proposing a 44 storey multiple dwelling 
Location : 26 Charles St West 
Developer : IN8 Developments
Also submitted by IBI Group, let’s hope they are the architects on file but most likely going to be another SRM

[Votemac]

Club Ren Tower

[Lebronj23]

And here’s #3. Docs are here with a Heritage assessment. Cover letter says 46 storeys for this one

https://pub-kitchener.escribemeetings.co...entId=3741

   

   

[nms]

What makes 44 floors the magic number (eg this tower and 88 Queen St S)? For the last batch of towers, 25 floors generally seemed to be the topping out number. After 44 floors, what's the next common height?

[ac3r]

Cover letter says 46 storeys for this one

Unless something changes, it's 44 as seen in the architectural plans.

[Lebronj23]

Cover letter says 46 storeys for this one

Unless something changes, it's 44 as seen in the architectural plans.

Yah true, maybe the region person wrote it down wrong or counted the two underground. I count 44 on the render as well

[ac3r]

Yah true, maybe the region person wrote it down wrong or counted the two underground. I count 44 on the render as well

Yeah they probably included the two underground. I mean...technically those would count as floors but for most people when they see a building from outside they're just counting the ones from the ground elevation up, which in this case would make it 44. Both plans say "44 + (2 U/G LEVELS)" on the architectural plans.

What makes 44 floors the magic number (eg this tower and 88 Queen St S)?  For the last batch of towers, 25 floors generally seemed to be the topping out number.  After 44 floors, what's the next common height?

It could be something to do with zoning in the City of Kitchener...I'm not 100% sure though as I have only worked on 1 skyscraper project in this region (Victoria and Park) so I don't know the nuances of local zoning enough to say.

Either that, or it's just something IN8 is choosing to do. If it's this, it makes sense because 30 Francis was approved with almost no opposition and that had to go through rezoning unlike these two, so maybe they're just hoping that if these two projects are both 44 floors, then they'll be less likely to face opposition from NIMBYs. I'm too lazy to check the architectural plans again but I believe they are, at the very least, different heights despite the same floor count so they will hopefully not look too same-y if that's the case although the cut and paste design of the tower will probably do no no favours. I suspect these 3 skyscrapers will look like horrific monoliths just like Duke Tower does.

[tomh009]

This is still beyond the height and FSR limits, is it not? And would need council approval?

I'm not thrilled with these, but they are still better in my eyes than DTK, especially when it comes to the podium.

[cherrypark]

This is still beyond the height and FSR limits, is it not? And would need council approval?

I'm not thrilled with these, but they are still better in my eyes than DTK, especially when it comes to the podium.

I have bad news for you about how the DTK podium looked at this stage... hah.

[taylortbb]

This is still beyond the height and FSR limits, is it not? And would need council approval?

I believe they're D-1 zoning, which has no height limit. The FSR limit would be an issue, but if they're taking advantage of the bonusing provisions that are already built in to the zoning then it doesn't have to go to council.

I'm not thrilled with these, but they are still better in my eyes than DTK, especially when it comes to the podium.

If they look like their render I agree, but I remember the early DTK Condos renders looked good, so I remain highly suspicious. Especially given ac3r's comment that someone he knows at SRM expects them to be redesigned before construction. I assume that's re-designed to reduce costs.

[KingandWeber]

This is still beyond the height and FSR limits, is it not? And would need council approval?

I'm not thrilled with these, but they are still better in my eyes than DTK, especially when it comes to the podium.

I'm also interested to know if council approval is needed. If so, I would be willing to write a letter to councilors saying I approve of the project concept, but want them to do everything they can to ensure better design standards are met than DTK. I imagine if even some of this forum wrote similar letters at least some of council might try to take up the issue.

[CP42]

This is still beyond the height and FSR limits, is it not? And would need council approval?

I believe they're D-1 zoning, which has no height limit. The FSR limit would be an issue, but if they're taking advantage of the bonusing provisions that are already built in to the zoning then it doesn't have to go to council.

I'm not thrilled with these, but they are still better in my eyes than DTK, especially when it comes to the podium.

If they look like their render I agree, but I remember the early DTK Condos renders looked good, so I remain highly suspicious. Especially given ac3r's comment that someone he knows at SRM expects them to be redesigned before construction. I assume that's re-designed to reduce costs.

It makes me wonder why even make a good looking render in the first place if it doesn’t even need approval? Is that not just a waste of time and money to redesign it after?

I agree I don’t think these towers look bad in the renders, it’s just whether the end product is of the same quality (likely not).

The queen podium is also a disaster…

[Lebronj23]

Here is a recording of Preliminary heritage meeting for 26 Charles and 88 Queen which includes councils comments

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JERfS1wu65...e=youtu.be

[ac3r]

The moment I saw Debbie Chapman pop up on the screen I thought "ugh". She's got to be the most NIMBY councillor.

[Spokes]

Is she running again?