General Business Updates and News

[plam]

Unfortunately I do not see this as a good sign for keeping the Record mostly local.  I wish more people would support local media, but I think it is inevitable that the record will have a few local "reporters" and the rest of the work will be done from the toronto office. This is what CTV Kitchener does. Most of the news is run through the toronto office with a couple of staff located locally. It is too bad everything has become so consolidated and centralized, if feels less personal when I know it is produced by toronto. I enjoy reading the record and feel like they are part of this regions identity...

Sigh, capitalism. There are a couple of small-town US newspapers that have been started outside this whole hedge fund megaconsolidation ownership thing, which I think has been really harmful in many areas including this one.

[tomh009]

Unfortunately I do not see this as a good sign for keeping the Record mostly local.  I wish more people would support local media, but I think it is inevitable that the record will have a few local "reporters" and the rest of the work will be done from the toronto office. This is what CTV Kitchener does. Most of the news is run through the toronto office with a couple of staff located locally. It is too bad everything has become so consolidated and centralized, if feels less personal when I know it is produced by toronto. I enjoy reading the record and feel like they are part of this regions identity...

Sigh, capitalism. There are a couple of small-town US newspapers that have been started outside this whole hedge fund megaconsolidation ownership thing, which I think has been really harmful in many areas including this one.

Yes ... but it's really difficult when so many people are unwilling to pay for a subscription, whether paper or electronic. Advertising can't carry the newspaper business any more.

[danbrotherston]

Sigh, capitalism. There are a couple of small-town US newspapers that have been started outside this whole hedge fund megaconsolidation ownership thing, which I think has been really harmful in many areas including this one.

Yes ... but it's really difficult when so many people are unwilling to pay for a subscription, whether paper or electronic. Advertising can't carry the newspaper business any more.

Difficult yes, but they need to come up with a better business model.

The problem is fundamentally that I have access to a huge number of sources information now. They need a way that I can pay either everything with one subscription, or pay per article.

There were a few glorious years when Netflix and others had almost achieved it for TV and Movies, but now everyone is doing their own streaming service and I'm no longer interested.

[ac3r]

Ah, but Conestoga College just moved in...

I am sure a phased redevelopment could be implemented. First demolition the record office space and the dead mall. Then build multi-use towers where the record building is. Conestoga college can move into the podium of one of the new buildings then demolish the parking structure and where the college is located and redevelop with mixed use buildings. Connect market lane with goudies lane and possibly a new road between scott and frederick. Maybe even include an urban square/park at the corner of king and frederick where the mall is in memory of the old city hall that once stood there.  Pure fantasy I know, just trying to think how this news could be positive for the region and the downtown.

No thanks. Market Square is one of John Lingwood's largest and most iconic modernist architectural works. I would hate to see it demolished just to build a couple generic office towers. That building and its neighbouring office tower have been an iconic part of downtown Kitchener for decades both visually (it was like our very own Frank Lloyd Wright. The clocktower was added to pay homage to the clocktower of the former city hall and the new Frederick Station was designed to mimic the green glass Lingwood used across his project) and also in terms of its function as a market and mall. You tear it down and it's gone...forever. You don't get that original architecture back, which we unfortunately witnessed when they painted the accompanying office tower Soviet Grey.

This complex has a very interesting history as well and it helped shape - for better or for worse - downtown Kitchener as we know it today. Here is a great essay on the building and our "adventure with modernity", aptly describing it in the opening paragraph as a ruin, but which we have witnessed become college campus and for a long time housed our local paper. It's definitely worth a read for some insight not only into the building itself, but the failures in our urban planning at the time: http://numerocinqmagazine.com/2011/11/22...-storring/

[Spokes]

Major blow to market square.

Someone suggested a phased redevelopment. Does anyone now if something like that would even be possible given the structure of the building?

[westwardloo]

I am sure a phased redevelopment could be implemented. First demolition the record office space and the dead mall. Then build multi-use towers where the record building is. Conestoga college can move into the podium of one of the new buildings then demolish the parking structure and where the college is located and redevelop with mixed use buildings. Connect market lane with goudies lane and possibly a new road between scott and frederick. Maybe even include an urban square/park at the corner of king and frederick where the mall is in memory of the old city hall that once stood there.  Pure fantasy I know, just trying to think how this news could be positive for the region and the downtown.

No thanks. Market Square is one of John Lingwood's largest and most iconic modernist architectural works. I would hate to see it demolished just to build a couple generic office towers. That building and its neighbouring office tower have been an iconic part of downtown Kitchener for decades both visually (it was like our very own Frank Lloyd Wright. The clocktower was added to pay homage to the clocktower of the former city hall and the new Frederick Station was designed to mimic the green glass Lingwood used across his project) and also in terms of its function as a market and mall. You tear it down and it's gone...forever. You don't get that original architecture back, which we unfortunately witnessed when they painted the accompanying office tower Soviet Grey.

This complex has a very interesting history as well and it helped shape - for better or for worse - downtown Kitchener as we know it today. Here is a great essay on the building and our "adventure with modernity", aptly describing it in the opening paragraph as a ruin, but which we have witnessed become college campus and for a long time housed our local paper. It's definitely worth a read for some insight not only into the building itself, but the failures in our urban planning at the time: http://numerocinqmagazine.com/2011/11/22...-storring/

To each there own, I will have to disagree on with you on this one. There are countless other John Lingwood structures across the region that can be preserved to celebrate his work. Market square should not be one of them.  It is a complete failure of a urban built form. It represents the destruction of Kitchener city hall and the original market.  It is a mass of red brick and green glass that interacts poorly at all three streets it interacts with. It is easily my least favorite part of king to walk down. In my opinion It will never be a viable retail space again and it takes up one of the largest city blocks in downtown Kitchener. If the clocktower was enough to pay homage to the old city hall, then the new Fredrick Station mimic the green glass that is enough to pay homage to this building.  

It helped shape downtown into what it is today, but represents a complete failure in urban revitalization. Time to tear this building down and let somethin new help shape the future of DTK.

[ijmorlan]

To each there own, I will have to disagree on with you on this one. There are countless other John Lingwood structures across the region that can be preserved to celebrate his work. Market square should not be one of them.  It is a complete failure of a urban built form. It represents the destruction of Kitchener city hall and the original market.  It is a mass of red brick and green glass that interacts poorly at all three streets it interacts with. It is easily my least favorite part of king to walk down. In my opinion It will never be a viable retail space again and it takes up one of the largest city blocks in downtown Kitchener. If the clocktower was enough to pay homage to the old city hall, then the new Fredrick Station mimic the green glass that is enough to pay homage to this building.  

It helped shape downtown into what it is today, but represents a complete failure in urban revitalization. Time to tear this building down and let somethin new help shape the future of DTK.

I’m sort of lukewarm on this building. I’m not as opposed as some, but I also don’t think it’s a great building.

I want to suggest that the bolded statement above is not a good reason to demolish it, however. Would you ever say something like that about a building you liked? If it’s good enough to keep, it’s still good enough even though it replaced a better (let’s assume; although I’m inclined to agree) building in the old City Hall. And if it’s bad enough to demolish, it would still be bad enough even if it replaced an open cesspit.

As you probably know, I really like protected pedestrian spaces. That being said, I also like being able to walk along outdoors if I want. So for this building I would like to see actual engagement along the street; as usual I suggest continuous porticos all the way along King and Frederick would help a lot. These give a large fraction of what I like about fully indoor walkways without introducing a big divide between the continuous sidewalk along the entire street and what is inside this particular building.

Additional note, I don’t believe one can even enter the mall area from the other corners besides King and Frederick, which means the building doesn’t even provide what I like about indoor pedestrian spaces: the option to traverse a block by walking through a building rather than along the street. If I had built that building more or less as it is (ignoring the other things I would or might change) you can be sure it would have entrances at all four corners of the block, linked internally by publicly accessible corridors.

[neonjoe]

You used to be able to enter the mall from Duke through the scary entrance up the stairs behind the truck. I'm not sure if this is still open

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500617,...384!8i8192

[tomh009]

Major blow to market square. 

Someone suggested a phased redevelopment.  Does anyone now if something like that would even be possible given the structure of the building?

I expect you could tear down the parking garage without impacting the structural integrity of the rest, and build a tower that would work (architecturally) with the remaining building. Maybe even some part along Scott St, to use maybe 40% of the existing footprint for a new building. No, it will never be a viable shopping mall again, but it could certainly be a viable mixed-use space with much higher density.

However, the property owner, EuroPro, is an office space management/rental company, not a developer, and so far they have not done any major development projects, as far as I am aware. Would they want to tackle something this big?

[danbrotherston]

To each there own, I will have to disagree on with you on this one. There are countless other John Lingwood structures across the region that can be preserved to celebrate his work. Market square should not be one of them.  It is a complete failure of a urban built form. It represents the destruction of Kitchener city hall and the original market.  It is a mass of red brick and green glass that interacts poorly at all three streets it interacts with. It is easily my least favorite part of king to walk down. In my opinion It will never be a viable retail space again and it takes up one of the largest city blocks in downtown Kitchener. If the clocktower was enough to pay homage to the old city hall, then the new Fredrick Station mimic the green glass that is enough to pay homage to this building.  

It helped shape downtown into what it is today, but represents a complete failure in urban revitalization. Time to tear this building down and let somethin new help shape the future of DTK.

I’m sort of lukewarm on this building. I’m not as opposed as some, but I also don’t think it’s a great building.

I want to suggest that the bolded statement above is not a good reason to demolish it, however. Would you ever say something like that about a building you liked? If it’s good enough to keep, it’s still good enough even though it replaced a better (let’s assume; although I’m inclined to agree) building in the old City Hall. And if it’s bad enough to demolish, it would still be bad enough even if it replaced an open cesspit.

As you probably know, I really like protected pedestrian spaces. That being said, I also like being able to walk along outdoors if I want. So for this building I would like to see actual engagement along the street; as usual I suggest continuous porticos all the way along King and Frederick would help a lot. These give a large fraction of what I like about fully indoor walkways without introducing a big divide between the continuous sidewalk along the entire street and what is inside this particular building.

Additional note, I don’t believe one can even enter the mall area from the other corners besides King and Frederick, which means the building doesn’t even provide what I like about indoor pedestrian spaces: the option to traverse a block by walking through a building rather than along the street. If I had built that building more or less as it is (ignoring the other things I would or might change) you can be sure it would have entrances at all four corners of the block, linked internally by publicly accessible corridors.

I don't think porticos are enough...the problem is the dead streetfront. It boggles my mind that engineers/planners in the 70s couldn't figure this out--or maybe they did and in their time, killing the street was a goal, I have no idea. But I'm uncertain if the configuration of the building would permit a rennovation to activate the streetscape--I think that is the only way the building could be used so as to not detract from the city, and any building which is a negative on the city has a long way to go to proving it's worth saving.

Ultimately, I find it incredibly ironic that malls like Conestoga have activated their parking lots with patios like this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4976967,-...384!8i8192
Not a particularly pleasant place to sit. I feel the same thing is wrong with the Fairway plans. And yet a significant block of our downtown is a completely dead blank wall: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4486528,-...384!8i8192

[tomh009]

Ultimately, I find it incredibly ironic that malls like Conestoga have activated their parking lots with patios like this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4976967,-...384!8i8192
Not a particularly pleasant place to sit. I feel the same thing is wrong with the Fairway plans. And yet a significant block of our downtown is a completely dead blank wall: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4486528,-...384!8i8192

It is pretty blank, even if it does provide some protection from the elements. But I don't see why you couldn't add some entrances there and reconfigure the interior in this part to enable standalone retail units.

In the 1960s, the future was seen as shopping malls. And, so, to save the downtown, we got two shopping malls downtown. As things turned out, though, that did not work so well. But hindsight is always 20-20.

[danbrotherston]

Ultimately, I find it incredibly ironic that malls like Conestoga have activated their parking lots with patios like this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4976967,-...384!8i8192
Not a particularly pleasant place to sit. I feel the same thing is wrong with the Fairway plans. And yet a significant block of our downtown is a completely dead blank wall: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4486528,-...384!8i8192

It is pretty blank, even if it does provide some protection from the elements. But I don't see why you couldn't add some entrances there and reconfigure the interior in this part to enable standalone retail units.

In the 1960s, the future was seen as shopping malls. And, so, to save the downtown, we got two shopping malls downtown. As things turned out, though, that did not work so well. But hindsight is always 20-20.

Yeah, actually ironically, it's already functions as a bit of a portico that some here are such big fans of.  As for why you cannot add entrances, I'm not sure just entrances are enough---there are some already.  There needs to be something there at streetlevel, shops, even just hallways. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like the floor level of the building is not at ground level there. That could be very hard to rennovate. There also appear to be utility accesses and garage doors that could be hard to rennovate around.

Ultimately, I don't really know for sure how easy/difficult it would be, especially as I have not seen inside the building, but it is a situation where I can imagine fixing this could be difficult, and I would accept it if told that it isn't feasible (of course, at that point, I support demolishing the building).

As for the future in the eyes of the 1970s...yeah, I understand what they thought, but it is a bit disappointing. I don't really think it was impossible to know in the 70s. After all Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961, clearly some planners were aware of the problems with 1960s planning. It's nothing more than hubris and blindness. I mean, I guess we see that even today...albeit, hopefully in smaller things, just look at the idiocy around access to some LRT stations.

It also makes things harder now, because people now say "you were wrong in the 70s, how do you know you're not wrong now"...and that totally ignores the fact that we've learned a lot since the 70s.

[ijmorlan]

To be clear, the portico is not magic, any more than putting a roof over a shopping district (without changing anything else) has a magic ability to ruin it (I have seen no evidence that it does, and find the idea completely unbelievable).

I don’t mean sticking porticos on the side of the building as built; I mean designing it to have streetfront retail opening off a portico.

A portico off a blank wall is better than a sidewalk next to a blank wall, because I don’t have to get rained on; but it’s still a blank wall.

[tomh009]

It is pretty blank, even if it does provide some protection from the elements. But I don't see why you couldn't add some entrances there and reconfigure the interior in this part to enable standalone retail units.

Yeah, actually ironically, it's already functions as a bit of a portico that some here are such big fans of.  As for why you cannot add entrances, I'm not sure just entrances are enough---there are some already.  There needs to be something there at streetlevel, shops, even just hallways. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like the floor level of the building is not at ground level there. That could be very hard to rennovate. There also appear to be utility accesses and garage doors that could be hard to rennovate around.

I was thinking you could do something like what Eaton Lofts has: the floor is higher, but there is a lower floor, whether for a display window or something else, in front of the windows. Would need a structural engineer to determine whether this is feasible.

Duke St and Scott St sides are much worse, hence my suggestion to tear down that part and intensify half (ish) the property.

[danbrotherston]

Yeah, actually ironically, it's already functions as a bit of a portico that some here are such big fans of.  As for why you cannot add entrances, I'm not sure just entrances are enough---there are some already.  There needs to be something there at streetlevel, shops, even just hallways. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like the floor level of the building is not at ground level there. That could be very hard to rennovate. There also appear to be utility accesses and garage doors that could be hard to rennovate around.

I was thinking you could do something like what Eaton Lofts has: the floor is higher, but there is a lower floor, whether for a display window or something else, in front of the windows. Would need a structural engineer to determine whether this is feasible.

Duke St and Scott St sides are much worse, hence my suggestion to tear down that part and intensify half (ish) the property.

Yeah, there is some possibility for creative solutions like that. One issue I see, is accessibility, if all the retail spaces are up a flight of stairs it becomes a very unfriendly block for anyone not on two feet, and I don't just mean folks in wheelchairs, but anyone with a stroller, walker, even just someone less able to climb stairs. And ultimately, there are requirements for accessibility. I'll be curious how they manage it at the Eatons lofts, hopefully they are able to accomodate a ramp, the little elevator things work, but I think they are probably pretty cumbersome and a little unsightly. But in either case, it probably limits the number of units along the street, they'd have to be larger shopfronts.

I certainly agree it would be a big improvement, but possibly still worse than tearing down and rebuilding. I'm clearly not terribly sentimental about the building, and in general, I've got little patience for "heritage" these days, but I think we've been through that in other threads.

If I'm honest, I don't have much hope for Duke St. The court house is pretty and all, but isn't going to be an active streetscape. Although I'll be curious to see how it looks with the bike lanes added. Narrowing the road could make it significantly more pleasant. Scott St. probably has more potential than Duke, but it is a pretty minor side street. In either case though, it seems you are talking about demolishing the parking garage...which...make no mistake, I am totally for. But I'm only for it if we aren't spending a fortune to build a new one. Basically, if we're at a place in time where we can politically (and economically) demolish a parking garage, I'm for it, but I think spending a fortune on a new one is a very bad decision.

And yes, I realize that the current downtown plan has a new parking garage in it.  I think that will be one of the climate action plan benchmarks. If the city is serious about climate action, it will remove the parking garage from it's future plans. It's far enough out to be a reasonable course correction, but also close enough to be a critical decision in terms of climate change.