Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: One Young (née Mayfair Hotel) | 5 fl | Complete
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
[Image: 242gyrq.jpg]
(05-19-2015, 08:23 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a prediction; because of the bad state of disrepair and the ugly ground level gray brick facade, the area will look better once there is nothing but a green replacing the building than it did with the Mayfair there.

Urbandreamer recently posted on SSP this proposal for 500 Dupont in Toronto.  Something like this would be nice to see on the Mayfair site.

 
I agree that the second and third floors looked good. I doubt any conspiracy theories here because the owner of the adjacent building could take them to the cleaners if this demolition wasn't needed.
The Lang Tannery and the Breithaupt block were nothing special and lots of people would have been fine with it being demolished but they were fixed up, and turned into gems and are now known worldwide.
(05-19-2015, 08:40 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]Urbandreamer recently posted on SSP this proposal for 500 Dupont in Toronto.  Something like this would be nice to see on the Mayfair site.
 


I hope they take a page from the award winning Kitchener City Hall and build something to match. After all, keep in mind that old architecture worth preserving was once new architecture worth building. I'd go as far as making all downtown building incentives conditional on architectural approval/oversight.
I wonder if the owner would receive any compensation from the city in a case like this? I also wonder how much insurance would pay out, in a case where the city declared your property unsafe.
Probably some insurance money but I would think that getting a heritage building demolished in the downtown core is a huge win for the property owner.
I'm still of a mind that something should have been done to try and save the front facade of the original buildings. I say this as the original Bauers factory sat on stilts for 2 1/2+ yrs, I worked in this factory and there were numerous issues with the building.
However I will say that filling the basement with concrete is just crazy and in turn adds ridiculous costs to the project. How do you get your utilities into your building and or service existing? With out proper engineering you are limited by code how much you can build on a slab no matter the thickness.
Finally the owner came into the project a few years in and had what he believed was a pre approved plan, a lot of work has been done already and now it's all coming down. One can only expect so much on any level. The city has a legal obligation to provide a safe environment while also trying to preserve the past. The owner can only be expected to oblige to a certain extent when it comes to what he/she is willing to invest vs what they stand to earn!
There are number of lessons to be learned from this though when the city steps in to buy, manage, oversee they need to be proactive when it come to protecting buildings from decay while said property is in their control.
(05-19-2015, 08:14 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: [ -> ]IMO this whole thing is fishy and I think Mike Seiling should be ashamed of himself, they could have easily repaired the Mayfair according to some experts by pouring cement in the basement, the only way to make up for this tragic loss of architecture is to force the developer to build a duplicate of the original building inside and out.

How is it fishy?  He and the city would have been putting themselves and others at a ton of risk letting people inside to do work. 
Does anyone have a photo that they've taken of the demolition?  I'd like to post something on our front page, but stealing someone's twitter picture doesn't sit right.  I can't get to the demo site until tomorrow at the the earliest.  
I gotta go pick up a package at the shoppers, I'll try to bring a camera.

I think the concrete slab idea, even if it was proposed by an "expert" wasn't really well thought out; I don't understand how a block of concrete without rebar is going to be all that strong and if there is soil washout from the watermain break it would seem to me that sinking and shifting of the slab and building would still be a possibility. The concrete slab also wouldn't fix the issues with inadequate beams to support the upper floors as well as other issues with the building.
(05-20-2015, 06:57 AM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a photo that they've taken of the demolition?  I'd like to post something on our front page, but stealing someone's twitter picture doesn't sit right.  I can't get to the demo site until tomorrow at the the earliest.  

Ask and you shall receive!

[Image: MHY2QQm.jpg]
I would also like to say that the first floor bulge - last I heard the middle of the Young St wall was bulging past half a foot - would not be solved by any amount of concrete in the basement, nor would any part of that wall be able to be trusted again. Speaking with an individual who has been around buildings going up and down a great deal, they had never seen anything like it.
It is hard not to think that, for a building that was in imminent danger of collapse, it is holding up well to the beating from the demolition crane.
(05-19-2015, 08:14 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: [ -> ]IMO this whole thing is fishy and I think Mike Seiling should be ashamed of himself, they could have easily repaired the Mayfair according to some experts by pouring cement in the basement, the only way to make up for this tragic loss of architecture is to force the developer to build a duplicate of the original building inside and out.

What you should have said was "... according to some self-proclaimed experts ..."

There is nothing at all about this that is fishy, and the city has been protecting heritage buildings properly.  But when a building is determined unsafe and unrepairable, it needs to be demolished, regardless of its other merits.
(05-19-2015, 08:51 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: [ -> ]The Lang Tannery and the Breithaupt block were nothing special and lots of people would have been fine with it being demolished but they were fixed up, and turned into gems and are now known worldwide.

You have somewhat made the argument against your case; it has nothing to do with the shell, and everything to do with what is done with it moving forward. Mayfair or the land it occupies could just as easily be turned into something great; it maintaining the Mayfair aesthetic has nothing to do with that end result, beyond a specific preference of some.

(05-19-2015, 08:14 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: [ -> ]IMO this whole thing is fishy and I think Mike Seiling should be ashamed of himself, they could have easily repaired the Mayfair according to some experts by pouring cement in the
basement, the only way to make up for this tragic loss of architecture is to force the developer to build a duplicate of the original building inside and out.

I would love to trade places with your world where this is a tragedy.