+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: One Young (née Mayfair Hotel) | 5 fl | Complete (/showthread.php?tid=299)
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 04-28-2015
(04-28-2015, 09:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(04-27-2015, 11:07 PM)panamaniac Wrote: That is correct (the two buildings share a common wall, I believe). Some heritage elements of the six storey tower are to be saved as well.
What heritage elements does the "tower" extension have? They are not immediately obvious to me, just from looking at the photos.
(I don't think there can have been much of an approval process back when Mayfair got the permit to add those storeys ...)
I'm not able to pull up the original notice of intention to designate, but if I recall correctly, it has to do with the art deco capitals of the pilasters, the entablature and the details of the windows. Some examples of those elements are supposed to be salvaged as part of the demolition, iirc.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - tomh009 - 04-28-2015
(04-28-2015, 10:01 AM)panamaniac Wrote:(04-28-2015, 09:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: What heritage elements does the "tower" extension have? They are not immediately obvious to me, just from looking at the photos.
(I don't think there can have been much of an approval process back when Mayfair got the permit to add those storeys ...)
I'm not able to pull up the original notice of intention to designate, but if I recall correctly, it has to do with the art deco capitals of the pilasters, the entablature and the details of the windows. Some examples of those elements are supposed to be salvaged as part of the demolition, iirc.
Thanks. I do see that now, looking closely. It's pretty minimal, though. The lower floors are far more interesting.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 05-08-2015
Frank Etherington was out at King and Young today checking out the Mayfair. Getting ready, I imagine, for an effort on Monday to get City Council to reverse its decision to revoke the intention to designate and instead seek advice from a heritage preservation expert on whether the building can be saved. I think it is very unlikely that the Council would reverse the decision they took at the last meeting, where the matter was discussed extensively.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - Spokes - 05-08-2015
They would need a 2/3 vote to reverse it. Don't see that happening.
Time to move on folks
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 05-08-2015
That's what I think, although I'd still love to see them save enough brick to do a partial façade reconstruction. I think the preservation frustration stems in part from the fact that this "too dangerous to enter" building is still standing three weeks after the damage was done. I notice as well that there has been a water leak on Young Street ever since the burst pipe connection was repaired - the saturated soil can't be doing much for the stability of the foundation, although I suppose it can't be fixed if the building is in danger of falling into the street.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 05-08-2015
It's getting more complicated. Now the Record is reporting that the structural integrity of the neighbouring building (156-158 King W) may be threatened by demolition of the Mayfair and that owner Bernie Nimer is therefore seeking to demolish the entire site. Ouch!
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5609581-mayfair-demolition-could-threaten-adjacent-heritage-building/
RE: Mayfair Hotel - tomh009 - 05-08-2015
(05-08-2015, 02:32 PM)panamaniac Wrote: That's what I think, although I'd still love to see them save enough brick to do a partial façade reconstruction.
Now, they could do a facade reconstruction even with new brick ... although that's not likely to be in the plans.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - BuildingScout - 05-08-2015
(05-08-2015, 09:58 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Now, they could do a facade reconstruction even with new brick ... although that's not likely to be in the plans.
It ain't that pretty. All things being equal I'd rather they save it, but there is no need to spare every effort to save this building.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 05-08-2015
No, I couldn't imagine a reconstruction using new materials. Even a rebuilt façade using the original brickwork would be pretty shaky in heritage terms. I do think the 1906 brickwork up to the third for cornice is very attractive, however. It will be a shame to lose it all and even worse if yet another King St lot sits barren for years to come.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - Spokes - 05-09-2015
(05-08-2015, 05:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It's getting more complicated. Now the Record is reporting that the structural integrity of the neighbouring building (156-158 King W) may be threatened by demolition of the Mayfair and that owner Bernie Nimer is therefore seeking to demolish the entire site. Ouch!
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5609581-mayfair-demolition-could-threaten-adjacent-heritage-building/
Is that the 3 storey part of the Mayfair, or the building next to it that used to house Casablanca Books?
RE: Mayfair Hotel - panamaniac - 05-09-2015
(05-09-2015, 09:58 AM)Spokes Wrote:(05-08-2015, 05:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It's getting more complicated. Now the Record is reporting that the structural integrity of the neighbouring building (156-158 King W) may be threatened by demolition of the Mayfair and that owner Bernie Nimer is therefore seeking to demolish the entire site. Ouch!
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5609581-mayfair-demolition-could-threaten-adjacent-heritage-building/
Is that the 3 storey part of the Mayfair, or the building next to it that used to house Casablanca Books?
The three storey part is the old hardware store - it certainly looks like it was built to be part of the Mayfair, but it is apparently a separate building with a common wall. The Casablanca building (Weber Chambers) is the next one to the east - it seems to have some interior renovations going on but is not, as far as I know, owned by Bernie Nimer as the other two buildings are.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - Spokes - 05-10-2015
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
I'd always heard it referred to as two separate buildings, but since they look to be the same, I always grouped them together.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - tomh009 - 05-10-2015
(05-08-2015, 10:35 PM)panamaniac Wrote: No, I couldn't imagine a reconstruction using new materials. Even a rebuilt façade using the original brickwork would be pretty shaky in heritage terms. I do think the 1906 brickwork up to the third for cornice is very attractive, however. It will be a shame to lose it all and even worse if yet another King St lot sits barren for years to come.
Nobody wants to see another parking lot, I agree. Hopefully Nimer has plans to build rather than let it sit empty, though.
RE: Mayfair Hotel - white_brian - 05-10-2015
What I don't understand is that the original Bauers factory stood on three story tall or so stilts for 2-3yrs but they can't save the facade of the Mayfair and now possibly 156-158 during demo/reconstruction
RE: Mayfair Hotel - Lens - 05-11-2015
Say goodbye to both buildings... http://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/resources/mayfair_2015/bldg_mayfair_orderprohibitingoccupancy.pdf
I don't understand why the Mayfair can't be demolished FIRST and then the other building re-evaluated. This whole thing makes me sick/upset/angry/etc.