(05-20-2015, 09:44 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:

(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!

(05-20-2015, 11:56 AM)TMKM94 Wrote: I think it seems fishy because of how fast Mike Seiling decided it needed to be demolished not giving Historic building repair experts the chance to figure out ways to repair the building , it didn't collapse when someone sneezed near it like some "self proclaimed experts" acted like it was going to and since some councilors knew it could be saved and Kitchener has a history of fishy demolitions.

(05-20-2015, 12:24 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot for thinking this building was beautiful (obviously not the main floor facade) and had huge potential and could have at least been partially saved so I will just keep my opinion to myself from now on, sorry for sharing my opinion.

(05-20-2015, 12:24 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot for thinking this building was beautiful (obviously not the main floor facade) and had huge potential and could have at least been partially saved so I will just keep my opinion  to myself from now on, sorry for sharing my opinion.

(05-20-2015, 01:09 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(05-20-2015, 12:24 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot for thinking this building was beautiful (obviously not the main floor facade) and had huge potential and could have at least been partially saved so I will just keep my opinion  to myself from now on, sorry for sharing my opinion.

I feel I should point out that that ugly main floor facade was in fact load bearing, so there was little that could be done about it. Original plans had called for replacing the brick with windows, but not possible if they're load bearing.

(05-20-2015, 01:28 PM)isUsername Wrote:

(05-20-2015, 01:09 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I feel I should point out that that ugly main floor facade was in fact load bearing, so there was little that could be done about it. Original plans had called for replacing the brick with windows, but not possible if they're load bearing.

That's not necessarily true. You can't replace the brick entirely with windows, but you could do a combination of windows and new structural beams that are strong enough to support the existing (or even additional) loads. Cinderblock is definitely not the strongest building material, and it's entirely possible they could have been replaced with a metal / reinforced concrete framework with openings for windows.

A quick Google search tells me that the compression strength for reinforced concrete is, at minimum, twice as strong as cinderblocks, and the upper limit of reinforced concrete's compression strength is much, much higher. Steel beams have a bending resistance over ten times greater than the compression strength of cinderblocks. So, it's certainly plausible that reinforced concrete pillars topped with steel beams could provide significantly more structural strength than the original walls.

(05-20-2015, 01:09 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(05-20-2015, 12:24 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot for thinking this building was beautiful (obviously not the main floor facade) and had huge potential and could have at least been partially saved so I will just keep my opinion  to myself from now on, sorry for sharing my opinion.

I feel I should point out that that ugly main floor facade was in fact load bearing, so there was little that could be done about it. Original plans had called for replacing the brick with windows, but not possible if they're load bearing. It's those walls that were bowed out by half a foot after the watermain break. Three independent structural engineers, some hired by the city some by the developer, inspected the building and they were unanimous that collapse was imminent.

I don't think people are saying you're an idiot for thinking the building was beautiful. I was personally quite excited by the plans I'd seen for renovating that building, and looking forward to having dinner on the proposed rooftop restaurant. The point was just that three independent structural engineers is a lot of expertise, and their conclusion was unanimous. The only people to have publicly disagreed are not engineers, nor have they had the ability to inspect the building.

The developer was someone who specialized in restoring old buildings, and has done an excellent job in their past work downtown. They had likely invested over a million dollars into the renovation work already completed, and all the architectural work for the planned expansion. Now they're back at square one, with all that money wasted, plus the cost of demolition.

I'm just not seeing how that all adds up to an underhanded demolition. I don't think any of the parties involved wanted this.

(05-20-2015, 02:13 PM)REnerd Wrote: That picture has allowed me to understand the structural deficiency of the building ... apparently the third floor was made from Neapolitan ice cream.

(05-20-2015, 08:16 PM)JoeKW Wrote: Is that the giant chain saw I've been told about?

(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.