Waterloo Region Connected
The Bow (Arrow phase II) | 15 fl | Completed - Printable Version

+- 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: The Bow (Arrow phase II) | 15 fl | Completed (/showthread.php?tid=442)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - kitborn - 11-17-2020

A view of the Arrow project from our balcony.

   


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - Lens - 11-17-2020

God Auburn builds the WORST stuff (next to Drewlo)


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - taylortbb - 11-18-2020

(11-17-2020, 11:37 PM)Lens Wrote: God Auburn builds the WORST stuff (next to Drewlo)

Drewlo I don't mind. They're not building luxury housing, and the rent prices are affordable to a large portion of the population. Good design costs money, and I'm glad people are getting housed.

Auburn charges premium prices for crap. It's nothing but lack of effort.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - westwardloo - 11-18-2020

(11-18-2020, 12:43 AM)taylortbb Wrote:
(11-17-2020, 11:37 PM)Lens Wrote: God Auburn builds the WORST stuff (next to Drewlo)

Drewlo I don't mind. They're not building luxury housing, and the rent prices are affordable to a large portion of the population. Good design costs money, and I'm glad people are getting housed.

Auburn charges premium prices for crap. It's nothing but lack of effort.
Although I agree it is good that drewlo builds lower rental units. I have to disagree, Good design does not cost an extraordinary amount of money.  I would argue some of dewlos designs are actually going to cost them more money in the long run. Cheap windows, cheap exterior cladding. Both will need to be replace/repaired much earlier into the life cycle of the building. Walls that turn in and out all over their buildings or changing material randomly. These material transitions and corner details create an increased risk of air and water leakage which can cause extreme costs later on in the buildings life. There are plenty of examples of well designed low cost housing all over this country. Unfortunately London and waterloo developers have not figured it out. A building can be low cost with a simple sleak design using a material that is not baige stucco or baige precast. The biggest cost savings right now for them is they just reuse/modify existing architectural plans from other projects.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - ac3r - 11-18-2020

(11-18-2020, 10:12 AM)westwardloo Wrote:
(11-18-2020, 12:43 AM)taylortbb Wrote: Drewlo I don't mind. They're not building luxury housing, and the rent prices are affordable to a large portion of the population. Good design costs money, and I'm glad people are getting housed.

Auburn charges premium prices for crap. It's nothing but lack of effort.
I have to disagree, Good design does not cost an extraordinary amount of money.

It does cost money to end up with a good design, whether it implies a good physical/material design or aesthetic design. Architects make a lot of money for what we do. If Drewlo wanted to implement better designs in their buildings it would be reflected in the cost at all levels (and thus ultimately pushed onto the renter/buyer). They fill a niche - new, affordable and modest housing - which is a good thing.

In a way, you are right in saying that it's possible to design a simpler building which can potentially minimize costs in some areas, but it has to be done right or you just end up with a mess. The student buildings all over Waterloo are a good example. They look bad, function even worse and I wonder about the longevity of a lot of these buildings in terms of maintenance.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - dtkvictim - 11-21-2020

[Image: IdFm5SZ.jpg]


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 11-21-2020

And that's the top floor being assembled now.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 11-25-2020

Full 15 floors now. Glazing is going quickly, too.

   


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - panamaniac - 11-25-2020

It's a minor detail, but I find it weird that they have arched windows on the ground and second floor on the Courtland-facing side, then square windows on the third floor and then back to arched windows in the brick panel from the fourth to the seventh floors. I don't understand why they wouldn't have put arched windows on the third floor, at least for the two in the centre.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 11-25-2020

I wondered about that myself, too. It would be better with the third-floor arched windows that you suggested.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - Lens - 11-25-2020

Why are the windows on the side partly spandreled and two different types?!? This looks terrible, as expected.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - panamaniac - 11-25-2020

(11-25-2020, 05:39 PM)Lens Wrote: Why are the windows on the side partly spandreled and two different types?!? This looks terrible, as expected.
I wondered about that too.  Bedrooms too small to carry a full window?  The lack of symmetry just compounds the problem.  Definitely a design “fail”, istm.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - dtkvictim - 11-25-2020

Does anyone know why one piece of concrete appears to be a different color from the rest? On the 12th floor on the Benton St side. It's very visible in my most recent photo, and also in Tom's photo. Just noticed this now.


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - Rainrider22 - 11-25-2020

I like it ...there you go


RE: Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C - mastermind - 11-26-2020

(11-25-2020, 06:48 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 05:39 PM)Lens Wrote: Why are the windows on the side partly spandreled and two different types?!? This looks terrible, as expected.
I wondered about that too.  Bedrooms too small to carry a full window?  The lack of symmetry just compounds the problem.  Definitely a design “fail”, istm.

I bet you're right.  Maybe even the interior wall hits at the spandrel portion of the window, then the spandrel is just to keep the exterior symmetrical.  Also the one that has spandrel on the side and bottom panels is probably has a kitchen counter inside.