Waterloo Region Connected
General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Downtowns (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=8)



RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - mpd618 - 03-21-2015

Mid-century architecture. It would be nice if we didn't destroy all of it now and could see some traces of it left, especially if it differs from what we consider to be tasteful today.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Spokes - 03-21-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:24 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 03:22 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I was just checking on-line and I couldn't find this one (130 Victoria St. S) on either of the list of designated or non-designated properties.

It was recommended for listing. Search for:

LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER
December 16, 2009.

Maybe the Heritage committee never approved it. It would make a lot of sense if it didn't, as far as I'm concerned.

If memory serves, when it was recommended for listing it was one of a TON of properties, many of which not warranting being listed, so maybe a lot of them didn`t get added


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 03-21-2015

The main floor of the former Boa Nova restaurant at Charles and Ontario Sts has been occupied by an accounting firm.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - MacBerry - 03-21-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:20 PM)Spokes Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 02:59 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: You gotta be kidding. We are talking about this right:

[Image: macintosh.jpg]


I think it is a really sad and damning statement of the local architecture that a building can be added to the registry on the basis of "1) it uses vitriolite 2) it has a triangular roof support for the drive through and 3) it uses yellow brick (not-visible and actually more brown then yellow)".

This reminds me of the otherwise rather forgettable movie "Doc Hollywood" in which the town of Grady inadvertently damns itself with faint price by declaring themselves ‘The Squash Capital of the South’.


Yup, that's the one.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, maybe it's because we've lost some great heritage pieces in the past, but Heritage Kitchener over protects properties on a regular basis.

It's an old warehouse full of asbestos and 60's cladding. Nothing on the side street shows it worthy of  preserving.

Sorry ... but there is nothing architecturally worth protecting here.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - BuildingScout - 03-21-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:22 PM)panamaniac Wrote: In the case of Kitchener, which even its biggest boosters would have to admit is never going to win any beauty contests, I have sympathy for the preservation of structures that reflect the City over its history (and no, not in every case).  We could, of course, just tear everything down and build new structures, but what would that mean for the city's "texture" (not sure if that's the right word)?  If I am correct that this building is not on the Heritage Register, then better minds than mine have decided that it doesn't merit being there.  That doesn't prohibit me from feeling that its loss, if that were to occur, would be unfortunate.

I don't follow your logic here. Are you saying that because the city is ugly we need to preserve the ugly buildings? isn't that going against what we want the city to become??

Moreover I don't agree with your overall negative sentiment on the city. When we were assembling the list of top ten buildings in the region, there were well over 30 different structures all of which were worthy of note to which we could easily add the top twenty houses in the region for a total of 50. Why don't focus our preservation efforts on those and then work with developers to create even more structures like that, be it by renovating old buildings (Seagram lofts, Barrel Warehouse, Tannery, Breihaupt, Kaufman lofts, etc) or by building new noteworthy structures (CCGG, Pharmacy, CIGI, Perimeter, Kitchener city hall, etc).

What do we gain by unnecessarily antagonizing developers to protect ugly structures? Again the heritage committee needs to re-examine it's "protect every odd wart in the city" approach, and focus on things that truly deserve protection.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - mpd618 - 03-22-2015

(03-21-2015, 11:05 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: What do we gain by unnecessarily antagonizing developers to protect ugly structures? Again the heritage committee needs to re-examine it's "protect every odd wart in the city" approach, and focus on things that truly deserve protection.

What we gain is the preservation of some buildings that were normal or fashionable in the era that they were built, but are so far out of the realm of normal now that they are maybe even ugly. If changing tastes can take a building from normal to ugly, they can also take it to interesting. Myself, I prefer an interesting city.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 03-22-2015

(03-20-2015, 03:24 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: It was recommended for listing. Search for:

LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER
December 16, 2009.

Maybe the Heritage committee never approved it. It would make a lot of sense if it didn't, as far as I'm concerned.

The full committee recommendation is here:
http://lf.kitchener.ca/uniquesig0d1d2aa1a38f6e69dc1e79e99d780c34f537a34d9c901a0d7cbb1976cbfdd057/uniquesig0/WeblinkExt/0/doc/980089/Page1.aspx


Quote:130 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and

associative values.

The design and physical values relate to the Art Deco architectural style that is in good
condition with many intact original elements. The building features: brick construction;
yellow, black and green vitrolite; and, triangular metal drive-in overhang.

The contextual value relates to the buildings location and design. The building is
located at the corner of Victoria Street South and Bramm Street. The building was
designed for the corner location so that clients could drive in off of one street and exit
on to the opposite street.

But it looks like the council only approved some of the recommended properties.  131 Victoria South is on the current list, while 130 Victoria South is not.
http://www.kitchener.ca/en/insidecityhall/resources/Heritage_Register_Non-Designated_Index_-_FEBRUARY_2014.pdf


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - BuildingScout - 03-22-2015

(03-22-2015, 01:47 AM)mpd618 Wrote: What we gain is the preservation of some buildings that were normal or fashionable in the era that they were built, but are so far out of the realm of normal now that they are maybe even ugly. If changing tastes can take a building from normal to ugly, they can also take it to interesting. Myself, I prefer an interesting city.

I'm OK with preserving interesting examples of an architectural style even if not considered necessarily pretty, for example the brutalist Court House.

The Heritage Committee on the other hand seems bent on saving every ugly and mediocre example of an architectural style. Don't fool yourself, this doesn't make the city interesting. It makes it ugly and mediocre.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 03-22-2015

(03-22-2015, 08:16 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: I'm OK with preserving interesting examples of an architectural style even if not considered necessarily pretty, for example the brutalist Court House.

The Heritage Committee on the other hand seems bent on saving every ugly and mediocre example of an architectural style. Don't fool yourself, this doesn't make the city interesting. It makes it ugly and mediocre.
I'm with BuildingScout on this.  It doesn't need to be beautiful (by today's standards), but at least it needs to be something substantial.  Having been designed by an architect will make this more likely.

A drive-through dry cleaning shop doesn't qualify on those counts, though, and I'm happy that the council turned that one down.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - nms - 03-23-2015

Knock everything down and soon everything looks the same. If I had the funds, I'd consider including this building as a podium piece in a taller building that referenced the mid-century forms of this building in a taller structure.