Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Bow (Arrow phase II) | 15 fl | Completed
#91
This is disappointing. Drewlo is stuck in the 70s...just look at Wilson Ave! Does the city/council have any kind of architectural advisory committee?

I would like to see this structure built up-to the side-walk, creating a more dense-urban feel, and giving Benton street some life.
Market Wharf in Toronto is a good example of an 8-story (6-stories brick, 2-stories glass) condo, with ground level retail - http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/03/cont...tle-centre

Here's two more mid-rise examples in Brooklyn:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/reale...brick.html
- http://www.jmhdev.com/featured-projects/70-henry/
Reply


#92
(01-16-2019, 06:02 AM)kidgibnick Wrote: This is disappointing. Drewlo is stuck in the 70s...just look at Wilson Ave! Does the city/council have any kind of architectural advisory committee?

It's not a Drewlo project though. It's Auburn.

I'd also say that that look you are referring to is a 90's look. That 70's look is what you have behind Fairview Park Mall and the area around Westmount and Highland and Westmount and Victoria.
Reply
#93
(01-15-2019, 06:24 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The look is very much trying to replicate the Arrow lofts at ground level in a fauxchitecture homage, and then dropping a Drewlo tower on top.

I see nothing wrong with trying to replicate Arrow Lofts and connect the two buildings, but the rest of it needs to be good too, not just the podium.
Reply
#94
(01-15-2019, 05:02 PM)urbd Wrote:
(09-18-2018, 01:19 PM)Lens Wrote: [Image: ArrowLoftsPhase2.jpg]

This render was in the "ION Attracts" map posted on another thread.

(09-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Spokes Wrote: Hmm.  Seems kinda block-ish.  But very similar to what we saw years ago when it first came out.  I'm surprised there are only balconies on the corners.

Anyone else reminded of the Regency on Weber/Queen with it's brick podium and stucco tower?

This render is very outdated... I'm pretty sure i've seen a newer one somewhere that shows balconies on all sides.

I hope you're right, because this isn't exciting AT ALL
Reply
#95
(01-16-2019, 08:28 AM)jeffster Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 06:02 AM)kidgibnick Wrote: This is disappointing. Drewlo is stuck in the 70s...just look at Wilson Ave! Does the city/council have any kind of architectural advisory committee?

It's not a Drewlo project though. It's Auburn.

I'd also say that that look you are referring to is a 90's look. That 70's look is what you have behind Fairview Park Mall and the area around Westmount and Highland and Westmount and Victoria.

Being Auburn isn't a huge compliment though, they don't have a great track record do they?  They're a step up from Drewlo, but certainly no wow factor.
Reply
#96
I like the Toronto condo linked above and the second Brooklyn link stands out to me as it looks built next to a building you'd find in DTK! There is a wedge between Izakaya and Manulife across from City Hall. Would love to see something fantastic in there.
Reply
#97
(01-16-2019, 10:14 AM)Spokes Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 08:28 AM)jeffster Wrote: It's not a Drewlo project though. It's Auburn.

I'd also say that that look you are referring to is a 90's look. That 70's look is what you have behind Fairview Park Mall and the area around Westmount and Highland and Westmount and Victoria.

Being Auburn isn't a huge compliment though, they don't have a great track record do they?  They're a step up from Drewlo, but certainly no wow factor.

Auburn - right. And apologies for dating the wrong era; however, I think my concern was understood... dated and cheap looking architectural style. Nowhere close to a wow factor.
The criticism is driven by something I think we can (mostly) all agree on - that we would like our city to approve the best possible developments for the land we have available...because after all, this has an impact on how we interact with it, and the image of our city.
Perhaps this means passing building proposals that (albeit subjective) leverage the value of the land/location; ties the community and surroundings together; consider the building impact on social-engagement; considers community-focused design; meets socio-economic needs; as well as being generally unique/interesting/innovative, built of good quality, and aesthetically pleasing...and the list goes on. However, for most property developers it boils down to unit economics :/
Reply


#98
Well said kidgibnick
Reply
#99
(01-16-2019, 04:31 PM)kidgibnick Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 10:14 AM)Spokes Wrote: Being Auburn isn't a huge compliment though, they don't have a great track record do they?  They're a step up from Drewlo, but certainly no wow factor.

Auburn - right. And apologies for dating the wrong era; however, I think my concern was understood... dated and cheap looking architectural style. Nowhere close to a wow factor.
The criticism is driven by something I think we can (mostly) all agree on - that we would like our city to approve the best possible developments for the land we have available...because after all, this has an impact on how we interact with it, and the image of our city.
Perhaps this means passing building proposals that (albeit subjective) leverage the value of the land/location; ties the community and surroundings together; consider the building impact on social-engagement; considers community-focused design; meets socio-economic needs; as well as being generally unique/interesting/innovative, built of good quality, and aesthetically pleasing...and the list goes on. However, for most property developers it boils down to unit economics :/

Bolder for emphasis, because that's exactly the reason.

Could be worse, could be a Hallman building.
Reply
(01-16-2019, 04:31 PM)kidgibnick Wrote: Perhaps this means passing building proposals that (albeit subjective) leverage the value of the land/location; ties the community and surroundings together; consider the building impact on social-engagement; considers community-focused design; meets socio-economic needs; as well as being generally unique/interesting/innovative, built of good quality, and aesthetically pleasing...and the list goes on. However, for most property developers it boils down to unit economics :/

Unless we're going to have government subsidies of development, it will always boil down to economics. Developers won't undertake projects unless they're profitable. We can require through zoning that buildings meet certain design standards, but "nice looking" is almost always synonymous with "expensive". When we make building more expensive, it makes housing more expensive. If we're going to focus on "meeting socio-economic needs" we're going to have to give up on every building being aesthetically pleasing.

I'd love to see more beautiful buildings in downtown Kitchener, but even more than that I want to see housing that can be afforded by a majority of people. We build subsidized housing for those of very low income (e.g. bottom quartile), but what about those of the median income? I don't want to see them pushed out of DTK, to where it's just subsidized housing and luxury housing, with nothing in the middle.
Reply
You raise greater socio economic issues which of course can and should be explored - but this particular project is pitched as luxury and comes with such a price tag. So it shouldn't look like a piece of crap from the outside.

Anyone have the original price list or link for such? I don't even recall when sales were...
Reply
Why do we have to give up on cheaper buildings being attractive? Here an excellent example of a new cooperative building in Toronto the doesn't compromise on design just because it's affordable: https://www.archdaily.com/85762/60-richm...architects
Reply
(01-17-2019, 01:06 AM)Lens Wrote: Why do we have to give up on cheaper buildings being attractive? Here an excellent example of a new cooperative building in Toronto the doesn't compromise on design just because it's affordable: https://www.archdaily.com/85762/60-richm...architects

I like that! It looks like some of the buildings we have here in Hamburg Hafencity and Düsseldorf Mediahafen (check them out on Google images). Both projects are decent examples of old warehouse-types mixed with modern architectural styles.
Perhaps studying what other cities are doing could help us to establish a vision for K-W, rather than simply accepting/rejecting/modifying local building proposals, that often have little cohesiveness with the surrounding or the city's overall image.
IF there was a greater vision, developers might have to keep those concepts in mind. Anyways, I don't want to sidetrack this Thread, but it's a worthy discussion to continue elsewhere.
Reply


Wow that's a cooperative building and it could hold it's own (exterior) aestethics wise to any luxury boutique on King West
Reply
Just googled Hamburg Hafencity. That place looks so cool - an architect's dream. Affordability though? Average price per square foot, do you know? Do most people own or rent in Germany? J.c.

If some thought is put into it I could totally imagine KW being the next Hamburg Hafencity and a jewel of Canada. Just takes the right guts by the right developer and a council with an open mind.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links