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:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
242-262 Queen St S | 10 fl | Proposed
(01-18-2019, 11:52 AM)dtkmelissa Wrote:
(01-18-2019, 11:47 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I think the goal is to provide as many residential units as possible. 

Looking at the shadows on the renders, I think Melissa may be right and the houses do not connect to the new building. But whether connected or not, there certainly is not going to be any back yard to those houses. But is it really much worse than a unit in the main building? I do expect that they'll find people happy to live in those, as long as the prices are right.
You may be right Tom. There was a lot of discussion about whether they should be attached or not. At one point they were to be separate, even fenced in at the back but it left a vacant space between there and the main building which several people identified as a dark, unused space. They may have improved the plan since then.

Again, going by memory, I think the hope was that the duplex homes would be a bit more upscale, hoping to fetch a higher rental price to help cover some of the expenses associated with keeping the older homes.

Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.
Reply


Have we seen much, if any of this practice?
Reply
(01-21-2019, 09:15 AM)Spokes Wrote: Have we seen much, if any of this practice?

I remember reading in the paper about 10 years ago about an old stone farmhouse that was moved in Eby Estates (the suburban area behind Williamsburg area).  When the land was cleared and being re-graded they moved the house over a kilometer or something, and it was to be the centerpiece of the new development.  That is somewhat different though since they did not have to move the house along any roads.

Interestingly, shortly after they moved it it burned down and had to be demolished.
Reply
Is it a logistical nightmare moving a house that has been sitting there for over a century? Is it usually structurally sound enough to up heave off of the foundation (or including some/parts of foundation) without completely falling apart?
Reply
The key words there are over a century. That makes things uncertain. At the end of the day, just about anything is "possible" but with a cost.
Reply
Well you know what, some of these century homes give Kitchener it's charm, there is no doubt. Not many cities (ie. the 'suburb cities' of GTA) can boast having unique infrastructure like K-W has, for better or worse. Of course upkeep is paramount, especially with some of these commercial areas. And the house aren't cheap to heat either with often times many a leaks (air).
Reply
(01-20-2019, 11:25 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(01-18-2019, 11:52 AM)dtkmelissa Wrote: You may be right Tom. There was a lot of discussion about whether they should be attached or not. At one point they were to be separate, even fenced in at the back but it left a vacant space between there and the main building which several people identified as a dark, unused space. They may have improved the plan since then.

Again, going by memory, I think the hope was that the duplex homes would be a bit more upscale, hoping to fetch a higher rental price to help cover some of the expenses associated with keeping the older homes.

Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.

From the point of view of the heritage committee (which I disagreed with), these houses had value specifically because they were on this stretch of Queen St S.
Reply
Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???
Reply
(01-21-2019, 02:37 PM)Spokes Wrote: Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???

Basically they admitted that the houses weren't unique or particularly historic; their case was based on preserving century residential houses on Queen St S (between Courtland and Charles) to show the original character of the street.
Reply
The original character of the street they specifically mentioned was to show how people could live near and walk to work. So we preserve that memory at its historic scale, and in doing so, help to prevent modern day people from enjoying this benefit. Especially important given this is a development aimed to not be up-market, with more affordable options.
Reply
(01-21-2019, 03:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(01-21-2019, 02:37 PM)Spokes Wrote: Wait, so if the house was a piece of trash in the same location it would still be worth preserving???

Basically they admitted that the houses weren't unique or particularly historic; their case was based on preserving century residential houses on Queen St S (between Courtland and Charles) to show the original character of the street.

Oh wow.  Ok, so on one hand, I now understand why they protected these houses.  On the other hand, what the hell???
Reply
(01-21-2019, 12:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(01-20-2019, 11:25 PM)MacBerry Wrote: Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location.

Jack them up and move them.

From the point of view of the heritage committee (which I disagreed with), these houses had value specifically because they were on this stretch of Queen St S.

"Save the units but move them to a new location. It's the building that is heritage and important not the location." 

My apologies, I wasn't clear I was thinking of the two "heritage" buildings beside the new GOOGLE building.
Reply
Building permit (19-106276 RM) now issued.
Reply
Rubber stamp central in DTK!!
Reply
(02-12-2019, 10:45 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Building permit (19-106276 RM) now issued.

They now also have permits for the alterations to the two houses that will remain.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  588-600 Queen St S | 11 fl | Proposed taylortbb 31 12,515 10-15-2018, 10:56 PM
Last Post: mpd618

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 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