Welcome Guest!
WIn 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
SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed
Am I the only one who finds it strange to have two vehicle ramps gumming up traffic on the King St side of this development?  Surely all traffic should enter and exit via Wellington or am I out to lunch?
Reply
I can say that indeed there will be some changes to the design, especially regarding the street level wall that many in this thread are pointing out. Either way, it's going to be a nice addition to the city.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 05:59 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Am I the only one who finds it strange to have two vehicle ramps gumming up traffic on the King St side of this development?  Surely all traffic should enter and exit via Wellington or am I out to lunch?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing... it's a lot easier to access via Wellington if one is driving there. Even for the trucks it would probably be easier than making the turn up the ramp by tracks.
Reply
No vehicle entrances on the King St side would seem best, but if it must have a vehicle entrance from King St, then the better approach would be to take a portion of the McDonald's site to realign Moore/Breithaupt and create a full intersection that would incorporate the vehicle entrance.  The idea of having both the parking garage entrance and (seemingly) a ramp to podium parking giving on to King St strikes me as a formula for traffic chaos.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 03:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote: In order to not have any retaining wall, the grade on the site would need to follow (the fairly steep) grade on the street.  It makes the building design much more challenging.  For perspective, I did some rough estimating of the retaining wall length using Google Maps.  It looks like there would be two roughly 50m sections on either side of the entrance lanes.  Each one of those is about 50% primarily greenery, and 50% (25m) of primarily concrete.  That's about 20 seconds (x2) of walking past concrete at a moderate walking speed of 5 km/h.



As for second floor access, escalators are an simple way to make access to other floors easier.  And not that expensive in the big picture.

Saying its only 50 m on either side sacrifices 100 meters of urban public realm and we should in no way be compromising our street facing urban realm. I won't give reason as to why as there are reams of content out there to do it for me... a sampling of recent articles found on the matter scanning my twitter feed for 3 or so minutes:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/six-s...reetfight/
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/04...=SFTwitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZijyXVlW...pp=desktop
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/12/pu...=SFTwitter
http://www.archdaily.com/580467/inclusiv...um=twitter
http://thewalrus.ca/tv-cities-for-people-not-just-cars/
Reply
TL;DR ... sorry! My point is that it's not 200m of solid concrete wall. 25m of concrete, 25m of green, 25m of open driveway/street, 25m of green, 25m of concrete. Not ideal, as I said earlier, but all told it's less than two minutes of walking with four changes of "scenery" between green/concrete/driveway.

Anyway, let's see if they do improve it.
Reply
(04-09-2016, 07:08 PM)dubya Wrote: Saying its only 50 m on either side sacrifices 100 meters of urban public realm and we should in no way be compromising our street facing urban realm. I won't give reason as to why as there are reams of content out there to do it for me... a sampling of recent articles found on the matter scanning my twitter feed for 3 or so minutes:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/six-s...reetfight/
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/04...=SFTwitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZijyXVlW...pp=desktop
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/12/pu...=SFTwitter
http://www.archdaily.com/580467/inclusiv...um=twitter
http://thewalrus.ca/tv-cities-for-people-not-just-cars/

Cheers for the material. I had read and watched some of those articles, but not all. I agree with you in principle here. We should insist on a positive walking environment along this important stretch- it's not wrong to say that not all of the ~150 meters are retaining wall, but all is inactive- landscaping, retaining wall- or hostile (driveways). Add to that the underpass, which will likely be very well-executed but nevertheless fairly uninteresting, and we're dealing with a long stretch which is uninviting to people on foot.

I like the idea above of the vehicle access being off Wellington. I wonder why that wouldn't be considered.
Reply
(04-10-2016, 09:06 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Cheers for the material. I had read and watched some of those articles, but not all. I agree with you in principle here. We should insist on a positive walking environment along this important stretch- it's not wrong to say that not all of the ~150 meters are retaining wall, but all is inactive- landscaping, retaining wall- or hostile (driveways). Add to that the underpass, which will likely be very well-executed but nevertheless fairly uninteresting, and we're dealing with a long stretch which is uninviting to people on foot.

I've said many times that I hope the retaining wall is improved.  And yet ... for most people walking, they are actually trying to get from A to B, just on foot (I am, at least, unless I'm just out for exercise).  An uninteresting 100m or 200m won't deter those people (we have those issues now), as long as the environment is not threatening or otherwise strongly unpleasant.  And with some landscaping (hopefully better than just a hedge) I think the stretch in front of King's Crossing can be at least neutral (and I do like GtwoK's suggestion of widening the sidewalk into a boulevard with some additional landscaping).

But let's see what the developer's actual proposal will be.
Reply
Does anyone know the status of this project in the approvals process? I know these new images were just released a few weeks ago, but for what purpose?

The Humphreys and Partners Architects web site is showing 90,000 sf of retail, 78,500 sf of office and 544,000 sf of residential space. This is great density for this location, but I do think that the project turns its back on King street which is a massive mistake. This area will see more and more pedestrian traffic as the downtown area intensifies with the new transit node and a project of this size will stand for many years. Imagine if a massive retail/office project turned a giant wall to a major transit/pedestrian artery in Toronto... oh wait, yea the Eaton's Centre... we all know how that destroyed the world-class music and entertainment scene on Yonge from the 60s and 70s. Only recently is Yonge starting to re-invent itself 30-40 years later. Why can't we bring retail space down to grade and restrict vehicular access to the one point shown off Wellington and maintain only one driveway at King? The city's planners should really step in and fight for the pedestrian realm if they're serious about making the KW downtown a truly urban place.


Attached Files Image(s)
   
Reply
Is the best approach for that location (only that location) to bring the retail element to King St, or to bring the pedestrian experience in from, but parallel to, King St to avoid the unpleasantness of the retaining wall and railway overpass? At the moment, I don't think the project does either. If this project marks the far end of an expanded Downtown, is it really a problem if it draws pedestrian traffic in off the street? Again something I'd say only about that specific location, but I do wonder.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



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