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:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Station Park (née SIXO) | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed
Not a huge fan of the retaining walls and I imagine it would be possible to grade the site so they'd be unnecessary. I think multiple floors of retail could work here, there are a lot of units planned for the side with the three towers so there will be some customers that are only an elevator ride away from the retail. I kind of like the rest of the design, the towers are kinda something that looks like it belongs on the cover of simcity 2000 but I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm excited for the potential of this site.
Reply


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.
Reply
If the retaining walls are set far back enough (maybe just an additional meter or 2, making the sidewalk 3-4 meters wide, I dont think it would even be that big a deal. Maybe throw in some nice street lamps, or hanging planters. Could be nice.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 03:24 PM)GtwoK Wrote: If the retaining walls are set far back enough (maybe just an additional meter or 2, making the sidewalk 3-4 meters wide, I dont think it would even be that big a deal. Maybe throw in some nice street lamps, or hanging planters. Could be nice.

An excellent suggestion.  Really no extra cost and no significant impact on the proposal.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 07:39 AM)MacBerry Wrote:
(04-07-2016, 02:41 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Not sure why you quoted my post with your comment, jordan2423. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but then hey. I went to Laurier for my undergrad. What do I know?

Ya it is tough, Elmira Guy, I too went to Laurier and can't figure out how I manged to get three additional graduate degrees following an undergrad degree from such a "joke" (jordan2423) higher education institute. What do I know?

Words can make you friends or enemies, choose wisely!

lol now I'm being ambushed. It was a joke, no need to take offence. I apologize.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 03:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote: 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.

The problem isn't really the 2 sections of 25m of retaining wall, it's the fact that the entire 150m frontage on the sidewalk is inactive. Either a retaining wall, generic hedges, or a gaping void for a pathway that eventually leads to... somewhere.

All I want is for them to extend a concrete path above that garage entrance and bridge over the pedestrian canyon, so that you can walk parallel to King, but at the shops level.
Reply
(04-08-2016, 04:13 PM)Markster Wrote: All I want is for them to extend a concrete path above that garage entrance and bridge over the pedestrian canyon, so that you can walk parallel to King, but at the shops level.

Yes, and ultimately connect that to the north rail platform and/or proposed trail on the overpass.
Reply
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
« 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