The Inclusive on Courtland | 38, 34, 30 & 29 fl | Proposed

[Canard]

I give up: what is the significance of 'Virerra'? The last name of one of the owners of the developer, maybe? It doesn't seem to be a very common last name at all.

I think the word looks good written, but sounds not-so-good spoken. I guess alliteration can be good, but I don't see how this qualifies as a 'village.'

Those are just thoughts about the name. I think the development looks excellent.

No idea on the significance, but Virerra is a horrible name. Looks awkward written and hard to pronounce. Compare to SIXO (which comes from 607 King, I suppose?)

Sidebar: I'm curious, is this area really considered a "Suburb"?

[mpd618]

Sidebar: I'm curious, is this area really considered a "Suburb"?

A suburb is more canonically a separate jurisdiction from the "main" urban area, but this is 100% a suburban area of Kitchener.

[jamincan]

A suburban area is really any area built outside of the core that can't really be considered rural. We're familiar with the characteristic post-war suburbs, but you can extend the idea back as far as the 19th century with areas like the Annex or the Glebe in Toronto and Ottawa respectively. Obviously neither of them would be considered suburban now, so there is a certain amount of fluidity with the concept.

[KevinL]

I would not currently classify the area as urban. The major street is an arterial, with residential side streets; there is little to no mixed use with retail isolated to concentrated nodes. I call that suburban; others' definitions may vary.

[plam]

This is a perfect example of medium-sized buildings where interior connections may not be practical but we still don’t have to give up on the concept of making use of the marvelous technology known as a “roof”. Although in this case the whole block was built as one project, please note that coordinated ownership is not required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_(ar...s_-622.jpg

I defy anybody to explain how our streetscapes are in any way better than that.

That would be good. It seems to me like it requires a certain amount of coordination, either by the BIA or the municipal government, that our current leadership would be unlikely to exercise.

Another example of awnings is those on St.-Hubert in Montreal: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/s...-1.3968022. Those glass awnings seem to be city-owned somehow. I'm fine with awnings like those.

I also have no problem with public interior spaces but I think the issue is that there is no constituency that will care for them.

[panamaniac]

This is a perfect example of medium-sized buildings where interior connections may not be practical but we still don’t have to give up on the concept of making use of the marvelous technology known as a “roof”. Although in this case the whole block was built as one project, please note that coordinated ownership is not required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_(ar...s_-622.jpg

I defy anybody to explain how our streetscapes are in any way better than that.

That would be good. It seems to me like it requires a certain amount of coordination, either by the BIA or the municipal government, that our current leadership would be unlikely to exercise.

Another example of awnings is those on St.-Hubert in Montreal: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/s...-1.3968022. Those glass awnings seem to be city-owned somehow. I'm fine with awnings like those.

I also have no problem with public interior spaces but I think the issue is that there is no constituency that will care for them.

It was a disaster when Ottawa installed glass canopies along Rideau Street (long since removed).

[ijmorlan]

That would be good. It seems to me like it requires a certain amount of coordination, either by the BIA or the municipal government, that our current leadership would be unlikely to exercise.

Another example of awnings is those on St.-Hubert in Montreal: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/s...-1.3968022. Those glass awnings seem to be city-owned somehow. I'm fine with awnings like those.

I also have no problem with public interior spaces but I think the issue is that there is no constituency that will care for them.

It was a disaster when Ottawa installed glass canopies along Rideau Street (long since removed).

How so? And don’t forget it was also turned into a bus mall. Plus the canopies had a weird design that meant that immediately outside of some of the doors there was a roofless bit, but 1m away there was more roofed area (outside). And again, what is the mechanism by which a roof is theorized to destroy a street? It simply doesn’t make sense, especially in our climate. The promise of roofing technology is too great to give up on just because of a few poorly designed failed experiments. Imagine, some day most of our shops and workplaces could have roofs over them!

[panamaniac]

It was a disaster when Ottawa installed glass canopies along Rideau Street (long since removed).

How so? And don’t forget it was also turned into a bus mall. Plus the canopies had a weird design that meant that immediately outside of some of the doors there was a roofless bit, but 1m away there was more roofed area (outside). And again, what is the mechanism by which a roof is theorized to destroy a street? It simply doesn’t make sense, especially in our climate. The promise of roofing technology is too great to give up on just because of a few poorly designed failed experiments. Imagine, some day most of our shops and workplaces could have roofs over them!

It's true - the problems of Rideau St went well beyond the ugly canopies.  The shelter provided by the canopies, however, had unintended negative consequences in terms of some of the uses to which the space was put.   I have no problem with overhanging canopies (they were once common Downtown, as were retractable awnings) and arcades of the sort shown a few posts above are wonderful (wasn't there a concept drawing a year or so ago showing the Frederick St side of Market Square done with a pedestrian arcade?). 

But we stray off topic...

[ijmorlan]

The shelter provided by the canopies, however, had unintended negative consequences in terms of some of the uses to which the space was put.

Do you mean people loitering? If so, the fix is to build such spaces everywhere so everybody isn’t attracted to the same space that then acquires a certain reputation. Several of the supposed downsides of interior spaces are, while not desirable in and of themselves, evidence of those spaces being wanted. Same goes for dense downtown areas, which are very expensive, a supposed downside. But that is really just proof that people really really want to live in places like that, and we should at least allow property owners to build like that everywhere.

[MacBerry]

I took a look at Toronto Premium Outlets on Google Map. I’m not impressed one bit. It’s exactly the same kind of layout as Conestoga or Fairview or any other big “island in a parking lot” mall, except they’ve cheaped out on construction by leaving off part of the roof. There is nothing magical about being rained on that makes shopping more enjoyable. Fail.

IMO, the most likely answer is in the savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years which the developer will save in taxes. As a fully enclosed indoor mall the property taxes would be much higher on a fully enclosed large building.

Secondly, the TPO site is not meant to be an everyday, local, and enclosed, "lets go to the mall" site.

[ijmorlan]

I took a look at Toronto Premium Outlets on Google Map. I’m not impressed one bit. It’s exactly the same kind of layout as Conestoga or Fairview or any other big “island in a parking lot” mall, except they’ve cheaped out on construction by leaving off part of the roof. There is nothing magical about being rained on that makes shopping more enjoyable. Fail.

IMO, the most likely answer is in the savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years which the developer will save in taxes. As a fully enclosed indoor mall the property taxes would be much higher on a fully enclosed large building.

Secondly, the TPO site is not meant to be an everyday, local, and enclosed, "lets go to the mall" site.

If that’s true then it’s yet another screw-up in the design of property taxes. I’m a bit unclear — is it simply because the property would be worth more fully enclosed, and therefore the mill rate would apply to a higher assessment, or is it because of special provisions related to some legalistic definition of the use of the property?

As to your second point, I’m not clear on what you’re saying. Nobody would ever want to visit one store, then walk to another? Or they would, but they would be more comfortable being rained on while they do so?

[jeffster]

IMO, the most likely answer is in the savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years which the developer will save in taxes. As a fully enclosed indoor mall the property taxes would be much higher on a fully enclosed large building.

Secondly, the TPO site is not meant to be an everyday, local, and enclosed, "lets go to the mall" site.

If that’s true then it’s yet another screw-up in the design of property taxes. I’m a bit unclear — is it simply because the property would be worth more fully enclosed, and therefore the mill rate would apply to a higher assessment, or is it because of special provisions related to some legalistic definition of the use of the property?

As to your second point, I’m not clear on what you’re saying. Nobody would ever want to visit one store, then walk to another? Or they would, but they would be more comfortable being rained on while they do so?

The Boardwalk, Sunrise Shopping Centre are examples of successful shopping centres that are not enclosed. Many who'd go there are not there window shopping but are actually going to buy something. I imagine this would be no different, only it has a few more twists.

[tomh009]

The Boardwalk, Sunrise Shopping Centre are examples of successful shopping centres that are not enclosed.  Many who'd go there are not there window shopping but are actually going to buy something. I imagine this would be no different, only it has a few more twists.

They are indeed successful.

Personally, I detest this style of shopping mall that encourages people to drive even between two stores in the same mall.

[ijmorlan]

If that’s true then it’s yet another screw-up in the design of property taxes. I’m a bit unclear — is it simply because the property would be worth more fully enclosed, and therefore the mill rate would apply to a higher assessment, or is it because of special provisions related to some legalistic definition of the use of the property?

As to your second point, I’m not clear on what you’re saying. Nobody would ever want to visit one store, then walk to another? Or they would, but they would be more comfortable being rained on while they do so?

The Boardwalk, Sunrise Shopping Centre are examples of successful shopping centres that are not enclosed.  Many who'd go there are not there window shopping but are actually going to buy something. I imagine this would be no different, only it has a few more twists.

I didn’t say they were unsuccessful. I said they are terrible design, and for reasons that have nothing to do with preferring more urban areas over the suburbs.

By the way, I also think the area around Conestoga Mall has a terrible design, but the problem isn’t the fact that the pedestrian circulation areas within the mall have a roof over them and climate control.

[rangersfan]

I think this thread has strayed fairly off topic, perhaps someone could create a related thread in the retail or urban design section.