Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed

[panamaniac]

And her point is that the interior (of a private building) is not visible or accessible to the public -- so why is that more valuable to the residents of the city than the community arts space?

Yeah, exactly. Whether it's this or beautiful concert hall, her point seems to be that it's important to balance value. A venue she may never get a chance to enter outweighs one she and all members of the community could utilize.

Beautiful concert hall?

[ac3r]

Yeah, exactly. Whether it's this or beautiful concert hall, her point seems to be that it's important to balance value. A venue she may never get a chance to enter outweighs one she and all members of the community could utilize.

Beautiful concert hall?

Just an example. We often designate buildings as having heritage value based on abstract merits like it's history, architecture, value etc.  In many cases, these buildings are ultimately not utilized by the general public, just an "elite" group who may either have a specific need (concert halls) or who can afford to go there. Most people are not regularly visiting these heritage properties for any reason, although they do have value. In this case, the author of the article makes that point in saying, while the building is beautiful, only a small percentage of the city residents have any reason to go there...so why let that prevail over our desperate need for housing?

Personally, I think it should be saved because it's an incredibly unique and rare building, but her point in that we really need housing in this country stands. It's just a matter of balancing the two: heritage versus progress.

[ac3r]

Here is a very preliminary concept of the community arts/performance venue they want to include (I think...struggling to orient myself...this could also just be a very bad rendition of Vogelsang Green):

[taylortbb]

Yeah, those are the Vogelsang Green and Queen St streetscape renders from the city.

[panamaniac]

That looks more like a concept for the American Hotel and Vogelsang green. I’m assuming that the Q venue will be in the basement and/or main floor.

[ac3r]

Yeah after comparing 3D satellite photos, it's just the park. I found the images in their server but didn't really register the background details, namely the office towers. That would have been a nicer park over the iron beams, concrete and barren grass lot they decided to build... They got rid of all those nice old trees, plants and flowers that had been there for decades and just replaced it with nothing. It's pretty ugly landscape architecture.

[cherrypark]

Yeah after comparing 3D satellite photos, it's just the park. I found the images in their server but didn't really register the background details, namely the office towers. That would have been a nicer park over the iron beams, concrete and barren grass lot they decided to build... They got rid of all those nice old trees, plants and flowers that had been there for decades and just replaced it with nothing. It's pretty ugly landscape architecture.

Trees and their shade feel a little underrated these days in KW landscape architecture.

[Acitta]

Yeah after comparing 3D satellite photos, it's just the park. I found the images in their server but didn't really register the background details, namely the office towers. That would have been a nicer park over the iron beams, concrete and barren grass lot they decided to build... They got rid of all those nice old trees, plants and flowers that had been there for decades and just replaced it with nothing. It's pretty ugly landscape architecture.

As I passed by there on Wednesday afternoon, I noticed that Vogelsang Green was more crowded than I ever saw it before the renovation. All of the picnic tables were full of people eating lunch or socializing. So I think that the changes were a big improvement.

[ac3r]

It's definitely an improvement in a lot of ways. Before, the brick paths were all uneven and you'd regularly find needles and trash littered about, but it did have a lot more nature to embrace. I'm sure once the trees mature it'll look much better, but that'll take at least a decade. The old park offered more shade for people, shrubs to break wind, more flowers and grass for pollinators, birds and insects. The park now is a pretty good place for socializing or having your lunch, I just think the landscape architecture is a bit weak and for a park, it ends up alienating nature itself. I'm not sure who designed the project...I wish they went with someone like Claude Cormier + Associés who have an amazing portfolio.

[Acitta]

Kitchener heritage planning staff suggest century-old landmark on Queen Street should not be designated

[Lebronj23]

Kitchener heritage planning staff suggest century-old landmark on Queen Street should not be designated

Does anyone have the nonpaywall version they could share?

[ac3r]

Kitchener heritage planning staff suggest century-old landmark on Queen Street should not be designated

Does anyone have the nonpaywall version they could share?

Here: https://outline.com/9nRN55

You can stick any The Record article into Outline.com and it'll parse the article and let you read it. Works on quite a lot of paywalled websites in fact.

The heritage committee is wrong on this one. This building is a treasure. I'd rather see this get completely saved instead of just the façade so that Momentum can build an ugly tower on top. The inside of the building is beautiful but so is all the brickwork on the exterior.

[tomh009]

The heritage committee is wrong on this one. This building is a treasure. I'd rather see this get completely saved instead of just the façade so that Momentum can build an ugly tower on top. The inside of the building is beautiful but so is all the brickwork on the exterior.

I think to date the city has not exerted any control over heritage interiors (don't know whether other cities do this though). Would you propose that owners would need to get permission for any interior modifications or renovations to heritage-interior-designated buildings?

I believe many heritage buildings, whether commercial or residential, have been completely stripped and modernized inside.

[ac3r]

I think to date the city has not exerted any control over heritage interiors (don't know whether other cities do this though). Would you propose that owners would need to get permission for any interior modifications or renovations to heritage-interior-designated buildings?

I think it should be based on the architectural merit of the interior in addition to the exterior. So yes, I think that buildings with significance should have their value assessed and developers ought to get permission before making extensive changes first. If I bought up a city block somewhere with a beautiful ancient cathedral, I should not get the freedom to demolish the entire thing as I see fit just because I own it. The value of the building in all regards should supersede my ownership because it has value to everyone. This building, for example, has some beautiful architecture inside but in addition to that, there is a historical significance. As the article mentions "the woodworking was done by Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the plaster and stone work by Berlin general contractor Casper Braun". To me, that's an interesting part of our local history and should be protected as much as it possibly can be.

But also, there is the tangible cost of demolition or modification. Currently, the way we judge a buildings heritage status is quite narrow. A couple weeks ago I linked this lecture by UW School of Architecture professor Eric Haldenby in another thread. At the timestamp I linked (1:21:11) he discusses how the Ontario Heritage Act is a very ineffective method of determining the heritage value of a structure. He has been working with a graduate student at the school to develop a broader method of judging a building. He explains how currently, buildings are primarily judged on 3 points of judgement value which is a fairly limited way of making these heritage value assessments. He argues, though, that it should be expanded to also judge something based on its intrinsic value - materials, energy/effort, construction methods, craftsmanship and so on.

Essentially, is it worth destroying or reconfiguring a building - and ultimately resulting in a permanent loss of architectural, aesthetic and cultural/historical value - or is it worth preserving that existing building and instead simply build a new structure elsewhere? He raises the point that the student is trying to include the energy cost in this sort of heritage protection and modification. Construction and demolition costs an incredible amount of energy and that ought to be taken into consideration as well since we're facing a climate crisis. They could spend less energy building a tower on an empty lot or by bulldozing some old houses with an excavator.

When I look at it this way, it makes no sense. This building is a rare local treasure. Momentum wants to build a massive condo tower on top, saving the façade and spending an incredible amount of energy in the process. Is the loss of this buildings interior - and much of its exterior - worth the loss of the architectural and cultural/historical value - as well as the cost of this demolition and construction of a new tower? I don't believe so. There are so many places in this region they could build this tower. They are using this site because it's a nice building and they can use that historic façade to market it to people, but I think this is an insane thing to do. A similar situation happened with Circa 1877. They saved a tiny bit of the façade of the old brewery, but destroyed everything else...and then built one of the ugliest condo towers in the region on top. They spent a lot of energy doing this but also destroyed one of the most significant parts of our local history when they got rid of the majority of the existing structure. That old brewery is now gone forever and nothing remains but the carbon footprint and parts of the façade that might as well not have even been saved.

[tomh009]

I think to date the city has not exerted any control over heritage interiors (don't know whether other cities do this though). Would you propose that owners would need to get permission for any interior modifications or renovations to heritage-interior-designated buildings?

I think it should be based on the architectural merit of the interior in addition to the exterior. So yes, I think that buildings with significance should have their value assessed and developers ought to get permission before making extensive changes first. If I bought up a city block somewhere with a beautiful ancient cathedral, I should not get the freedom to demolish the entire thing as I see fit just because I own it. The value of the building in all regards should supersede my ownership because it has value to everyone. This building, for example, has some beautiful architecture inside but in addition to that, there is a historical significance. As the article mentions "the woodworking was done by Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the plaster and stone work by Berlin general contractor Casper Braun". To me, that's an interesting part of our local history and should be protected as much as it possibly can be.

Arguably interior design is less "valuable" for preservation because generally only the owner of the building is able view and enjoy it. I can see the other side of the argument, too, but then it's a big change to the heritage preservation policies, and would require the heritage committee to view the interiors of all the heritage properties in order to determine which ones should be preserved inside as well.