Posts: 414
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
57
03-07-2022, 09:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2022, 10:43 AM by Lebronj23.)
Location : 10 Duke West
Developer : Vanmar
Storeys : 45 (updated June 9)
A heritage assessment was done last year to develop the office into a 40 storey mixed use. No official plan submitted yet. Looks like they plan on keeping the facade only. I am not sure if this render is only a placeholder or if it is accurate. Interesting none the less!
Posts: 720
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
92
Assuming the rear side is a mirror of this I like it a lot! Nice and clean lines, not a mess of different colours or materials.
Posts: 564
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
111
Wow! That’s going to be a lot of tall ones in that area with DTK, Q Condos, and this. I hope they truly make this mixed use in the bottom few floors. Excited for what it turns into.
Posts: 3,831
Threads: 62
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
191
03-07-2022, 10:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2022, 10:07 PM by ac3r.)
Ahh, this is one of the towers I mentioned in the general thread a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately, the architectural firm behind this one is junk. I've seen some more renderings of it and it's not an impressive looking design though I expect it to change over time. And indeed, they can only retain the façade. The building there now wouldn't be able to support a 40 floor tower without serious engineering changes, to the point that it would likely not be financially viable for most developers. Given that it's just an old office, though, I don't think there is much of a loss so long as they retain the façade.
Posts: 6,469
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
85
03-07-2022, 10:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2022, 10:09 PM by panamaniac.)
(03-07-2022, 09:38 PM)Lens Wrote: Assuming the rear side is a mirror of this I like it a lot! Nice and clean lines, not a mess of different colours or materials.
The rear would be entirely new construction, no?
The render makes the tower look dark and heavy, imo.
Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
It does kind of match the office tower behind it. Hopefully it will go up as shown, but...hey, who am I kidding?
Posts: 749
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation:
46
I like it! finally a tower with clean lines from the floor above the podium to the top floor. Obviously it will all depend on material used. Hopefully they can push for an extra couple more floors to make this tower stand above DTK.
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
41
It has a bit of a Mies van der Rohe vibe without the benefit of a public plaza to offset its bulk.
Posts: 414
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
57
Posts: 564
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
111
(03-07-2022, 10:03 PM)ac3r Wrote: Ahh, this is one of the towers I mentioned in the general thread a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately, the architectural firm behind this one is junk. I've seen some more renderings of it and it's not an impressive looking design though I expect it to change over time. And indeed, they can only retain the façade. The building there now wouldn't be able to support a 40 floor tower without serious engineering changes, to the point that it would likely not be financially viable for most developers. Given that it's just an old office, though, I don't think there is much of a loss so long as they retain the façade.
The Heritage Impact Assessment is by mcCallumSather, while some of the floorplans included indicate the architect may be Kirkor - same as Station Park:
![[Image: Tqi3zD8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Tqi3zD8.png)
Posts: 749
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation:
46
While I will agree Kirkor is not my favorite Architecture firm, They are still better then 90% of the architectural firms in KW. (I like both Edge and Martin Simon) Kirkor at least has a portfolio that is not filled with student getto buildings and projects that turned out nothing like their renders. If they are able to build a decent looking parking podium and a uniformed tower it will definitely be a win for the region.
Posts: 720
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
92
Kirkor is definitely competent. I took a close look at the Metalworks in Guelph and I was pleasantly surprised for the most part.
Looks like the rear is no the same as the front. WHY can't we have a simple symmetrical building. The don't all need a "front"
Posts: 791
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation:
76
What incentivizes building towers on top of "heritage" buildings? This, Circa, Q Condos, 21 Weber St, etc.
I get that heritage designations (or the risk of it) makes this the path of least resistance, and I actually prefer it over outright losing the few worthwhile buildings we have. But why are these properties so often chosen for redevelopment? Surely the many parking lots, empty lots, or completely forgettable buildings should be incentivized for redevelopment first?
Posts: 4,333
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
179
(03-09-2022, 08:57 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: What incentivizes building towers on top of "heritage" buildings? This, Circa, Q Condos, 21 Weber St, etc.
I get that heritage designations (or the risk of it) makes this the path of least resistance, and I actually prefer it over outright losing the few worthwhile buildings we have. But why are these properties so often chosen for redevelopment? Surely the many parking lots, empty lots, or completely forgettable buildings should be incentivized for redevelopment first?
I don’t really have an answer and I think you raise a good point, but here’s something else to consider: some buildings have a (realistic) choice of being neglected and eventually demolished, or being incorporated into a large new development. Generally, I’d rather the latter.
Although I do agree that some of these projects are unfortunate — personally, I prefer façadism to nothing, but I appreciate even more when something of the inside of the original building remains to be used into the future.
Posts: 3,831
Threads: 62
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
191
03-09-2022, 09:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2022, 09:14 PM by ac3r.)
Locally, a lot of the parking lots within Waterloo Region - especially in the urban cores - are owned by the city or region, so that's one reason it's easier for a developer to simply purchase an existing lot with a building. I'd love to see the parking lots get redeveloped as well, but it becomes a hassle to deal with the bureaucratic red tape of acquiring the property of a parking lot from the city or region, applying for a building permit, getting that rezoned, dealing with cleanup costs (parking lots tend to have a lot of gasoline and oil runoff) and so on. The region would then need to ensure they have other parking available, although I suppose that's a bit of a moot point when we have an abundance of parking, much of which is underutilized. Q Condos won't have any parking included for example, so instead residents will have the option of renting a spot in the neighbouring multilevel garage for a fee since the garage on Duke Street barely gets used.
Also, redeveloping an existing heritage or older building tends to look nice (even if it's just a façade that is retained) so that helps developers financially. It sucks to lose things like the property Q Condos will be taking over however, but I will concede that it gives the building a nice façade nonetheless. Likewise with this one.
|
