Posts: 435
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
67
Making this thread to keep the discussion organized with all these new submissions recently
Application submitted April 25th , 2022 - Proposing a 44 storey mixed residential building with 566 units
Location : 88 Queen S South
Developer : IN8 Developments
Submitted by IBI group but fairly certain the architect is SRM
No luck finding renders on this one yet as it won’t be posted on the development map due to the original zoning, and no luck emailing the city either. If anyone can find some please post!
Posts: 621
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
178
05-31-2022, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 03:35 PM by CP42.)
Copying this from General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours thread:
(05-31-2022, 03:24 PM)KaiserWilhelmsBust Wrote: In8's 88 Queen Street - 44 storeys & 567 units
https://pub-kitchener.escribemeetings.co...entId=3725
Posts: 1,547
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
136
05-31-2022, 04:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 04:04 PM by taylortbb.)
It's the usual SRM crap, but there's one thing I extra hate here, the parking access from Queen St. The primary parking access will be from Charles St, but there's a second garage door from Queen St that will serve exactly 11 parking spots. I don't love facadectomies to begin with, but when the storefront is getting replaced by a garage door that's bad. When it's getting replaced by a garage door for 11 parking spots... that's awful. Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
Posts: 435
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
67
05-31-2022, 04:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 04:20 PM by Lebronj23.)
Nice find. It really does look a Tek tower 2. Exact same massing and balcony pattern, just a darker (smoke) balcony glass lol. 140m on the dot to the top going by the drawings.
Posts: 621
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation:
178
05-31-2022, 04:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 04:21 PM by CP42.)
(05-31-2022, 04:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote: It's the usual SRM crap, but there's one thing I extra hate here, the parking access from Queen St. The primary parking access will be from Charles St, but there's a second garage door from Queen St that will serve exactly 11 parking spots. I don't love facadectomies to begin with, but when the storefront is getting replaced by a garage door that's bad. When it's getting replaced by a garage door for 11 parking spots... that's awful. Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
Looks like the Queen Street entrance is for parking levels 1-5 (podium) for a total of 87 spots.
Charles Street is for P1-P3 (underground).
Posts: 1,547
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
136
(05-31-2022, 04:19 PM)CP42 Wrote: (05-31-2022, 04:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote: It's the usual SRM crap, but there's one thing I extra hate here, the parking access from Queen St. The primary parking access will be from Charles St, but there's a second garage door from Queen St that will serve exactly 11 parking spots. I don't love facadectomies to begin with, but when the storefront is getting replaced by a garage door that's bad. When it's getting replaced by a garage door for 11 parking spots... that's awful. Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
Looks like the Queen Street entrance is for parking levels 1-5 (podium) for a total of 87 spots.
Charles Street is for P1-P3 (underground).
Sure enough, I missed the -5 at the end of "PROPOSED SITE ACCESS TO PARKING LEVEL 1 (QUEEN)-5". That's at least less egregiously bad, but I still think that all the parking access should be from Charles St. Yes, it's a little inconvenient (Charlie West has a weird turning area right after the garage where you choose up/down), but it's much better for the street interaction (not that In8 has ever given a shit about that).
Posts: 4,005
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
223
05-31-2022, 05:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 05:14 PM by ac3r.)
Both this and 26 Charles look like absolute shit but I guess that's what we can expect from the duo behind these projects. Someone I know who works for SRM says they're certainly going to get redesigned by the time construction starts on both projects.
Posts: 1,506
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
46
What makes 44 floors the magic number (eg this tower and 26 Charles St W)? For the last batch of towers, 25 floors seemed to generally be the topping out number. After 44 floors, what's the next common height?
Posts: 4,005
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
223
05-31-2022, 05:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 05:46 PM by ac3r.)
(05-31-2022, 04:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote: Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
There isn't any commercial space in this project. It's purely residential with 567 units in total. The existing façade being retained is up to the developer to decide. Whether or not IN8 chooses to will remain to be seen.
Posts: 6,562
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
96
(05-31-2022, 05:42 PM)ac3r Wrote: (05-31-2022, 04:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote: Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
There isn't any commercial space in this project. It's purely residential with 567 units in total. The existing façade being retained is up to the developer to decide. Whether or not IN8 chooses to will remain to be seen.
Is there not? What is the “public amenity” I wonder?
Posts: 852
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation:
94
I'm usually in favour of maintaining the facade of heritage buildings over losing them entirely, but this is almost insulting.
Posts: 6,562
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
96
(05-31-2022, 08:55 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I'm usually in favour of maintaining the facade of heritage buildings over losing them entirely, but this is almost insulting.
How so?
Posts: 4,396
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
188
(05-31-2022, 04:19 PM)CP42 Wrote: Looks like the Queen Street entrance is for parking levels 1-5 (podium) for a total of 87 spots.
Charles Street is for P1-P3 (underground).
I do not like. Why can’t they organize it so there is a single entrance to all the parking? Even if it’s two doors right next to each other, one with a ramp up and the other with a ramp down.
I really should look at the plans; it might be obvious why what we’re suggesting is difficult, but having a door on Queen St. really isn’t ideal.
Posts: 654
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
63
Really getting tired of IN8/SRM giving all the ammunition the density haters need in this city. Considering their pattern of getting worse post render, I shudder to think about how this one could be made to look worse. This and the other are both ugly slabs and I hope the city somehow forces a change around their urban design guidelines, insufficient as they may be.
Posts: 10,471
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
326
(05-31-2022, 05:42 PM)ac3r Wrote: (05-31-2022, 04:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote: Can't we just have 11 fewer parking spots, and maintain a proper retail facade along Queen St?
There isn't any commercial space in this project. It's purely residential with 567 units in total. The existing façade being retained is up to the developer to decide. Whether or not IN8 chooses to will remain to be seen.
It does say "mixed residential", that does imply some commercial usage, I think.
|
