171 King St S Waterloo | 37 & 33 fl | Proposed

[ZEBuilder]

This is now finally a public facing application.

As expected it is VanMar leading the application but Urban Legend is also involved. All the consultants, to the suprise of no one, are the usual suspects for VanMar/Urban Legend, Kirkor is the architect, MHBC is doing planning, Paradigm is doing traffic, WalterFedy is doing civil works, and CVD is doing the geotech.

The towers are 37 and 33 floors as I stated a couple of months ago with a maximum height of 123m (bylaw allows for 81m), they will be the second and third tallest in Uptown proposed (for now...), the development will be entirely 1 and 2 bdrm units. There will be a total of 834 units, 238 will be 2 bdrm (29%), 596 will be 1 bdrm (71%). It will be a phased development with phase 1 fronting Caroline being the 37 floor building, phase 2 will be 33 floors and front King. The 37 floor building will have 4 elevators meaning 1 elevator per 109.5 units and the 33 floor building will have 3 meaning 1 elevator per 132. Best practice is 1 elevator per 100 units, but this isn't completely horrible.

In order to make this work they will be moving the heritage building to a different portion of the site but maintaining it on site.

In total there will be 790.68 sqm of retail space, this will all front King, it will be regular units and the historical building will become a restaurant. There will be 758.97 sqm of indoor amenity space all within tower 1 and 1182.46 sqm of outdoor amenity space on top of the podium. 

As for parking there will be 403 spots, good for a ratio of 0.48 per unit. For bike parking there will be 256 good for 0.3 per unit, City of Waterloo bylaw is 0.5, Kitchener bylaw is 1.0 (bad ask by VanMar). All of the parking within the building will be above ground in the podium which makes for a rather unpleasant street presence.

VanMar is asking for relief from setbacks along King and Caroline particularly for the upper podium parking levels which will extend to the property line (very bad ask), bylaw requires a 4-5m setback, for context the property line is effectively the edge of the existing sidewalk so it will be an imposing podium, if they matched Circa 1877 next door which roughly abides with the bylaw it would be more reasonable, it also isn't that difficult to do.

Urban Design Brief: Z2523_167-171KingStS_Urban_Design_Brief_20250819.pdf
Arch Set: Z2523_167-171KingStS_Plans_Pack._Site_Plan_and_Floor_Plans_20250819.pdf
Engage Page: 167-171 King St S | EngageWR
Renders: Z2523_167-171KingStS_Buiding_Renderings_20250819.pdf

King Podium:
   

Towers:
   

[nms]

Kudos for keeping the hertiage building. I think it's a missed opportunity to move the house closer to the street. By doing do, it removes any chance to increase the size of the outdoor patio beyond the size of the existing porch.

I'm not a fan of taking up of virtually every last square centimetre of the property. It removes any ground level outdoor spaces which might encourage casual interactions between the property and the streetscape.

Does anyone know if the other existing parking podiums are fully occupied? If not, is there an opportunity to consider reducing the size of the parking podiums?

[mastermind]

I don't mind the podium going to the property line on King. It covers the sidewalk, and it doesn't interfere with anything in the public realm. I do think the podium would be nicer looking if it had units along the King St side though.

[Spokes]

Can it be "repurposed" into being demolished so that a new building can have an honest design that actually respects anyone who has to live nearby?

This!

[Spokes]

This love affair for heritage buildings needs to be revisited. There are some that were done well - Glove Box etc. And your retrofits - Communitech obv and the Kaufman lofts and Arrow Lofts are tasteful imo. (Do those even count or was that more of a solid choice to just gut make lofts vs heritage obligations?)

Waterloo region definitely loves heritage protection. It's a bit overdone if you ask me.

[ac3r]

I'm not a fan of taking up of virtually every last square centimetre of the property.  It removes any ground level outdoor spaces which might encourage casual interactions between the property and the streetscape.

A problem is that lot of the time, outdoor spaces on urban condo properties are very hit and miss in terms of actual use, whether they're private (on a podium) or ground level private-public park space. It's very frequent that they just become these disused, void spaces that aren't properly being utilized in any meaningful capacity and increasingly, developers would prefer to shrink them in size rather than spend money to make a space very few in the building (or the general public) will actually use on a regular basis, then have to maintain them for years and these days often consider security measures if there is drug use being seen (initially, this was an issue at 55 Duke where nearby addicts would use the open space off of Duke Street to study their rocket science, but they mostly chased them off).

I see this all the time in Toronto where I live, but it's common in most cities these days. Whether you're walking around downtown, midtown or areas with some clusters of density if you stroll through these properties chances are you won't see that many people out no matter how many times you visit, relative to how many live in said building or pass by. It's heightened in midsized cities/regions like Waterloo Region too, due to the lack of density. You can walk around a place like Tehran or Hong Kong and people are everywhere due to how many there are. But here it's a lot different.

Plus, I suspect that besides the issues of them being private property and not feeling that inviting (even if you are a condo owner...you still know you don't truly own any of what you "bought"), it's an issue of the third space. People desperately seek places like this, especially within this globohomo world which has significantly reduced said third spaces. Neighbourhood cafes, bowling alleys, community centres, pool halls, arcades, social clubs etc all still exist but not like they used to. People want to get out and do things beyond home/work/planned meetups with friends, but if you want to "encourage casual interactions between the property and the streetscape" you need more than a small courtyard next to a condo tower. Thus, developers often think what's the point in spending money on this?

But! That's not to say it can't be done. Some actually do manage to do it successfully. As horrifically ugly as The Gaslight Condominiums with the barcode podium is, they did do a fairly decent private-public outdoor/indoor space utilizing the old structures. Thanks to the efforts of the property owners and others associated, they regularly put on events there and having retail included also draws in shoppers. But that was a unique one because they had a significant amount of space to play with. The average low quality, cookie cutter pre-cast condo or apartment tower lacks that and so it's tricky to justify building a big outdoor space.

[ac3r]

Also I don't understand how people can view the history of the place they live as an inconvenience, going as far as to say even when something should be preserved it should at least be demolished and moved elsewhere. It's a shame very few people really understand the value in keeping this.

What makes the history here worth erasure, or insignificant to the point it should be relocated? Do you really want to live in a place that already more and more each day, looks like a procedurally generated AI nightmare where every building looks like the same monochrome slop as everything else in North America? Do you think Dijon or Lausanne would be the cities they were if they bulldozed their history, built stroads everywhere and invited in multinational corporations and REITs to turn it into some soulless hell scape? Every other pro-urbanist progressive strokes themselves when thinking of how great European or Asian cities are, but they're great because they don't make these sort of mistakes. Why would you want to advocate for more of this? Do you know how much history was lost in the former USSR - be it in Mongolia or Russia - because they straight up flattened old cities to build thousands of horrible Khrushchevka apartments that are now, basically, slums? Or what the Chinese have erased in recent years?

Every old building you knock down (or just move) is a piece of history you can't get back and it's so weird to me how many people advocate for this...and for what? An ugly condo tower? A parkette that'd probably just fill up with old Tim Hortons cups?

[Acitta]

Also I don't understand how people can view the history of the place they live as an inconvenience, going as far as to say even when something should be preserved it should at least be demolished and moved elsewhere. It's a shame very few people really understand the value in keeping this.

What makes the history here worth erasure, or insignificant to the point it should be relocated? Do you really want to live in a place that already more and more each day, looks like a procedurally generated AI nightmare where every building looks like the same monochrome slop as everything else in North America? Do you think Dijon or Lausanne would be the cities they were if they bulldozed their history, built stroads everywhere and invited in multinational corporations and REITs to turn it into some soulless hell scape? Every other pro-urbanist progressive strokes themselves when thinking of how great European or Asian cities are, but they're great because they don't make these sort of mistakes. Why would you want to advocate for more of this? Do you know how much history was lost in the former USSR - be it in Mongolia or Russia - because they straight up flattened old cities to build thousands of horrible Khrushchevka apartments that are now, basically, slums? Or what the Chinese have erased in recent years?

Every old building you knock down (or just move) is a piece of history you can't get back and it's so weird to me how many people advocate for this...and for what? An ugly condo tower? A parkette that'd probably just fill up with old Tim Hortons cups?

How many buildings being built today will people a hundred years from now consider to be a heritage building that should be preserved?

[ac3r]

How many buildings being built today will people a hundred years from now consider to be a heritage building that should be preserved?

Not many would for various reasons, unless they hold some sort of cultural significance such as historical provenance, anthropological history, architectural history, engineering quality etc. The Kuntz-Labatt House is at least 140 years old and is thus a historically significant part of the local history of this region. It also has a history that has for over a century justified keeping it where it is. Will our contemporary pre-cast condos be standing in 140s years? Probably not.

David Kuntz founded the Spring Brewery in 1844 on property at the south-west corner of King and William Streets. Later known as the L. Kuntz Park Brewery, it grew to become Ontario's second largest brewery by 1910. The entire plant, which stretched back to Park Street, was sold to Carling Breweries Limited in 1929, though the name Kuntz was retained for another decade. The brewery was demolished in 1993.

The Kuntz-Labatt house, on land adjoining the brewery, was built in the mid 1880s for the Kuntz family. It remained for a time the principal family residence. Colonel Hugh J. Heasley, a former Manager of Carling's, lived in the house from 1944 until his death in 1978. Kuntz had several other houses built in the vicinity of the brewery - see 156 King Street South, almost directly across King Street - but most were eventually demolished to allow its gradual expansion.

The yellow-brick Kuntz-Labatt house was designed in the Italianate style. The façade is asymetrical, with a central projecting bay capped by a gable with return eaves. Paried eaves brackets and the round-headed window in the gable are characteristic of Italianate detailng. A one-storey verandah begins on the front facade and wraps in a graceful curve around to the northwest side. That northern elevation has also a smaller, delicate second-storey verandah. Both verandahs are supported by elegant columns and a railing with turned balusters. In 1973 Carling Breweries undertook extensive renovations which were in keeping with the original form and character of the house.

I think keeping a structure that has managed to last 140~ years and was part of the original history of this area is a good idea. If others think it should be demolished to have an "honest design that actually respects anyone who has to live nearby" or "encourage casual interactions between the property and the streetscape" (whatever the hell any of that means) then they're free to advocate for that, but they'll need a good argument to present to council. Something other than "well if you tear this house down you could pour a HUGE pad of concrete, throw up a couple benches and plant pots that double as trash cans". Or with a new, large residential building that house could be repurposed into some sort of unique third space - a café, restaurant, social club for those at Chartwell - because it's still a perfectly good building with a history that would draw people in.

[tomh009]

How many buildings being built today will people a hundred years from now consider to be a heritage building that should be preserved?

It's hard to say exactly what would be considered worthwhile in the future. But if we go back 50 years to the heyday of brutalism, I don't think people would have anticipated many of those buildings being worth preserving in the future, either. But maybe Dana Porter Library or the original Math & Computer building are worthwhile--or the Ontario Science Centre. Your average condo or rental highrise being built today, likely not. Perimeter Institute? KPL renovation? RIM Park/Eastside Public Library? Who knows, but there will be some.

[nms]

How many buildings being built today will people a hundred years from now consider to be a heritage building that should be preserved?

More likely public buildings or semi-public buildings will be considered heritage buildings as opposed to residential buildings. However, it would not surprise me if some of the custom residential infill might end up being heritage worthy if they represent a unique style or a notable architect. Of course, there is also the change that someone important lives in that house and the house becomes notable for that (eg William Lyon Mackenzie King's Woodside).

Locally, it will likely depend on which buildings are still capable of standing. Many buildings built today have a 50-year cycle of maintenance and repair. Condominium residential buildings will likely still be standing and incapable of being replaced since there are dozens if not hundreds of owners who hold a share in the building. I would not be surprised if various buildings have dramatic building envelope upgrades depending on how materials age.

[ac3r]

This was in the news a week ago or so. Apparently the NIMBYs of Waterloo are fighting really hard to keep this project from going ahead.

[ijmorlan]

… Condominium residential buildings will likely still be standing and incapable of being replaced since there are dozens if not hundreds of owners who hold a share in the building.…

Actually if 80% of owners approve, the entire building can be sold. So in a situation where selling is, broadly speaking, beneficial for the owners, it can probably actually happen — a few holdouts or unreachable owners cannot stop it. It has to be done properly however: if a sale occurs, those who vote against it can file a court application saying the price was too low, and if this view is upheld, those who voted for the sale must compensate those who voted against.