General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

Yeah, I really appreciate you calling my home disgusting and horrible.

That being said, your example is one of the plainest building in KW, few to no other buildings look that way and the proposed building certainly does not.

Of course, I would STILL advocate for housing, because I'd rather live in a home in that city than be homeless in what you feel is a nicer city.

Look, I get your point. All I am saying is that we live in a nation/society where we can (though arguably, we're not doing it ideally) both construct homes and make them look nice. If a building looks bad, why should it get approved? These buildings are going to be here for decades. Do you really want a city filled with ugly high rises everywhere you look? They tried that in Russia and ended up with Khrushchyovka. There is plenty of architectural and psychological research that has been done on how the "aesthetic beauty" (or lack there of) impacts the psychology of those people who live within them. This was one reason why public housing projects in North America generally turned into very undesirable, hostile places. The uglier your surroundings are, the more negative your experience will be. And often, it contributes to a faster decline in desirability.

Now, 890-900 King Street West is not social housing, nor are the student condos in Waterloo. But nonetheless, the uglier the building, the greater the negative impact is on those people who live there. We can have both ample housing and make it look good. This is just extremely lazy architecture. Cheap developers, hiring cheap architects, giving them a very limited budget which results in ugly buildings all so they can make...profit. The people who live there don't matter to them, they just see them as $ signs.

Frankly, I'd rather we develop Waterloo Region in a way where our living, working and shopping spaces are aesthetically pleasing and inviting rather than, well, ugly.

You continue to disparage my home. What I am telling you is that I do not feel most of the condos in our city are "ugly" and that is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to believe that some buildings are ugly. But I am also allowed not to agree. And ultimately looks are a subjective matter.

The condo buildings we are discussing are not plain or austere developments, they nor do they look like the student housing development you highlighted. (Nor for that matter do most of the student developments look like that). They are simply modern buildings. You might not like the look of them, but I don't find them particularly problematic.

As for "if a building looks bad should it get approved"...WHO should decide if a building looks bad? Why do YOU get to make that decision and I don't? Why should ANYONE get to make that decision other than the person building it.

[timio]

I was wondering about that property. KW Midwives, who were tenants at 900 King, relocated recently which led me down the redevelopment path.

[KevinL]

I'm quite happy with this. GRH is one of the few Ion stops to not yet have intensive development, it's due.

[ac3r]

You continue to disparage my home.

I guess so. But I won't bother debating. You always play the role of contrarian, no matter the topic.

This building is ugly, end of story. As panamaniac said: "boring, generic, not attractive, probably too tall for the location." I'm happy to see more development proposals for midtown, but gimmie a break. There is no taste in a huge majority of buildings getting constructed here. Toronto can manage to build nice buildings all the time (with exceptions). For some reason, only a few developers/architects here are capable of that.

[danbrotherston]

You continue to disparage my home.

I guess so. But I won't bother debating. You always play the role of contrarian, no matter the topic.

This building is ugly, end of story. As panamaniac said: "boring, generic, not attractive, probably too tall for the location." I'm happy to see more development proposals for midtown, but gimmie a break. There is no taste in a huge majority of buildings getting constructed here. Toronto can manage to build nice buildings all the time (with exceptins). For some reason, only a few developers/architects here are capable of that.

Ahh, so we've moved on to disparaging me directly...

And yes, I know exactly what panamaniac said, in any case, you've declared yourself King of aesthetics so clearly I'm not allowed to like where I live...thanks.

[ac3r]

Lol...

[dtkmelissa]

I definitely have preferences about what types of buildings I really love but I'm not sure that buildings should be approved based on whether they look 'good' or not. Just based on some of the threads in this forum alone, there are varying (and often strong) opinions on whether any one development looks good or not. I think the focus needs to be on building a variety of housing options that allow as many people to purchase a home that works well for them. I suspect I'll like the looks of some of them and not others but that's one of the things I kind of love about a city - the diversity of buildings. Personally, I'd rather have a mix of buildings where some look good to me and others don't, than a subdivision of low-rise homes that are all carbon copies of each other (and I used to live in one of those neighbourhoods for a long time) - but I'm sure others would disagree.

[danbrotherston]

I definitely have preferences about what types of buildings I really love but I'm not sure that buildings should be approved based on whether they look 'good' or not. Just based on some of the threads in this forum alone, there are varying (and often strong) opinions on whether any one development looks good or not. I think the focus needs to be on building a variety of housing options that allow as many people to purchase a home that works well for them. I suspect I'll like the looks of some of them and not others but that's one of the things I kind of love about a city - the diversity of buildings. Personally, I'd rather have a mix of buildings where some look good to me and others don't, than a subdivision of low-rise homes that are all carbon copies of each other (and I used to live in one of those neighbourhoods for a long time) - but I'm sure others would disagree.

I mean, your argument is one of tolerance, hard to disagree with. I certainly don't.

[dtkvictim]

I guess so. But I won't bother debating. You always play the role of contrarian, no matter the topic.

This building is ugly, end of story. As panamaniac said: "boring, generic, not attractive, probably too tall for the location." I'm happy to see more development proposals for midtown, but gimmie a break. There is no taste in a huge majority of buildings getting constructed here. Toronto can manage to build nice buildings all the time (with exceptins). For some reason, only a few developers/architects here are capable of that.

Ahh, so we've moved on to disparaging me directly...

And yes, I know exactly what panamaniac said, in any case, you've declared yourself King of aesthetics so clearly I'm not allowed to like where I live...thanks.

There's rarely a thread I enter on this forum where I don't expect one of your contrarian "Frankly..." post. Often I agree with you, sometimes I don't. But that you read into this largely true statement as disparagement is your own choice. I don't think it's surprising for that manner of posting to exhaust people.

---

Back on the original topic: I've defended diversity of buildings (as one of the few people who likes Circa) and will continue to do so because it's a subjective matter. But it's also absurd to argue that all cities balance out to the same positive/negative public sentiment on beauty, as though human's tastes are perfectly distributed across all possible building types and architectural styles. Some cities are measurably (public opinion) more beautiful than others, even if there are outliers that disagree with the average. I suspect if KW was polled, the general feeling towards our recent developments would be "meh", which may be the best we can hope for during a housing crisis. My opinion is thoroughly negative, if you'd like to know my bias.

I think the idea of the psychological effect of built environments that ac3r tried bringing up can't be hand-waved away so easily either. Of course this is a very difficult topic to discuss, due to the subjective components of it, but it's extremely important. Dan (as you've openly made it clear which building you live in before), I just so happen to spend my entire working day sitting next to a window, of which your building takes up a significant portion of my view. Unfortunately, the view I have is one that contributes negatively to my mental health, during a year where positive contributions are much needed. Your building is one of many negative components making up that view. I have no problem "disparaging" your building for two reasons

1) You didn't design or build it, so disparaging it is not an attack on you or your abilities
2) I am fairly certain I have to spend way, way more time having to look at the outside of your building than you do, and so I feel more qualified to talk about the effects of having it imposed upon me

That you like your building is fantastic, and I'm only commenting on the outward appearance. I happen to find the building that I live in to be attractive, but if someone else told me they didn't, the word "disparaging" wouldn't cross my mind. Their opinion is still useful and valuable in building a future that works for more people, but it does not affect me on a personal level.

[ac3r]

I definitely have preferences about what types of buildings I really love but I'm not sure that buildings should be approved based on whether they look 'good' or not. Just based on some of the threads in this forum alone, there are varying (and often strong) opinions on whether any one development looks good or not. I think the focus needs to be on building a variety of housing options that allow as many people to purchase a home that works well for them. I suspect I'll like the looks of some of them and not others but that's one of the things I kind of love about a city - the diversity of buildings. Personally, I'd rather have a mix of buildings where some look good to me and others don't, than a subdivision of low-rise homes that are all carbon copies of each other (and I used to live in one of those neighbourhoods for a long time) - but I'm sure others would disagree.

I don't know, you need to have some aesthetic standard if you're going to approve a building. You'd be surprised at how much importance is actually placed on its appearance, at least in larger cities. I guess a sleepy GTA bedroom community like ours isn't yet at the point where we will require architects and the developer to do their best, but you rarely see truly ugly buildings being approved in major world cities, unless they're far out in suburbs or something. Buildings are approved or unapproved based on a variety of factors, but so long as you meet the technical and functional needs, the next thing is for an approval committee to decide whether or not it looks good - judged either on its own merit, or how it suits the neighbourhood character.

I think the City of Kitchener does a fairly good job at permitting decent looking proposals over horrible looking ones. It's hard to list many recent buildings in this city that I would say are horrendous. Mediocre? Sure we've had a few. Auburn Lofts, the apartments at Highland/Ira Needles, Duke Tower, the apartment at Weber/Scott. They're meh at best. We have plenty of superior projects here, from 242 Queen, Otis, Charlie West, City Centre, 100/Garment Street, Station Park etc with plenty of other nice ones working their way through the approval process. These are all buildings that would look suitable in Toronto where they've got much higher architectural expectations and standards.

The City of Waterloo, in comparison, seems to be the epicenter of terrible architecture in this region, and it's Waterloo I tend to hate on. All the new buildings around the university area are almost all terrible. Weird, bright colour choices on the façades, odd design patterns (staggered balconies and windows) or incredibly bottom of the barrel stuff that looks like it was made in the 1960s and very cheap material choices, many of which are already deteriorating. As for uptown condo projects, they have not really approved any besides Barrelyards, Caroline/144 Park, Bauer Lofts etc and they're fairly mediocre. Circa1877 is the most modern looking building they've got there, and while I'm personally not a fan of it (due to the massing), it's not that bad I suppose...it's just a little generic.

[tomh009]

However, if the developer is planning to within the zoning, there is no design approval, neither her nor in Toronto, unless I am much misinformed. Once the devleoper starts asking for variances, the city is able to negotiate, but then the question is how big those variances are, and what are the city's other priorities -- for example, providing green space, including ground-floor retail, incorporating affordable units into the development etc. The design will surely be on the list, but may not be the topmost priority.

P.S. I generally agree with you on most buildings' aesthetics, but I actually do quite like The Scott, with its yellow and grey treatment -- colour, but not garish. That just proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

[ac3r]

However, if the developer is planning to within the zoning, there is no design approval, neither her nor in Toronto, unless I am much misinformed. Once the devleoper starts asking for variances, the city is able to negotiate, but then the question is how big those variances are, and what are the city's other priorities -- for example, providing green space, including ground-floor retail, incorporating affordable units into the development etc. The design will surely be on the list, but may not be the topmost priority.

Yes and no. If I was planning a 6 floor midrise that adhered to all the zoning...but then I revelated it to have a façade of corrugated sheet metal, there are things that can be done to deny that project. It has been years since I've worked on any projects in Waterloo Region so I don't know the specifics, but there are some strings that can be pulled as far as I know. I think they are just rarely pulled because the cities tend to not put much precedence on how nice a building looks in its environment. Tends to apply to most cities...if something looks truly awful, they'll find some way to stop it.

Edit: Also yeah, The Scott - if that's the name of it - isn't bad at all. Hard to believe it's from SRM! Haha. It doesn't try to hard and the materials are alright. I think it's the simplicity of things that works in its favour. It's bright, the features are modest and not overbearing and so it really brightens up the area with some warmth while adding some new, contemporary housing. If you stand on that corner and do a 360, you've got that old office tower (which is alright), a cold, forebrooding courthouse, some rundown post-war homes and a parking garage in the background. It definitely looks pretty good there.

[danbrotherston]

Ahh, so we've moved on to disparaging me directly...

And yes, I know exactly what panamaniac said, in any case, you've declared yourself King of aesthetics so clearly I'm not allowed to like where I live...thanks.

There's rarely a thread I enter on this forum where I don't expect one of your contrarian "Frankly..." post. Often I agree with you, sometimes I don't. But that you read into this largely true statement as disparagement is your own choice. I don't think it's surprising for that manner of posting to exhaust people.

---

Back on the original topic: I've defended diversity of buildings (as one of the few people who likes Circa) and will continue to do so because it's a subjective matter. But it's also absurd to argue that all cities balance out to the same positive/negative public sentiment on beauty, as though human's tastes are perfectly distributed across all possible building types and architectural styles. Some cities are measurably (public opinion) more beautiful than others, even if there are outliers that disagree with the average. I suspect if KW was polled, the general feeling towards our recent developments would be "meh", which may be the best we can hope for during a housing crisis. My opinion is thoroughly negative, if you'd like to know my bias.

I think the idea of the psychological effect of built environments that ac3r tried bringing up can't be hand-waved away so easily either. Of course this is a very difficult topic to discuss, due to the subjective components of it, but it's extremely important. Dan (as you've openly made it clear which building you live in before), I just so happen to spend my entire working day sitting next to a window, of which your building takes up a significant portion of my view. Unfortunately, the view I have is one that contributes negatively to my mental health, during a year where positive contributions are much needed. Your building is one of many negative components making up that view. I have no problem "disparaging" your building for two reasons

1) You didn't design or build it, so disparaging it is not an attack on you or your abilities
2) I am fairly certain I have to spend way, way more time having to look at the outside of your building than you do, and so I feel more qualified to talk about the effects of having it imposed upon me

That you like your building is fantastic, and I'm only commenting on the outward appearance. I happen to find the building that I live in to be attractive, but if someone else told me they didn't, the word "disparaging" wouldn't cross my mind. Their opinion is still useful and valuable in building a future that works for more people, but it does not affect me on a personal level.

At the risk of being "contrarian"...like I said originally. It's "cool" to hate the new stuff. I mean, it's a classic line. So yes, I suspect that the majority of our largely conservative (little c, not big C) city would object to the new buildings. I don't think that matters much, as I pointed out, things which there is now a swell of support behind (Brutalist architecture) that was hated before as well.

I must ask, what would be less offensive than my building? At a certain point, the objection becomes "I don't like BUILDINGS" rather than "I don't like THAT building". This is the response I am hearing most often at this point. I'm all for different forms of housing, but tall buildings are one of the forms I support. Or to put it another way, are there buildings in the city which you can point to that you do not find offensive?

[danbrotherston]

However, if the developer is planning to within the zoning, there is no design approval, neither her nor in Toronto, unless I am much misinformed. Once the devleoper starts asking for variances, the city is able to negotiate, but then the question is how big those variances are, and what are the city's other priorities -- for example, providing green space, including ground-floor retail, incorporating affordable units into the development etc. The design will surely be on the list, but may not be the topmost priority.

P.S. I generally agree with you on most buildings' aesthetics, but I actually do quite like The Scott, with its yellow and grey treatment -- colour, but not garish. That just proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

This is exactly the point. I mean, call me libertarian if you want, but the idea of a central city committee deciding what is "beautiful" and what is "ugly" seems draconian.

[danbrotherston]

However, if the developer is planning to within the zoning, there is no design approval, neither her nor in Toronto, unless I am much misinformed. Once the devleoper starts asking for variances, the city is able to negotiate, but then the question is how big those variances are, and what are the city's other priorities -- for example, providing green space, including ground-floor retail, incorporating affordable units into the development etc. The design will surely be on the list, but may not be the topmost priority.

Yes and no. If I was planning a 6 floor midrise that adhered to all the zoning...but then I revelated it to have a façade of corrugated sheet metal, there are things that can be done to deny that project. It has been years since I've worked on any projects in Waterloo Region so I don't know the specifics, but there are some strings that can be pulled as far as I know. I think they are just rarely pulled because the cities tend to not put much precedence on how nice a building looks in its environment. Tends to apply to most cities...if something looks truly awful, they'll find some way to stop it.

Edit: Also yeah, The Scott - if that's the name of it - isn't bad at all. Hard to believe it's from SRM! Haha. It doesn't try to hard and the materials are alright. I think it's the simplicity of things that works in its favour. It's bright, the features are modest and not overbearing and so it really brightens up the area with some warmth while adding some new, contemporary housing. If you stand on that corner and do a 360, you've got that old office tower (which is alright), a cold, forebrooding courthouse, some rundown post-war homes and a parking garage in the background. It definitely looks pretty good there.

Lol...the Midtown lofts literally use corrugated steel in the exterior of the building: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4549696,...384!8i8192