Huck Glove Conservation Plan

Heritage Kitchener, an advisory committee for the City of Kitchener, will be hearing about the conservation plan for the Huck Glove Factory at the April 3 meeting.  A link to the meeting agenda, which includes a long description of the conservation plan, is available here, beginning on p. 17.

The ACO North Waterloo Region Branch did not make any presentation at any meeting when this proposal was presented.  The comments below are my own.

As a resident of Victoria Park and living very close to the proposed development, I acted personally as an interested delegation at the Committee of Adjustment on March 5.  I had made comments at a previous public meeting.  I was the only delegation.  Did I represent Victoria Park?  I’m not sure, but there were heritage issues coming from the development of a 25-storey building, the height of which was gained through negotiations with Kitchener planning staff through bonussing provisions, a process often undertaken by city planning staff.

I was hesitantly pleased that the Huck Glove Factory on Victoria Street was being “saved”.  The building was not designated even though there had been attempts to have the building listed as a heritage building.  Yet, the design seemed to overwhelm the heritage building.  It went from this:

 

 

 

 

 

to a proposed overburdened:

 

 

 

 

 

The heritage of the building was being overwhelmed by a modern superstructure above and beside the building.  I wondered why the developers could not have left the Huck Glove portion alone and built beside and behind the building.  Heritage planners at City Hall approved the plan and are assured that Huck Glove will get heritage protection – it had no protection before despite efforts to get protection from a previous owner.

Heritage bonussing is a process used by city planners that has enabled the developers to build taller than zoned 25 storey building behind the Huck Glove building and office development.  I am not so certain that the trade off has saved our heritage.  There currently a trend to build over/above and contiguous to heritage buildings, perhaps to avoid the pitfalls that come when there are pressures to intensify our cities.  Destroying a heritage building can cause major and costly delays.  While I recognize that others may agree with the appearance of the development, I am not so sure that it will please everyone for generations to come.

Here are my questions:

  • Is “over-burdening” a viable option for heritage buildings?
  • Can heritage issues be a viable part of urban design?
  • Will future high-rise intensification overwhelm the existing heritage of Kitchener?
  • Will the downtown core be a livable space with vibrant streetscapes?
  • Will there be enough green space – can we have complete streets?
  • Planning is often prompted by developers’ proposals. Can we actually decide how the urban space will be designed? How do we really go about planning?

I addressed the Committee of Adjustment on March 5 with the following.  I believe that the developers and city councilors were listening but not much can change once detailed plans are in place, in most cases involving years of work by developers, architects and planners. So, we need to get the process working better so we have good urban design.

________________

Mr Chair:

I am really pleased that the developer has decided to keep the Huck Glove Factory.

Having said that, I oppose the request to increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 3.0 to 7.0 in order to allow a 25 storey building.  I am aware of planning policies to increase density in the core, but these documents also identify heritage and livable neighbourhoods as important.

The applicant asked that the Floor Space Ratio be increased from 3.0 to 7.0 for a 25 storey building.  The staff used bonussing provisions to achieve the proposed height of this building.  One bonussing factor sticks out.  On page 2-4 of the plan, Residential Intensification, with the provision of 300 residential units.   If you can just use Residential Intensification as a bonus to increase the height of a building, then why have a limit of 3.0 in the first place?   The developer wants to add storeys and he gets bonuses because he adds storeys which increase density.  This seems circular – more height more bonus.

I am concerned that the quality of life of the existing neighbourhoods, such as Victoria Park, will be adversely affected by a multiplicity of high rise buildings surrounding it.  The tall buildings themselves will detract from the area (shadows and change of views).  Also, the resulting population increase might be more than would be good for the park.

Second, I am also concerned about the public amenity part of the plan.  Open spaces for residents are on the pedestal rooftop.  The L-shaped space behind Huck Glove will be open to car traffic.  The developer says that cars can access the underground garage by other entrances.  Why have cars here? Green spaces need to be available to the office workers and to the public — the L-shaped space should be limited to pedestrians and be as green as possible.  Much has been said about how downtown can be a vibrant community.  That cannot happen if we intensify without public spaces.

The developers think families will be living in this building and that adequate public space is provided on the pedestal.  But what about the wider community?  The developer has an opportunity to make this development greener in a locale where very little green space is available.  Victoria Park is a 10 minute walk away.  Why not put a small play area at street level?  Parents could then sit and enjoy a meal or a snack.  This cannot be done as long as cars are passing nearby.  If not green space, consider pavement art.  Images of gloves that recall the heritage of the Huck Glove Factory might bring attention to the heritage aspect of the development.

Third, I would prefer the Huck Glove building to be more visible from the street.  Continuing the balcony across the entire face of the third level would set off the Huck Glove building from the new part.  Instead, there is a 2 foot high glassed in section above the Huck Glove building, producing a continuous flat surface from the ground up.  Setting the glass wall in the atrium further back would provide more visibility of the Huck Glove building.  The developer might consider a mini museum and so attract heritage tourists.

In sum, people will be living with these buildings for generations.  We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make them as people friendly as possible — both for their inhabitants and their neighbours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *