Month: April 2018

Like many other people, I am glad that the Huck Glove Factory will be preserved.  That does not mean that I agree with the plan.  There are many ways of preserving heritage in proximity to new buildings.  In the case of Huck Glove, it appears that the new part is “eating up” the old.

Although the architects are very proud of their blending of old and new in the atrium space, this works mainly for people inside the building and the clear glass will obscure one corner of the heritage building (“Old and new at Huck Glove,” The Record, April 6, 2018).  If you are inside that space, fine. Also, increasing the setback of the second floor would expose more of the heritage building from the street.

There is a trend in new development and architecture to avoid destroying a heritage building. There might be a public outcry that would add time and money to a development.  So, the architects add the new to the old.  In many cases, the designs overburden the heritage we have come to love. Keeping the building will preserve it since it will avoid “demolition by neglect”.

City of Kitchener planners accept this new heritage concept.  For the Huck Glove development, a higher condo tower behind the office space has been achieved through heritage conservation and other measures.  The current zoning regulations contain bonusing provisions whereby changes to the normal zone regulations can be exchanged for heritage preservation, public parking, transit infrastructure, renewable energy systems, etc. Such bonusing provisions allowed a 25-storey building to be built behind Huck Glove.

In discussing the Huck Glove development with both staff and developers, I was told that there is a provincial requirement to intensify.  Density targets identified by the Province are not fixed, however.  Planners do have targets for certain areas of the City of Kitchener.  Accepting high rise development is one way to achieve that goal. There are other ways to increase density without having high rise buildings, but staff only respond to developers’ requests.

Planning staff has been quoted as saying that: ““Right now, this property, as well as many others in the downtown, are exempt from providing parkland dedication” (“Park space a concern of residents near proposed Huck Glove redevelopment,” The Record, Jan. 26, 2018). That does not seem to square with the Design for Tall Buildings recommendations passed by Council in December 2017. It also does not conform to other documents from the City and Province on how to create attractive and walkable neighbourhoods.

With 300 residential units in that high-rise tower, there will be additional needs for public amenities.  The same developers for Huck Glove believe that amenities in their adjacent building at 100 Victoria will be for the community (“Shared spaces, amenities part of new approach to condos,” The Record, April 6, 2018). However, the space for the Huck Glove tower will be on the pedestal and for residents only.

The 300 units at Huck Glove are a drop in the bucket: There are actually 13 towers in various stages of planning within a fifteen-minute walk of Victoria Park.  Here is a list of what is planned:

Development	Storeys	Units
Huck Glove 100-120 Victoria South	25	300
100 Condos 100 Victoria Towers South 1 & 2	15 and 19	276
Charlie West 24 Gaukel	26	246
City Centre Condominiums 85 Duke Street West	15	179
Sixo 607 King West	14	229
Sixo 607 King West	26	278
Sixo 607 King West	30	299
Sixo 607 King West	28	279
Drewlo 471- 505 King Street East Towers 1 & 2	19 & 23	473
Manulife Charles/Francis	20?	250?
Manulife Charles/Water	20?	250?
Transit Hub King and Victoria	?	?
Average height & Total	21.5	2969

These buildings will add about 3,000 new residential units and thousands of people.  That’s ok: Victoria Park is available for all.

Let’s think again.  Victoria Park is already crowded on a sunny Sunday afternoon.  The City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement identify “Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space” as important. So I ask: does the City of Kitchener plan to add pubic amenity space if the developers are not required to do so?

How will the influx of people, many of whom are above average income, going to affect the community?  What will happen to low income residents? There are many ways to answer this question, but we need to ask a number of questions and create a comprehensive plan.  Currently, developers present a plan that meets specific zoning guidelines, is reviewed by staff and is passed by Council.

We need to re-balance the density and other measures with the often-intangible public realm aspects.  In short, we need to re-think how our downtown core should look.  A downtown Kitchener public realm strategy would give developers and planners the vision that is needed.

If you are concerned about these issues please note that the City of Kitchener is currently reviewing its Urban Design Manual as well as zoning by-laws.  Check the following links:

Urban Design Manual

Comprehensive review of the zoning by-law (CRoZBy)

G. R. Pool, April 10, 2018

 

 

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.