Sears and Trinity United: Symptom of our beliefs

By Jean Haalbloom

 

Let me be clear. I have no love for the Sears store building at Fairview Park mall in Kitchener. Then again how many Kitchener residents shared a love for Kitchener’s old city hall. Even its architect, the late William Henry Eugene Schmalz, could not convince councillors and Kitchener citizens to stop its demolition. After all, the Market Square shopping mall would revitalize Kitchener downtown; it would stimulate economic development. Instead, what we got was downtown’s demise with a 40-year struggle to recover using taxpayers’ investment dollars.

We are a community that enjoys reinventing ourselves. We pride ourselves on innovation. We were one of the first to develop a method of recycling garbage — the blue box. Then why as a community do we not insist on recycling our old buildings, even those from the 1960s. When we willingly replace our place-making heritage buildings, why do we accept a replay of reasons: doesn’t accommodate the workplace environment; it’s too hard to heat; it doesn’t fit the budget. None of these are heritage related reasons for demolition. Will replacing the Sears building truly make cash registers ring in the long-term? Who knows?

Further, if we pride ourselves on innovation, why do we embrace fake. Everywhere, we see fake muntin bars — those plastic bars that give windows the appearance of six over six panes of glass. And now we are contemplating replacing the Sears building with a fake water tower and smoke stack. And did you hear the sighs in Kitchener’s council chamber — ah yes, terrific, such a great investment offer to this community?

Perhaps, we should borrow a development page from our neighbouring province of Quebec. Year after year, many Quebec teams of architects, engineers, businesses and owners of old buildings are recognized at the annual conference of National Trust for Canada for innovative ways of reusing and restoring historic building. Here is one example: in Quebec City, on the periphery of the historic district sits a decommissioned church; the church is the size of our Trinity United at the corner of Frederick and Duke streets in downtown Kitchener. Concerned that this area of Quebec City had no community centre or place where troubled youth could experience sports, arts and culture, an entrepreneur had a dream of establishing a training ground for performers of the Cirque du Soleil. All he needed was a location. After a structural evaluation of the church’s bones, he learned that the structure offered a perfectly strong frame for the wires necessary to support acrobatics. Today, L’École de cirque de Quebec offers youth opportunities in a remarkable old church building.

So what’s the lesson? Whether or not you are impressed with the history or architecture of Trinity United or the Sears building, they have put their stamp on our sense of place. They demonstrate the tastes of the time. New does not always mean better. For 15 years, ‘new’ generally attracts us. Then our tastes change and new falls into distaste. Surely, we can use our innovative talents and thriftiness to demand reuse instead of destruction.

Jean Haalboom is a Kitchener resident, former city and regional councillor, and member of National Trust for Canada and Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.

Letter about the Sears Building to Kitchener City Council by Karl Kessler

Below is a letter from Karl Kessler sent on November 21, two days after the Council decided to allow demolition of the Sear Building at 200 Fairway Road, Kitchener.  Images of the former and proposed building are above.

Comments on the question of the Sears Building are welcomed in the area at then end of this post.  Should you wish to write a long response, please send your comments to communications.aco.nwrb@gmail.com

Greetings –

I attended the meeting of Kitchener City Council this past Monday out of an interest in the future of the former Sears building – out of a personal interest, and also a professional interest as Doors Open Waterloo Region coordinator for the past sixteen years. I also contribute a magazine column on our local architecture.

 The constructive tone and the thoughtful, probing Q&A between council and the delegations was encouraging – thank you for that.

But I believe a few points are worth emphasizing.

Also, some statements were made that I believe should be challenged, and more importantly, re-examined in future discussions around built heritage.

Please take a few moments to read through these, with my thanks for your time.

I welcome your thoughts.

  •  It’s typical, almost to the point of being a rule, that during any given period in the past century or more we feel (often strong) disaffection towards architecture that is about 50-60 years old. On Monday, some delegations alluded to this. Lately, in both my professional and volunteer work, I’ve witnessed a slowly growing interest in, and affection for, mid-twentieth-century buildings. This kind of increasing appreciation also is typical – for example, decommissioned industrial buildings were usually demolished until they, more recently, became coveted. In light of this, it’s worth noting that the newly restored 1960s Waterloo County Courthouse at Weber and Queen streets welcomed hundreds and hundreds of curious and enthusiastic visitors each of the two times it has participated in Doors Open.
  •  Not only are there very few opportunities for designating important buildings in general, but intact examples of buildings similar in style and period to the former Sears are very rare. We are fast approaching a situation in which good examples from this important, striking architectural era have mostly vanished, creating a conspicuous gap in our cultural heritage.
  •  One or two councilors suggested, and one repeated, that Heritage Kitchener considers cases such as the Sears building only with heritage conservation in mind. Of course heritage is their lens, but the goals of municipal heritage committees everywhere exist in, and are tightly constrained by, the “real world”. These committees were deliberately created to speak to situations exactly like that of the former Sears building: to inform us with their expertise and particular perspective, and to help prevent the kinds of infamous losses that were common in the middle of the last century, of which there are numerous local examples. And so to imply that because heritage committees have a vested interest, they should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, is puzzling.
  • Further, if heritage committees come at these kinds of issues leaning towards conservation, property developers in possession of identified heritage assets have often leaned demonstrably, and just as heavily, in the other direction. In order for city staff and council to strike a balance between the two aims, the longstanding tendency towards demolition should be acknowledged just as frankly.
  •  Conserving intact the very best of our built cultural fabric has often been framed as antithetical to the aims and health of commerce. On Monday, this again was the case. Generally, this assertion has not been borne out by results where a bit more imagination, will, and resources are brought to the table.
  •  Discussion on Monday referred often to the grim challenges facing storefront retail in general, and malls in particular. Their future was characterized as fragile at best, imperiled at worst. Why, then, permit the demolition of an already existing heritage façade, recognized as culturally significant, if that demolition is only to serve something identified as so changeable?
  • Increased costs and logistical difficulties are ALWAYS stated as main objections against the case for heritage designation, as no doubt they will be in the future. If these continue to be given primacy when the case for designation is strong, it will also continue to be that little of the best of our built heritage will make the grade for meaningful conservation, and having municipal heritage committees in place may increasingly seem to be without merit.
  •  Several of the logistical objections to designation, such as the poor insulating characteristics of the historical precast façade panels, seemed a bit disingenuous. Interior work could address many such issues.
  •  I may be mistaken, but I believe the original architect was not discussed on Monday evening. If a full consideration of the building’s significance is to be claimed, it seems to me that this item should have been part of the public record.

 Many thanks again for your time, and for your ongoing consideration of the challenges facing our built heritage.

Karl Kessler

ACO’s Lecture Series for 2018/19 kicks off November 8th

Image courtesy of City of Cambridge Archives

The phenomenon of the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie in funding the construction of libraries virtually across the world and the special gift of the eight buildings endowed to what is now the Region of Waterloo will be the subject of ACO’s educational lecture series this year.

Carnegie himself and the motives behind his benevolence will be discussed as will the Beaux-Arts style popular for public buildings at turn-of-the century and used for the majority of the Region’s Carnegie libraries. A lecture by architect Phillip Carter will examine the creative ways in which his retrofits and additions to Carnegie buildings have extended their lives without compromising the beauty of their original designs.

As the good weather returns next spring, we will be offering a day-long bus tour that will afford us the opportunity of examining especially interesting examples of libraries built through Carnegie’s generosity that continue to serve the evolving needs of the communities where they were built a century ago.

The first lecture takes place Thursday, November 8 and is presented by heritage planner and historic restoration specialist, Erin Smith. 

Entitled, “Andrew Carnegie’s Gift to the Region: Understanding the Eight Carnegie Libraries of Waterloo Region,” this illustrated lecture which examines the Region’s Carnegie libraries 1903 – 1923, spans the entire period of Carnegie’s grant program, thus offering a fairly comprehensive representation of Carnegie libraries over time.
The talk will also place the Region’s Carnegie libraries in the broader timeline of architecture and library development, from the early twentieth century to the present day. The impacts of major paradigm shifts in architecture and planning, resulting in the loss of many of our Carnegie libraries, will be discussed. Lastly, the Carnegie library’s place in the 21st century will be contemplated – the challenges and exciting opportunities facing our Carnegie libraries will be explored.
Go to the Eventbrite site now for your tickets.


Again this year lectures will be hosted at WalterFedy, 675 Queen Street South, Kitchener and begin at 7 pm. Plenty of parking is available and the building is accessible.

Is Heritage at Risk from Development?

At a recent meeting of the Kitchener City Council, there were numerous delegations that questioned the Breithaupt Block 3 building that neighbouring property owners are concerned about.  Is heritage an issue in cases where the character of a neighbourhood is being substantially changed?  What is the importance of having streetscapes that are friendly and express the heritage character of our city?

Two presentations at the meeting raises many questions about the process and are presented below.

______________________

I am not a Developer

by Debbie Chapman

After spending many hours last week sifting through the current zoning bylaw document and the proposed CROZBY document, the Official Plan as passed in 2014, the Urban Design Manual, RIENS and PARTS, to get a better idea of the discussion around the BB3 development project and where we, the citizens, fit into the process, I have come out with more questions than answers.

Rather than speak off topic by expressing my concerns about such things as bonusing bylaws, which I think should be eliminated, or guidelines versus bylaws – where guidelines are often ignored by developers and planners – I want to say that what we are witnessing with the BB3 project is an inadequate public involvement process (hence the large number of people lined-up to speak this evening after already deferring the decision once), and a series of unfinished documents that give an edge to the developer at the expense (in this case) of an established neighbourhood.

Talk about the LRT began in 2004 and was further solidified in 2009. The fact that planning documents are still in process gives developers the opportunity to abide by or bounce back and forth between the previous and current bylaws and guidelines. Unless the City is willing to insist on honouring the revised documents – RIENs, CroZby, PARTs and the Urban Design Manual, they should put a moratorium on the BB3 and all further development projects in the Core until the new documents have been instituted – until these documents become binding.

Furthermore, the 2017 Provincial document titled Places to Grow states that: “within the GGH (Greater Golden Horseshoe), this Plan provides that the applicable time horizon for land use planning is 2041” or 2031 for UGC projects (page 8) – so why is the City is such a hurry to approve the many projects in the pipelines – Sixo/Charlie West (24 Gaukel St)/ 471-475 King. St. E. etc without first completing the institutionalizing of the documents in question.  Could it possibly be to allow developers to get that edge?

Somebody recently said to me that people don’t like change. This person was suggesting that because we don’t like change we contest the proposed development projects. My assessment is that people want respect, they want to be at the table participating in the decision making rather than shown bulletin boards of the plan. I’ve yet to hear anybody say they do not want development along the LRT route, but I have heard people say that they want responsible development and that they want to be taken seriously in the decision making process – even if it takes a bit more time.

Would it be unreasonable to ask that development slow down, that unfinished documents be expedited, that is be passed, approved and implemented now and not at the end of the year or some time next year, and that City Council ensure responsible development so that people don’t look back in 30 years and say “what were they thinking”? It is not about a fear of change, but we must be responsible and ensure that neighbourhoods are not negatively impacted, that concerned citizens are brought to the table with developers, planners and the councillors as decisions are being made and not just through information sessions where people often feel that their comments go unnoticed, and finally that the vision of the city we have is reflected in the bylaws that we draft.

________________

“Development” – a Contemporary Fable

Peter Eglin

Presentation to Kitchener City Council, June 25, 2018

The Province tells cities to “intensify” – build up, not out. An LRT system for K-W is approved, the government money promised. Developers smell a bonanza. The City salivates at the prospect of growth in tax revenue and “development”. The Planning Department is enjoined to plan. The public are “consulted”. Some neighbourhoods mobilize in self-defence. Liberal, electoral, representative democracy is in action.

What does this actually mean in practice? The following is how it appears to me.

The developers have unfettered access to the city planners, through whom they can bring pressure to bear on the councillors, who depend on planning staff, including those councillors that are already, shall we say, developer-friendly. Countless “guidelines” are drawn up setting out visions of best practices like RIENS, PARTS, Tall Buildings and the Urban Design Manual. But the documents that count – the Official Plan, the secondary plans and the zoning bylaws – are either under appeal, not yet drawn up or reviewed, or under extensive revision. In any case, they are riddled with loopholes whereby the desired standards can be set aside if the developer adds a few trees, a few residential units, a bit of public art. If not exactly written by the development industry they are effectively written for the development industry. Make concessions to Perimeter and to Google so we get their goodies, and tell the residents to be thankful that we have such corporate benefactors at all. What a vision of a decent and just society!

And how naïve! We in Kitchener have no guarantee that Google won’t decide tomorrow to move back to Waterloo where they originally came from and where the real tech action is. What we do know, and should expect, because it’s simply the nature of the capitalist enterprise, is that the developers and their business partners will do everything in their power to get around and subvert every stipulation that reduces their profits. This, I take it, explains the frenzy of “development” currently occurring. While CRoZBy, PARTS, RIENS and the rest wait in limbo to be implemented, developers are ramming through their projects to take advantage of the slacker rules of the existing regulations. And all the while, appealing umpteen sections of the 2014 Official Plan.

Providing bike racks, green space, community space and children’s play space in abundance, and constructing environmentally sound, energy efficient and artistically attractive buildings should simply be a taken-for-granted requirement of any so-called “development”, and not treated as bait to be rewarded with bonuses.

The Province’s plan for intensification extends to 2041. What’s the almighty hurry to get it all done now?

It’s not your city, councillors. It’s not the Planning Department’s city. Above all, it’s not the developers’ city. It’s our city. It’s the city of its residents. Your job, your mandate is to listen to us. In a real democracy listening wouldn’t mean “consulting” now and again. It would mean “following orders,” orders given by the residents. But we have a liberal, electoral, representative, first-past-the-post democracy in which, given prevailing participation rates, each of you needs the support of no more than 15% of your ward’s electorate (less than 2% of the city electorate) to be set free to do as you like.

So here’s what I think you should be doing: in BB3 and the “developments” to come, either require the developers to abide by CRoZBy, PARTS, RIENS, Tall Buildings, the Urban Design Manual and the rest as if they were in place, minus the bonuses, or put a moratorium on all such developments until they are in place; above all, listen first and foremost to what the community of residents wants.

Appendix on Affordable Housing: the 40-40-20 Rule

In their just-published report on security of employment in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton area by the PEPSO research group from McMaster University under the auspices of the United Way, we read that in 2017 55% of workers were in Stable Employment Relationships – that is, full-time, permanent jobs with benefits (an increase of 5% over 2011). This means that 45% of workers are NOT in stable employment relationships. In fact, 37% of workers aged 25-65 in the GTHA are in some form of precarious employment.[1] The equivalent study by the United Way in the United States reports “43 percent of households … don’t earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone.”[2] And this is happening in what’s called a ‘booming economy’. In the face of such facts, a year ago the Dutch city of Amsterdam “committed to creating more housing for people with low- or mid-level incomes. To realize this, the municipality is implementing a ratio for new construction projects – 40 percent social housing, 40 percent mid-level rents and 20 percent expensive housing.”[3]

The City of Kitchener should adopt the 40-40-20 rule for new construction projects.

[1] https://imagineacity.ca/2018/06/19/why-work-isnt-working/. See also https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8682079-editorial-the-problem-with-ontario-s-selective-prosperity/.

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html.

[3] https://nltimes.nl/2017/06/22/amsterdam-prioritize-low-rent-homes-new-construction-projects.

From Arches to Turrets: architecture styles in Kitchener, by Sandra Parks


Sandra Parks, a member of the ACO North Waterloo Branch, gave a talk at the Kitchener Public Library on June 6th. A pdf of the PowerPoint presentation from her talk can be seen by clicking on the link below. Thanks for the interesting talk, Sandy, which will be given again in the Fall!

From Arches to Turrets, by Sandra Parks

 

 

No architectural paradise, but local cities do have a few highlights

by Steve Kannon

Intensification and the havoc wrought by the LRT are having an unfortunate impact on the downtown core in Waterloo.

Well, there’s an impact. The “unfortunate” label (and I’m being kind) is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

No strangers to the changing nature of the built environment – heritage building today, gone tomorrow – Phil Elsworthy and Kae Elgie will leave the interpretation to individual participants as they lead a Jane’s Walk tour through the uptown core Sunday afternoon.

They’ll be looking  at what’s happening to Waterloo as a consequence – or unintended consequence – of the LRT and the provincially-mandated intensification drive.

There have certainly been changes Uptown. I would certainly argue few of them have been improvements, including the ill-fated light rail transit scheme that forced the closure of many businesses and will prove a hardship for many that remain.

Elgie and Elsworthy intend to look at the history of development in the core, going back a couple of hundred years and tracing the changes. They’ll let you draw your own conclusion about whether there’s been “progress.”

“In the spirit of Jane Jacobs, look at what’s working and what’s not working,” says Elgie, noting some people are actually supportive of intensification. And some of them aren’t developers looking to cash in.

There are differing views about increasing the density of cities, particularly the downtown cores, adds Elsworthy, noting even if that’s a desirable outcome, the way it’s being done just now may not be the ideal or even the right approach.

More vibrant than downtown Kitchener – which I argue may be beyond redemption – Waterloo has been much worse at preserving its heritage buildings, though Kitchener is no paragon where that’s concerned. In the region, Cambridge, downtown Galt specifically, has the most potential when it comes to an aesthetically pleasing core, though economically it’s the worst of the three.

None of them compare to downtown Guelph, to pick a nearby example. That city has a great combination of lovely old buildings – much nicer than anything in the region – and a vibrant core that draws people in.

“Guelph is a model for what works,” says Elgie, especially in its preservation of historical buildings. “As Jane argues, new ideas need old buildings.”

Waterloo doesn’t have much to rival Guelph in the architecture department, but it does boast activity and vibrancy not found in Kitchener or Cambridge. Sadly, most of the new construction in and around the core is, at best, inoffensive and, for the most part, ugly or a downright eyesore – that’s a label that can be affixed to most buildings well beyond the region, to the diminishment of our communities.

Still, there’s much to enjoy for those willing to slow down and take in the city’s core area, Elgie and Elsworthy maintain.

“So many of these buildings have great stories,” says Elgie, pointing to the likes of the Huether Hotel, the old Waterloo Theatre and the post office at King and Bridgeport, a great example of mid-century architecture.

Their tour, one of many organized this weekend by Jane’s Walk Waterloo Region, is to point out the highlights.

“The goal is to get people noticing the things that are there, for people to say ‘I never noticed that before.’”

In going over the history of development, they’ll undoubtedly point out some of the many lowlights of change in the core, including the demolition of buildings such as the old City Hotel that used to stand across from Waterloo Town Square. An historic building indicative of the area’s history, it was one of many examples of lovely old buildings torn to be replaced by utilitarian, often ugly buildings that further reduced the charm of the downtown core.

“With the City Hotel, I can’t help but think what a fabulous opportunity it would have been for the city,” says Elsworthy, noting it was a structure to build on in creating character in the core.

Character is certainly a missing element, but that’s not restricted to Waterloo or Kitchener, as pretty much every city suffers from the curse of modern architecture, most of it ugly and functional (in the worst sense of the word). The result is unfriendly cores with little to compel people to linger. Absent beautiful surroundings – you know, actual public squares (don’t get me started about the Waterloo skateboard park), green space and the likes of patios and other gathering spots – the cities aren’t helped by modern eyesores, much of it disposable architecture that we’ll be happy to see go (yesterday would be too soon).

Thing are not going to get any better given the focus on intensification and zero controls on the (lack of) aesthetics when it comes to new buildings. Increased density and reurbanization is at the core of provincial planning policy and the sole surviving rationale – however dubious – for Waterloo Region’s light rail transit scheme. In short, we’re told to expect more highrise buildings, like it or not.

Proponents say increased density is needed to deal with a growing population. The alternative is more sprawl and loss of farmland. Those are two things to avoid. A better alternative – a shrinking population that would eliminate such pressures entirely – is never discussed. It goes against the Ponzi scheme that is our economic system. Instead of falling housing prices to decrease demand, which is beyond-the-pale thinking in official circles, we’re supposed to shrink the supply of land even as we pump in more people to increase demand.

The result is the decline in humane living standards and the diminishing of a sense of place hastened by a homogenous approach to building based on expediency.

There do remain some hidden gems, however, the subject of many of the organized tours that are part of Jane’s Walk Waterloo Region. The walk led by Elgie and Elsworthy is scheduled for Sunday (May 6) from 3:15-4:45 p.m., beginning and ending at Waterloo’s first public square (King and William streets).

Note: These walks have already taken place as of this post.

Huck Glove: A positive outcome that needs more work

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

 

 

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.