KW's Skyline By 2031

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

KW's Skyline By 2031

Realistically, what do you guys think it might look like?

When do you think we'll get our first building over 100 meters. How many of them do you think we'll have by 2031.

Discuss.

[panamaniac]

Isn't there a City of Kitchener site somewhere that includes renders of Kitchener as it might appear in the future, with a good bit of highrise development in the Downtown core? I feel sure I have seen something in the past year or two, but can't be sure.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Isn't there a City of Kitchener site somewhere that includes renders of Kitchener as it might appear in the future, with a good bit of highrise development in the Downtown core? I feel sure I have seen something in the past year or two, but can't be sure.

There is, but I'm having trouble finding it.

[DHLawrence]

You need to look closer to home ;)

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/22-Kitchener-Growth-Management-Strategy

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

A couple examples of buildings I like. I think this kind of scale might be achievable on a limited level in uptown and downtown. For reference, our tallest (Sunlife tower) is 80m, which the 2 25 storey towers at Barrelyards are set to match.

More achievable in the short-to-medium term

One London Place, London, ON ... 113m (granted, I'd like the building to have better interaction with the street)

Source: http://rcrampton.com/Nature.htm
http://rcrampton.com/Nature/One-London-Place_0848.jpg


Closer towards the 2031 mark, well after LRT is built

New Epcor tower, Edmonton 149m ... the one under construction

Source: Coldrsx on SSP
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/misc%20photos/DSC04915.jpg

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

You need to look closer to home ;)

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/22-Kitchener-Growth-Management-Strategy

Ah true enough. There are some images shown on page 19.

[mpd618]

Can someone explain why really tall buildings would make sense here? Economically and in terms of reurbanization policy. I realize that people have the association between very tall buildings and cities, but it seems they're mostly a feature of the kind of Central Business District urban form that we neither have nor aspire to.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Tall buildings make plenty of sense, and who doesn't aspire to them? (save for the small-town minded NIMBYs)

If we're going to be accomodating 40% of our growth (or likely more!) in existing urban areas, then we have to build up. If all those buildings, no matter how streetscape-friendly, are built at 3 or 4 storeys, then we'll run out of room in no time. And once we run out of room, the only solution is to start knocking buildings down...a rather undesirable outcome.

I almost sense, the way you framed the question, that you feel tall buildings are undesirable. But if they're designed to address the street properly, what's wrong with them?

No, we don't have the single-CBD urban form and never will, but we do have a linear density pattern, with nodes along a corridor.

Think of it as a smaller Atlanta, with a downtown, midtown, and Buckhead, all along a dense corridor that's served by MARTA.

Source: http://pshone.blogspot.com/
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-Qg7uYd2UpQ/SAz4O9UZqJI/AAAAAAAAABA/opVv-Gt9VFQ/S660/ATL167.jpg

Or an example closer to home, Toronto's Yonge street.

Source: http://www.northamrealty.com/office-retail-leasing/greater-toronto-area/2190-yonge-st
http://www.northamrealty.com/media/mediamanager/photo/cache/800_x_0-58-aerial-can-sq-002157.jpg

(North York in the rear)

[panamaniac]

Can someone explain why really tall buildings would make sense here? Economically and in terms of reurbanization policy. I realize that people have the association between very tall buildings and cities, but it seems they're mostly a feature of the kind of Central Business District urban form that we neither have nor aspire to.

Don't we aspire to a CBD? That is what I would hope Downtown could become for the Region.

[DHLawrence]

Technically speaking a CBD is what downtown Toronto's financial district is--mostly commercial and almost no residential. We need to be more mixed than that so we don't have a weekend ghost town.

[IEFBR14]

(North York in the rear)
Yeah, after Mel retired North York got it in the rear (at least according to Rob Ford supporters.) ;)

I sure hope people here don't aspire to turning King St into anything resembling Yonge St, let alone the financial district. Let Toronto be the provincial capital. Let them deal with the challenges of running a "world class" megacity.

[panamaniac]

I think everyone would hope for balanced development, with a good mix of commercial, retail, residential and institutional. Sticking with "Downtown" is probably better than calling in a CBD.

[BuildingScout]

I'm not particularly looking forward a CBD. However the alternative to that is not the current Downtown/Uptown areas. I've traveled extensively and the downtown areas that work best have buildings which are 4 to 6 stories high with mixed usage. Key to their success is having proper sound insulation so that residents are not disturbed by pedestrian traffic. Sadly, common European grade insulated windows are one notch above the highest grade available in retail in North America (!!).

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Technically speaking a CBD is what downtown Toronto's financial district is--mostly commercial and almost no residential. We need to be more mixed than that so we don't have a weekend ghost town.

Well, I'm not saying we should go for that King/Bay model exactly. But a good mix of commercial and resdential would be nice. You still need a large amount of commercial downtown in order to draw suburbanites in and make the downtown and LRT successful.

But it's already been mentioned that we'll never really have a single true CBD. Even if downtown starts resembling that, uptown is still developing at a rapid pace.

I just don't like the idea of having all these lowrse office buildings going up at places like Northfield/University and then relying on condos to be downtown's and uptown's saviour.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I'm not particularly looking forward a CBD. However the alternative to that is not the current Downtown/Uptown areas. I've travelled extensively and the downtown areas that work best have buiildings which are 4 to 6 stories high with mixed usage. Key to their success is having proper sound insulation so that residents are not disturbed by pedestrain traffic. Sadly, common European grade insulated windows are one notch above the highest grade available in retail in North America (!!).

Is it to do with the number of storeys though? I would think it might have more to do with the mix of land uses, retail at grade, and the way the buildings address the street. Besides, you can keep a lot of the streetscape elements much the same by stepping back the tower.

[BuildingScout]

Is it to do with the number of storeys though?

Yes, apparently it does: if density is not high enough there aren't enough people to justify so many store fronts.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Yes, apparently it does: if density is not high enough there aren't enough people to justify so many store fronts.

But that's exactly what I mean. So why limit ourselves to 4-6 storeys? I'm a little confused. Are you for or against taller buildings?

[mpd618]

If we're going to be accomodating 40% of our growth (or likely more!) in existing urban areas, then we have to build up. If all those buildings, no matter how streetscape-friendly, are built at 3 or 4 storeys, then we'll run out of room in no time. And once we run out of room, the only solution is to start knocking buildings down...a rather undesirable outcome.

You can get very high density even by sticking to 10-15 story buildings. And considering the sheer area we do have in our downtowns (including parking and single-story uses), having very tall buildings necessarily means a trade-off with the amount of the city that has a walkable urban form.

It is not clear to me that they actually make financial sense, either. As long as we are not forcing growth to occur only on five blocks of King Street, I'm not sure the land would be expensive enough to warrant building 30+ stories. And we're not building any new suburb-to-downtown transportation infrastructure that would make it uniquely easy to get to any potential clusters of Really Tall Buildings.

(I should note that I wrote a column in the Record (http://psystenance.com/2010/10/27/the-future-is-multi-nodal/) on why the notion of the CBD is not a useful one in this region.)

[bcwessel]

Tall buildings make plenty of sense, and who doesn't aspire to them? (save for the small-town minded NIMBYs)

If we're going to be accomodating 40% of our growth (or likely more!) in existing urban areas, then we have to build up. If all those buildings, no matter how streetscape-friendly, are built at 3 or 4 storeys, then we'll run out of room in no time. And once we run out of room, the only solution is to start knocking buildings down...a rather undesirable outcome.

I almost sense, the way you framed the question, that you feel tall buildings are undesirable. But if they're designed to address the street properly, what's wrong with them?

No, we don't have the single-CBD urban form and never will, but we do have a linear density pattern, with nodes along a corridor.

Think of it as a smaller Atlanta, with a downtown, midtown, and Buckhead, all along a dense corridor that's served by MARTA.

Source: http://pshone.blogspot.com/
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-Qg7uYd2UpQ/SAz4O9UZqJI/AAAAAAAAABA/opVv-Gt9VFQ/S660/ATL167.jpg

Or an example closer to home, Toronto's Yonge street.

Source: http://www.northamrealty.com/office-retail-leasing/greater-toronto-area/2190-yonge-st
http://www.northamrealty.com/media/mediamanager/photo/cache/800_x_0-58-aerial-can-sq-002157.jpg

(North York in the rear)

I certainly hope that the only way we can hope to achieve the density set out by the Places to Grow manual is not to have extremely tall building in a few small sections of town which then effectively subsidized more of the same low density, unwalkable, (and to-date typically unconnected) neighbourhoods which presently account for the majority of new development in the region. One need look no further than the condo explosion occurring along the Gardiner in conjunction with the continued proliferation of dysfunctional development in Toronto's suburban "cities." Here, I defer to Leon Krier and his uncanny ability to delineate a problem in the most simple and affect terms possible: http://www2.citypaper.com/sb/168183/books.jpg

Aside from this kind of universal density rationalizing, there are plenty of other reasons for one to oppose extremely tall buildings besides being a "NIMBY," as you have so dismissively suggested. For example, buildings exceeding the 5-8 story threshold (there is some debate over how tall is too tall, but the typically agreed upon range lays somewhere between these two numbers for those expressing the shorter-is-better view) can have an alienating affect on the those utilizing the commons created by the structure's outer walls. Also, overly large development exclude smaller (read: typically more local) companies from engaging in the bidding, planning and construction process, to the detriment of a more local economy, (to quickly suggest but a few alternatives to your "small town minded" premise).

How we view the future of our region is still a very open debate, and while I disagree that your desire for extreme density at the core represent a vision of universally acknowledged virtue, I respect your right to that opinion and I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to look forward to see something greater than what exists presently. However, I also feel that you are impoverishing this debate by dismissing alternative views outright (especially with what amounts to pointless name calling).

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

It is not clear to me that they actually make financial sense, either. As long as we are not forcing growth to occur only on five blocks of King Street, I'm not sure the land would be expensive enough to warrant building 30+ stories.

But that's just it. Five blocks in either direction of King street, and you're already well outside of downtown. More like 2 blocks and you're at the edge of it.

I don't see that it's a very big area to work with at all. The downtowns in this region are tiny, which is why I think that running out of land might be an issue when building lowrise, unless we start tearing down housing in heritage neighborhoods. But this isn't the 1960s, so that's not going to happen, even if it were desirable in the first place.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

How we view the future of our region is still a very open debate, and while I disagree that your desire for extreme density at the core represent a vision of universally acknowledged virtue, I respect your right to that opinion and I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to look forward to see something greater than what exists presently. However, I also feel that you are impoverishing this debate by dismissing alternative views outright (especially with what amounts to pointless name calling).

Extreme? I didn't list examples of extreme density. Those photos were from London, Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta, not Shanghai. Buildings of that scale are standard for the downtowns of mid-sized cities across North America. And I never said that every development in the core areas should look like that. I'm just saying that, along with various other scales of development, a few buildings in that range would go a long way in giving KW a bit of post-card appeal from the air.

However, this is just my opinion.

[BuildingScout]

But that's exactly what I mean. So why limit ourselves to 4-6 storeys? I'm a little confused. Are you for or against taller buildings?

I'm not against the odd tower, say one per city block. I'm against the urban canyons of Manhattan where millions of people live outside the CBD and commute in every day.

[bcwessel]

But that's just it. Five blocks in either direction of King street, and you're already well outside of downtown. More like 2 blocks and you're at the edge of it.

I don't see that it's a very big area to work with at all. The downtowns in this region are tiny, which is why I think that running out of land might be an issue when building lowrise, unless we start tearing down housing in heritage neighborhoods. But this isn't the 1960s, so that's not going to happen, even if it were desirable in the first place.

But why do we have to have one big downtown that services the entire city? Couldn't it be more desirable to have a series of important districts which service their surrounding neighbourhoods? Every stripmall and shopping centre parking lot is an opportunity to restore the urban fabric that has been completely absent from the organizing principles of development of this region for decades. Sure, Downtown can hold a significant place in our region of the future (not every neighbourhood needs a Union Station, City Hall or Regional Courthouse), but the very concept of a series of transit hubs scattered throughout the CTC and along other major potential transit corridors supports a future with many (albeit less major) business districts across the region. We don't necessarily need to start tearing down existing neighbourhoods in order to achieve our density goals; as you have already stated, in many cases this outcome would be completely awful (though, certainly not everywhere). What about making the existing neighbourhoods that we have even better by giving them the neighbourhood centres they never received in the first place? Wouldn't that make the places that already hold our affection even more virtuous and rewarding? A quick example of the latent potential of an existing neighbourhood is Frederick Mall. Turn that underperforming plot of land into a functioning neighbourhood centre of mixed-uses, adding residential and office density, maintaining retail space, and eliminating much of the surface parking which would become unnecessary due to the increased walkability, potential for greater transit ridership, and capacity to induce more active forms of transportation in general. You haven't diminished the existing neighbourhood (which possesses some very good houses and some really fantastic streets), but in fact made it a more complete part of town.

Shouldn't this be the real goal? To rehabilitate every existing place into something more functional and complete, rather than simply to focus on making downtown as dense as possible in order to service our preconceived notions of what a major city centre ought to look like (note: this notion of a downtown is a historically recent construction, and if we are being honest about our desire to conserve our places that matter, perhaps we need to look further back than WWII, extending our understanding of conservation to forms themselves, rather than merely just the individual structures that we see as holding value.)

[BuildingScout]

But why do we have to have one big downtown that services the entire city? Couldn't it be more desirable to have a series of important districts which service their surrounding neighbourhoods?

Problem is that we now barely have two. A long linear shopping street is not a district so Uptown and Downtown barely qualify. A proper shopping district has a tic-tac-toe shape: a central block with store frontage on all four sides and shopping tailing off in all eight directions.


. | |
-+-+--
. | |
-+-+--
. | |

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I'm not against the odd tower, say one per city block. I'm against the urban canyons of Manhattan where millions of people live outside the CBD and commute in every day.

Agreed. I too think there should be a good mix of uses.

Re: Manhattan: It's actually a massive island with a strong mix of uses itself. It's not just people working down there, but tens of thousands of people live there as well. It is the civic centre for the entire tri-state region. On top of being a more-or-less 24hr district, it lures in plenty more suburbanites from around the region.

Further to the point, Manhattan's a bit multi-nodal as well. You have downtown, as well as midtown. I remember reading an excerpt from Jane Jacobs when she was comparing the two. She described downtown as how you're describing what you don't want downtown Kitchener to become. Lots of people working at banks during the day, and leaving it a ghost down at night. The flipside of that is Vancouver, which is becoming somewhat of a resort town because they are overbuilding condominiums compared to other forms of development.

By contrast, she noted Midtown Manhattan's excellent mix of uses, and 24 hour activity. I'm not saying we should build a carbon-copy/imitition Empire State building or Times Square in KW (laughable), but we should strive for that same kind of 24hr life and urban energy in our cores.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/5124761711_51810321d6_b.jpg
Source: NYguy from SSP

Note: NYC also has other major centres such as Downtown Brooklyn and Newark. Many urban neighborhoods in the city are walking distance to a low-to-midrise commercial strip, which helps to support bcwessel's point. I'd like to see this happen as well, with the mixed-use corridors. As for the major nodes, however, I'd like to see something a bit bolder.

As an aside, I think it's a bit funny trying to compare KW and NYC, but I think you get what I mean.

[bcwessel]

Extreme? I didn't list examples of extreme density. Those photos were from London, Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta, not Shanghai. Buildings of that scale are standard for the downtowns of mid-sized cities across North America. And I never said that every development in the core areas should look like that. I'm just saying that, along with various other scales of development, a few buildings in that range would go a long way in giving KW a bit of post-card appeal from the air.

However, this is just my opinion.

I can't think of a single thing less relevant to a discussion of urban development, or of the qualities and forms that we should desire our urban places to adopt. Unless we're hoping that the postcard/skyline air tour industry is going to go off in a big way, I'd really rather worry about the people Downtown to be honest with you.

In determining that the height of a structure is "extreme," I'm working under the assumption that anything over 8 stories (and perhaps even 5, depending on how one chooses to look at it) is taller than the human scale will allow. Basically any built environment that exceeds the limits of providing a comforting sense of enclosure, and proceeds to create an alienating, impersonal wall is beyond the limits desirable urbanism. Claustrophobic versus cozy, as well as requiring people movers like elevators to render the upper floors accessible. In my opinion, that extra height represents unwalkable development, and is subsidized by the elevator in the same way that single-detached housing spread across the fringes of a city are subsidized by the overbuilt capacity of roadways to accommodate car-dependent living. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of elevators in taller buildings, but that it should primarily be a tool of accessibility for those for whom several flights of stairs (or stairs at all) are impractical or impossible.

[bcwessel]

Problem is that we now barely have two. A long linear shopping street is not a district so Uptown and Downtown barely qualify. A proper shopping district has a tic-tac-toe shape: a central block with store frontage on all four sides and shopping tailing off in all eight directions.


. | |
-+-+--
. | |
-+-+--
. | |

How would that be any different if the buildings were taller?

[BuildingScout]

How would that be any different if the buildings were taller?

I wasn't putting that as an argument for or against taller buildings. It was an argument that before we even dream of building neighbourhoods elsewhere we need to learn how to make the existing ones work. The current "longest strip mall in the world" King St configuration does not work. Contrast the compactness of the tic-tac-toe district with the same amount of street frontage King St. style:


.| | | | | |
-+-+-+-+-+
.| | | | | |

This "TV antenna" configuration corresponds to King St N. between Union and William St in Waterloo. In a tic-tac-toe configuration the two furthest points are about three blocks apart. In a TV antenna layout they are five blocks apart, which means that people drive from shop to shop instead of strolling from on business to the next.

[bcwessel]

I wasn't putting that as an argument for or against taller buildings. It was an argument that before we even dream of building neighbourhoods elsewhere we need to learn how to make the existing ones work. The current "longest strip mall in the world" King St configuration does not work. Contrast the compactness of the tic-tac-toe district with the same amount of street frontage King St. style:


.| | | | | |
-+-+-+-+-+
.| | | | | |

This "TV antenna" configuration corresponds to King St N. between Union and William St in Waterloo. In a tic-tac-toe configuration the two furthest points are about three blocks apart. In a TV antenna layout they are five blocks apart, which means that people drive from shop to shop instead of strolling from on business to the next.

I understand your point, but I don't really understand why we shouldn't be trying to turn existing neighbourhoods further from the cores and CTC into more walkable places to live (by, first and foremost, building things that are worth walking to) in conjunction with the continued development and restoration of the traditional cores. Also, I think your criticisms of King St. are unduly harsh, and are too firmly fixed in its current state and relationship to Uptown and Downtown. Downtown didn't hollow overnight (though it may have seemed like it to some who weren't bothering to watch) and it won't fill back up overnight, either. There is lots of space for Downtown to redevelop along the lines of its original form, but it's going to take time and we need to be patient (though demonstrating our impatient enthusiasm is probably not such a bad thing overall). It's not at all surprising that King is the first section to be experiencing in fill and re-population, but I don't see anything which might suggest that these positive signs will continue exclusively along this stretch in perpetuity. Given the growth projections of the region and the near universal acknowledgement that we can't keep building out, I don't think we have to worry about King St standing alone as a place for good urban life forever.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I understand your point, but I don't really understand why we shouldn't be trying to turn existing neighbourhoods further from the cores and CTC more walkable (by, first and foremost, building things that are worth walking to) in conjunction with the continued development and restoration of the traditional cores.

Bingo!

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that all I cared about was putting a few supertalls in downtown Kitchener to create a skyline. With all of the key factors working for this region over the next 20 years, I really think we can manage to pull off a bit of all of these objectives; growing upwards (skyline), filling in, and extending the cores outwards.

However, I think we might need a certain critical mass in the cores to be able to extend this walkability outwards. For now, intensifying in the cores will be more than enough to keep this region busy.

Admittedly, if I had to drop one of those objectives off my wish list, it would be the sheer height, because it means the least in terms of creating vibrant communities.

[BuildingScout]

I don't really understand why we shouldn't be trying to turn existing neighbourhoods further from the cores and CTC into more walkable places to live (by, first and foremost, building things that are worth walking to) in conjunction with the continued development and restoration of the traditional cores.

The connection is that if we haven't learned how to build neighbourhoods instead of strip malls we will simply replicate the same bad pattern. For example the nodes and corridors model, which builds strip malls a la King St. was chosen over true neighbourhood proposals such as the proposed Northdale cultural district.

[BuildingScout]

Also, I think your criticisms of King St. are unduly harsh, and are too firmly fixed in its current state and relationship to Uptown and Downtown. There is lots of space for Downtown to redevelop along the lines of its original form

I'm not sure what is this original form you speak of. Until recently the sideways depth of King st was zero as one couldn't open a store front on either of its immediate parallel streets, with a bit of Charles and Duke being the odd exceptions. About ten years ago Waterloo city council finally saw the light and allowed limited commercial frontage on Regina street, which has improved things somewhat. Nonetheless a true district in Waterloo would consist of street frontage on all four sides of Waterloo Town Square as well as on all four sides of the city block where Canada post currently resides, while in Kitchener would mean opening Duke to full commercial development as well as Benton and Frederick.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

With all of the key factors working for this region over the next 20 years, I really think we can manage to pull off a bit of all of these objectives; growing upwards (skyline), filling in, and extending the cores outwards.

I tend to agree - especially considering these three objectives. I would really like to see a building over 25 stories be built in this region. I'm not talking a sea of supertalls here, just a couple strategically placed tall structures to start with. It would give the overall urban form more definition and prominence.

The City of Kitchener has removed barriers to allow for such developments by removing maximum height provisions in their High Density Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-3) (http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/resources/DTS-Sept.8-08.pdf). [see page 3]

[bcwessel]

I'm not sure what is this original form you speak of. Until recently the sideways depth of King st was zero as one couldn't open a store front on either of its immediate parallel streets, with a bit of Charles and Duke being the odd exceptions. About ten years ago Waterloo city council finally saw the light and allowed limited commercial frontage on Regina street, which has improved things somewhat. Nonetheless a true district in Waterloo would consist of street frontage on all four sides of Waterloo Town Square as well as on all four sides of the city block where Canada post currently resides, while in Kitchener would mean opening Duke to full commercial development as well as Benton and Frederick.

I should confess my ignorance in matters of zoning, but from your description I gather that (past mistakes aside) the current situation demonstrates a trend in the right direction. The form of Downtown to which I referred is merely what I understand to be Kitchener's complex network of connectivity, broadly thought of as the core. I understand this area to be bound by Charles, Cedar, Weber and Victoria, along with branches along Queen west of Charles, east of Weber along Frederick, east along Victoria to roughly Lancaster, and possible west along Victoria as far as Park. (My definition of Downtown is mostly informed by the City's definition, though I've extended mine to include expansion along Victoria.)

http://www.downtownkitchener.ca/sites/cityofkitchener/images/photos/1.1_map_large.jpg

Again, taking my ignorance of zoning into account, it is my understanding that the area (more or less) described above, aside from being highly connective, is also expected to be developed without setbacks in the form of traditional urban massing, and to a reasonably urban level of density and mixed uses. Given these features, I feel that your characterization of Downtown (and K-W more broadly) as a strip mall is more rhetorical than substantive, and should the described area fill up in the ways that many expect, it represents a fully adequate core, in the context of a greater region with several other reviving urban centres.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I should confess my ignorance in matters of zoning, but from your description I gather that (past mistakes aside) the current situation demonstrates a trend in the right direction. The form of Downtown to which I referred is merely what I understand to be Kitchener's complex network of connectivity, broadly thought of as the core. I understand this area to be bound by Charles, Cedar, Weber and Victoria, along with branches along Queen west of Charles, east of Weber along Frederick, east along Victoria to roughly Lancaster, and possible west along Victoria as far as Park. (My definition of Downtown is mostly informed by the City's definition, though I've extended mine to include expansion along Victoria.)

http://www.downtownkitchener.ca/sites/cityofkitchener/images/photos/1.1_map_large.jpg

Again, taking my ignorance of zoning into account, it is my understanding that the area (more or less) described above, aside from being highly connective, is also expected to be developed without setbacks in the form of traditional urban massing, and to a reasonably urban level of density and mixed uses. Given these features, I feel that your characterization of Downtown (and K-W more broadly) as a strip mall is more rhetorical than substantive, and should the described area fill up in the ways that many expect, it represents a fully adequate core, in the context of a greater region with several other reviving urban centres.

I think when most people refer to "the core", what they're actually referring to is the area above that is defined as downtown. The surrounding areas (Cedar Hill, Victoria Park, etc) are the pre-war inner-city neighborhoods. I've seen different definitions under the city's various planning documents that give different boundaries for what constitutes the "central neighborhoods". The least aggressive is the one shown above. The most aggressive definition I've seen is bound by Westmount Rd to the west, the City of Waterloo border to the north, and the Conestoga Pkwy to the south and east.

If you're referring to the above caption as "the core", then yes, I will admit it's a fairly large area to work with. But most of that area is stable residential neighborhoods, which won't be touched. Since this isn't Detroit or St. Louis, there aren't many vacant lots here to fill in or abandoned buildings to reuse.

Then you have the mixed-use corridors, shown in the document Duke-of-Waterloo linked to. These present a greater opportunity in extending the walkable urban fabric of the city. Many of these roads are littered with uses such as vacant lots, gas stations, strip mall type development, etc, as well as some houses. Over time, these neighborhoods could be redeveloped into "mini-downtowns", branching out from the current downtown area. It could look like a newer version of neighborhoods in Toronto, such as the Danforth or Dundas street west, by redeveloping these strips in the same style and scale as was done in the WTS parking lot. Due to the modified grid pattern of the local area, this would give those stable, low-density neighborhoods something to plug into for accessing neighborhood services by foot.

[BuildingScout]

Given these features, I feel that your characterization of Downtown (and K-W more broadly) as a strip mall is more rhetorical than substantive

Not at all. I stand by that description. Think for example of the By Ward market area in Ottawa. If you stand in, say George street you can go north on William st to York then Clarence and after that Murray or south to Rideau St. all of which can also be walked east to west with many offerings. Now try to repeat the same experiment in Downtown Kitchener. Say you stand in the corner of King and Ontario streets, right at the core of the downtown area you described and try to repeat the same experiment. You simply can't. City Hall never fostered the development of a district as opposed to a street. Even the nodes and corridors proposal which are a great step forward to what was before still seek to emulate single street shopping instead of districts.

[Spokes]

I personally would love to see some added height. The way I see it happening is uptown people are somewhat resistant to height, but I think that will get pushed away so we'll see some height there. Midtown will be more low to mid rise, 5-8 storeys maybe, and then downtown will see some height as well. I'd love to see a few 20+ storey buildings, for a number of reasons. It'll help the population/work density, it will help give people a reason to be in the cores (work/live), it will provide a very nice skyline with a more big city feel.

[mpd618]

I'd love to see a few 20+ storey buildings, for a number of reasons. It'll help the population/work density, it will help give people a reason to be in the cores (work/live), it will provide a very nice skyline with a more big city feel.

You think they will give people more of a reason to be in the cores than if the same space were located in 10 story buildings instead of 30 story ones?

I think a "big city feel" is more attractive to the denizens of this forum than it is to the man on the street.

[Spokes]

You think they will give people more of a reason to be in the cores than if the same space were located in 10 story buildings instead of 30 story ones?

I think a "big city feel" is more attractive to the denizens of this forum than it is to the man on the street.

I think if it's a 20 storey office building it gives more people a reason to be there (work) than the number of people working in a 10 storey office building. And of course 30 storeys would give even more people reason to be there. But you have to suplement that with residential or you risk having the ghost town we currently have after 6pm

[mpd618]

I think if it's a 20 storey office building it gives more people a reason to be there (work) than the number of people working in a 10 storey office building. And of course 30 storeys would give even more people reason to be there.

The comparison isn't between one 30 story building and one 10 story building -- it's between one 30 story building and three 10 story buildings. I'd like to know why the former should be preferred to the latter.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Taller buildings allow land values to be maximized. A large reason I support the up-front 'costs' associated with LRT is the expected increase in land values around each station. In order to maximize this we need to cluster as many residents/employees within X metres of each hub. The best way to do this is to allow taller buildings.

Taller buildings provide variety. Most of our development will be less than 10 stories, so allowing some to peak above that level provides interest in an urban setting. Have you ever been up Panorama (http://www.eatertainment.com/restaurants/panorama/) in Toronto? The view from the 51st floor is breathtaking. Many cities have top-level lounges like this and you would not get the same kind of experience/view on the 6th floor. As an experiment closer to home, go check out one of the apartment towers in the cores and ask to be shown units on the ~4th, ~8th, ~12th, ~16th floor. Perhaps you'll end up preferring the 4th floor unit, but there are others who would prefer to live/work/dine on the 16th floor (or higher).

Taller buildings become a marketing tool for their downtown. They're visible from across the city and constantly remind residents there's a core in that direction.

I'd love to see a 30-storey building in both Downtown Kitchener & Uptown Waterloo by 2031. Keep in mind I'm talking about buildings similar in quality as 144 Park or City Centre and not a concrete slab.

[Daev]

I personally don't see a problem with any buildings going to 30-Storeys in our downtown/uptown cores.

The only stipulation I have against large buildings is if they are only designed for one purpose. (ie: Only Residential (Condominiums), Only Commercial (Office Towers))

I agree with others that have mentioned previously, that we should focus on creating a district of shopping at street level with office/residential spacing above the first floor. I can only cite one example in specific to this:

Dundas St W and Bloor St. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kitchener,+Waterloo+Regional+Municipality,+O ntario,+Canada&ll=43.65653,-79.452473&spn=0,0.003962&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.656627,-79.452502&panoid=Zvi0JFu-YkOYCccLuEazfg&cbp=12,50.01,,0,0.67)

I can't remember the name of this building, but I have a couple friends who live here. It's the perfect example in my opinion of how we should be looking to shape our 10+ Storey buildings. A lower floor with mall-like retail and above it, residential apartments/condomiums.

[BuildingScout]

I think a "big city feel" is more attractive to the denizens of this forum than it is to the man on the street.

I'm in favour of somewhat taller buildings (most around 15 stories, a dozen at 25, a signature handful at 35-55) but I'm definitely not looking forward a "big city feel" at all. KW should have, IMHO, Austin, Madison or Ann Arbor as models, not downtown Toronto.

[bcwessel]

Here's some interesting food for thought with regards to building density, massing and height: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=MchfvovmHeUC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=leon+krier+building+height&source=bl&ots=MBd-9kX56r&sig=S0taLvAvO0XHiwq1l-zn8RrUmyU&hl=en&ei=oCj0TJuePIGougO68eGaDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Other interesting works dealing with this issue are Suburban Nation by Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, The Geography of Nowhere and The City in Mind by Kunstler, and The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jacobs. If anybody from the other side of the debate could provide some material to counterbalance the above positions for traditional (read: pre-steel skyscraper) density, I would appreciate the opportunity to engage with some opposing arguments.

Note: I'm not much interested in arguments pertaining to land value as the only developers capable of building up indefinitely are the same developers who don't seem to need our concern for their bottom lines, and hypertrophying land values can have very serious negative consequences for those who, conversely, require the most help.

[mpd618]

I agree with others that have mentioned previously, that we should focus on creating a district of shopping at street level with office/residential spacing above the first floor. I can only cite one example in specific to this:

Dundas St W and Bloor St. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kitchener,+Waterloo+Regional+Municipality,+O ntario,+Canada&ll=43.65653,-79.452473&spn=0,0.003962&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.656627,-79.452502&panoid=Zvi0JFu-YkOYCccLuEazfg&cbp=12,50.01,,0,0.67)

I can't remember the name of this building, but I have a couple friends who live here. It's the perfect example in my opinion of how we should be looking to shape our 10+ Storey buildings. A lower floor with mall-like retail and above it, residential apartments/condomiums.

I would actually say that it's a perfect example of what we want to avoid. It's one single tall building surrounded by 0-2 story areas, its stores face inwards and its entrance is separated by a flight of stairs and a barren plaza from the street. It takes up a lot of street frontage without interacting with the street. It doesn't look terribly good. The one thing it has going is the brute fact that it is a lot of people right next to a subway station. In fact, going several stops on the subway seems a more attractive prospect than going several blocks on foot in that area, and that's not how it should be.

UrbanWaterloo made a decent case for having some very tall buildings, and I'm not entirely against them. But I would say that they have to be very carefully considered, and used sparingly. We should be clear as to what we want out of our urban form, and why.

[bcwessel]

I'm in favour of somewhat taller buildings (most around 15 stories, a dozen at 25, a signature handful at 35-55) but I'm definitely not looking forward a "big city feel" at all. KW should have, IMHO, Austin, Madison or Ann Arbor as models, not downtown Toronto.

I'm not so willing to hand over "big city feel" to cities dominated by steel and glass towers. What about this says "small town feel" to you? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vAKqe6DfXYw/SF9C8lGJGpI/AAAAAAAAAlI/XObyubfjYsM/s1600/Paris%2B006.jpg Or this? http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v63/179/107/505091465/n505091465_28884_8414.jpg

[panamaniac]

I'm not so willing to hand over "big city feel" to cities dominated by steel and glass towers. What about this says "small town feel" to you? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vAKqe6DfXYw/SF9C8lGJGpI/AAAAAAAAAlI/XObyubfjYsM/s1600/Paris%2B006.jpg Or this? http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v63/179/107/505091465/n505091465_28884_8414.jpg

Seriously, a view of 16ieme in a thread on KW's future skyline? It kind of takes the breath away. Why not a pic showing more clearly the towers of La Defense in the background.? I assume the second one is a street in London and, if so, it's not as though that city lacks skyscrapers either. Unless you want to propose that we replicate Le Palais de Chaillot Downtown (go for it, I would say!), it would seem more relevant to stick to North American models. At the end of the day, are we not almost certainly going to end up with mid-rise (or lower) streetscapes in the core interspersed with some taller buildings?

[Daev]

I would actually say that it's a perfect example of what we want to avoid. It's one single tall building surrounded by 0-2 story areas, its stores face inwards and its entrance is separated by a flight of stairs and a barren plaza from the street. It takes up a lot of street frontage without interacting with the street. It doesn't look terribly good. The one thing it has going is the brute fact that it is a lot of people right next to a subway station. In fact, going several stops on the subway seems a more attractive prospect than going several blocks on foot in that area, and that's not how it should be.

UrbanWaterloo made a decent case for having some very tall buildings, and I'm not entirely against them. But I would say that they have to be very carefully considered, and used sparingly. We should be clear as to what we want out of our urban form, and why.

Please let me clarify, I don't agree with the streetscape around this building, nor do I agree with the way it's designed.

I envision buildings that anchor retail space at the bottom, that are not in "mall" like structuring; but maintain a district style shopping area.

We should also limit how many 10+ Storey Buildings are built in the cores. I don't want to see any CBD's in the downtown/uptown areas. :RpS_thumbdn:

[Spokes]

The comparison isn't between one 30 story building and one 10 story building -- it's between one 30 story building and three 10 story buildings. I'd like to know why the former should be preferred to the latter.

Oh sorry, I didn't catch that.

I could see it working both ways. I'd be happy regardless, but the 30 storey building optimizes land use. We currently aren't at the place where land is so valueable that we'd require 30 storeys, and maybe never will be, but that's one of the arguements for it. Now would I say no to 3 10 storey buildings? Of course not. I would just like to see a well designed 20 storey building from a visual perspective. Id also like what that single building would bring in terms of employees/residents.

I don't want to see 4 storeys and one single 20+ storey building that stands out like a sore thumb. It's got to fit, which is crucial, if it doesn't, don't do it.

[bcwessel]

My point was that big cities and tall buildings need not be synonymous - a rather uncontroversial one, I thought - and I feel that the point is expressed perfectly well by the above pictures. I'm not sure why you've adopted this tone of condescension, but it's unwarranted, unappreciated, and counterproductive to the discussion.

As to your point that sticking to North American "models" might be more relevant, I would argue that the state of the average North American city is quite dire, and the few exceptions (Portland likely the example most often used) take many of their cues from Europe, yet still suffer from the North American gift to planning of an extremely dense core which subsidizes a sprawl-dominant periphery. Why should we dismiss several hundred years of cultural knowledge on organizing city life in order to emulate often largely dysfunctional and radically experimental building patterns?

[Spokes]

I personally don't see a problem with any buildings going to 30-Storeys in our downtown/uptown cores.

The only stipulation I have against large buildings is if they are only designed for one purpose. (ie: Only Residential (Condominiums), Only Commercial (Office Towers))

I agree with others that have mentioned previously, that we should focus on creating a district of shopping at street level with office/residential spacing above the first floor. I can only cite one example in specific to this:

Dundas St W and Bloor St. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kitchener,+Waterloo+Regional+Municipality,+O ntario,+Canada&ll=43.65653,-79.452473&spn=0,0.003962&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.656627,-79.452502&panoid=Zvi0JFu-YkOYCccLuEazfg&cbp=12,50.01,,0,0.67)

I can't remember the name of this building, but I have a couple friends who live here. It's the perfect example in my opinion of how we should be looking to shape our 10+ Storey buildings. A lower floor with mall-like retail and above it, residential apartments/condomiums.

So you'd like to see buildings that are part office and part residential? I know 247 King North had 4 floors of office before the residential, but is this common?

I agree though that mixed use is important, I think that's what's lacking in a lot of residential buildings, not having first floor commercial.

[Spokes]

I'm in favour of somewhat taller buildings (most around 15 stories, a dozen at 25, a signature handful at 35-55) but I'm definitely not looking forward a "big city feel" at all. KW should have, IMHO, Austin, Madison or Ann Arbor as models, not downtown Toronto.

I agree not the feel of Toronto, I should have said a bigger city feel. Right now we've got a small town mentality, and at times feel.

[BuildingScout]

its stores face inwards and its entrance is separated by a flight of stairs and a barren plaza from the street. It takes up a lot of street frontage without interacting with the street.

This reminds me of some store and building renos in Tel Aviv, where businesses modified their frontage to add stairs similar to those shown in the Dundas & Bloor building. Sales dropped by over 50% since people had to purposely walk up into the stores, instead of being at ground level.

[mpd618]

Seriously, a view of 16ieme in a thread on KW's future skyline? It kind of takes the breath away. Why not a pic showing more clearly the towers of La Defense in the background.? I assume the second one is a street in London and, if so, it's not as though that city lacks skyscrapers either. Unless you want to propose that we replicate Le Palais de Chaillot Downtown (go for it, I would say!), it would seem more relevant to stick to North American models. At the end of the day, are we not almost certainly going to end up with mid-rise (or lower) streetscapes in the core interspersed with some taller buildings?

Well, that's what we're discussing here. The Region is certainly carving out a new path with Places to Grow, its new Official Plan, and light rail. It is distinctly possible, likely even, that we will be developing in a way that looks quite different from what has been standard in North America.

The point of showing places like in those pictures is that dense, very urban cities don't have to have very tall buildings. It's also true that when big, important cities are restricted in their ability to grow (e.g. through strict height limits), that they can get suburban forests of skyscrapers in places like La Defense and Rosslyn (across the Potomac from Washington, D.C.). I don't think we're anywhere near an inability to handle growth in relatively central neighbourhoods.

The point remains that a place can be urban without being very tall. An example that comes to my mind is the Annex neighbourhood on Bloor Street.

[benjaminbach]

The point remains that a place can be urban without being very tall. An example that comes to my mind is the Annex neighbourhood on Bloor Street.
As a former resident of the Annex... isn't it all old homes, with the exception of an infill development of a school by Context, and a couple new buildings on Bloor?

[panamaniac]

Well, that's what we're discussing here. The Region is certainly carving out a new path with Places to Grow, its new Official Plan, and light rail. It is distinctly possible, likely even, that we will be developing in a way that looks quite different from what has been standard in North America.

The point of showing places like in those pictures is that dense, very urban cities don't have to have very tall buildings. It's also true that when big, important cities are restricted in their ability to grow (e.g. through strict height limits), that they can get suburban forests of skyscrapers in places like La Defense and Rosslyn (across the Potomac from Washington, D.C.). I don't think we're anywhere near an inability to handle growth in relatively central neighbourhoods.

The point remains that a place can be urban without being very tall. An example that comes to my mind is the Annex neighbourhood on Bloor Street.

I don't think there is any disagreement that cities can very dense without having very tall buildings. The thing is that the thread asks what we realistically think KW will look like in twenty years. I am just saying that in my view it is realistic to expect the KW cores in 2031 to reflect a mix of medium and low density interspersed with high rise development. Some will prefer less tallness, which is fine. I for one, find the second proposed tower of Centre Block to be taller than I would like to see on that site, even with the setback from King. It does not seem to have generated much local concern, however, which makes me think that the prevailing view at present is not opposed to tall.

[IEFBR14]

As a former resident of the Annex... isn't it all old homes, with the exception of an infill development of a school by Context, and a couple new buildings on Bloor?
You're forgetting Honest Ed's and the Brunswick House, among others. They add the sort of authentic urban atmosphere that can't be found in Waterloo Region ;)

[benjaminbach]

You're forgetting Honest Ed's and the Brunswick House, among others. They add the sort of authentic urban atmosphere that can't be found in Waterloo Region ;)

The Brunny needs to be closed down

[UrbanWaterloo]

Here's some interesting food for thought with regards to building density, massing and height: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=MchfvovmHeUC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=leon+krier+building+height&source=bl&ots=MBd-9kX56r&sig=S0taLvAvO0XHiwq1l-zn8RrUmyU&hl=en&ei=oCj0TJuePIGougO68eGaDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 181: Although I agree we'll eventually hit peak oil, I do not believe we'll ever hit peak energy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GooNhOIMY0

Page 183: I don't agree with calling a skyscraper a vertical cul-de-sac. There's a lot more community building, restaurants, nightlife, employment, amenities, transit usage, etc.. along the Ste-Catherine corridor in Montreal than there is in the Beechwood subdivision of Waterloo.


Note: I'm not much interested in arguments pertaining to land value as the only developers capable of building up indefinitely are the same developers who don't seem to need our concern for their bottom lines, and hypertrophying land values can have very serious negative consequences for those who, conversely, require the most help.

I don't want to pretend there's no unintended issues with expensive downtown real estate, but I still believe it's a far better position to be in than a crumbling downtown with dollar stores and payday loan outlets. At least with the former you have the wealth to be able to deal with some problems, with the latter your city will be stuck in a rut and could eventually lead to a ghost town. The reason property becomes valuable is because lots of people want to be there. Don't we desire an increased number of people wanting to be in our cores?

[UrbanWaterloo]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v63/179/107/505091465/n505091465_28884_8414.jpg

A nice thing about Waterloo Region is that we have so many downtowns (hopefully we'll also create some new hubs through redevelopment), that I'm sure some will cater towards a mid-rise lifestyle while others set their sights on the sky. Personally I'd much rather wake-up to the Hong Kong skyline (than the London, UK photo you posted above):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg

[garthdanlor]

Personally I'd much rather wake-up to the Hong Kong skyline(than the London, UK photo you posted above)
No question Hong Kong has a striking skyline, but do you think that Hong Kong is a more livable city than London? IMO, London wins hands down. What's more important?

[UrbanWaterloo]

No question Hong Kong has a striking skyline, but do you think that Hong Kong is a more livable city than London? IMO, London wins hands down. What's more important?

IMO, one thing would be the number of amenities in my building & on my block. Not that you'd want to eat at the restaurant in your building every day, it's just very convenient that one exists, or a barber shop, or a Beer Store (this is the home of Oktoberfest after all :RpS_tongue:). The number of places within 5 minutes is far greater in Hong Kong than in London, to me that makes the city more livable. This is of course opinion rather than fact because there is no absolute right or wrong answer to the question. Also this doesn't mean that HK is perfect either, and that it couldn't use some of the amazing parks & monuments that exist in London.

[plam]

Page 183: I don't agree with calling a skyscraper a vertical cul-de-sac. There's a lot more community building, restaurants, nightlife, employment, amenities, transit usage, etc.. along the Ste-Catherine corridor in Montreal than there is in the Beechwood subdivision of Waterloo.


For sure. But I'd say that most of the street life on Ste-Catherine occurs at street level and some of it in the underground/malls. There isn't often occasion to go way up past the 5th floor in these buildings. I suppose your point is where do these people come from, and I'd say that they don't come from the offices on weekends or evenings. I think that Japan-style buildings may encourage more street life, where you have independent 7-storey buildings with stores at each level.

[bcwessel]

A nice thing about Waterloo Region is that we have so many downtowns (hopefully we'll also create some new hubs through redevelopment), that I'm sure some will cater towards a mid-rise lifestyle while others set their sights on the sky. Personally I'd much rather wake-up to the Hong Kong skyline (than the London, UK photo you posted above):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg

Which would you rather wake up to from the second the floor, and then walk through on your daily business? Here, I'm assuming that not everybody in Hong Kong lives in a penthouse.

[bcwessel]

I don't want to pretend there's no unintended issues with expensive downtown real estate, but I still believe it's a far better position to be in than a crumbling downtown with dollar stores and payday loan outlets. At least with the former you have the wealth to be able to deal with some problems, with the latter your city will be stuck in a rut and could eventually lead to a ghost town. The reason property becomes valuable is because lots of people want to be there. Don't we desire an increased number of people wanting to be in our cores?

I don't think we're talking about either a crumbling downtown or expensive highrises. Everything points to increased activity in the core, and what we're discussing is the form that this renewed interested will take. Or are you suggesting that if a height limit of, say, 10 floors were imposed Downtown that that would preclude anything but dollar stores and predatory loan centres, and those for whom those types of business are often tailored?

[DHLawrence]

There's no reason we can't have a mix of both. Something's going to have to replace the suburban areas along Weber, Erb, Bridgeport, Northfield, and Hespeler Road (among others).

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I would actually say that it's a perfect example of what we want to avoid. It's one single tall building surrounded by 0-2 story areas, its stores face inwards and its entrance is separated by a flight of stairs and a barren plaza from the street. It takes up a lot of street frontage without interacting with the street. It doesn't look terribly good. The one thing it has going is the brute fact that it is a lot of people right next to a subway station.

I wholeheartedly agree. It actually reminds me of an oversized Cambridge Place, which is not an overly flattering assessment.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I'm in favour of somewhat taller buildings (most around 15 stories, a dozen at 25, a signature handful at 35-55) but I'm definitely not looking forward a "big city feel" at all. KW should have, IMHO, Austin, Madison or Ann Arbor as models, not downtown Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

At over 1.7 million people in the MSA, it's a tough comparison to Waterloo Region. Granted, MSAs tend to be more inclusive of outlying areas than Canadian CMAs, so that would close the gap somewhat.

However, it is similar in that it has seen a lot of growth in the past decade and is a protypical low-density metropolis.

Austin skyline:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~ak466/downtown-austin-1a.jpg
Source: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~ak466/austin.htm

One thing I do like about the skyline is what was discussed earlier, about not having more than one skyscraper per block. It does give height without overwhelming the pedestrian (no canyons). I was thinking of having a few buildings like these in key places (downtown/uptown) while also expanding the urban fabric out from the core in medium density (Annex-style) corridors.

[Daev]

I wholeheartedly agree. It actually reminds me of an oversized Cambridge Place, which is not an overly flattering assessment.

Again ... I only use this really bad example as my ideal of seeing buildings that are a mixture of retail/residential/office. I don't want to see buildings that become "concrete slabs" in the downtown/uptown cores. In other words, if I am riding the LRT downtown Kitchener/uptown Waterloo and want to get off at a particular stop; I don't want to have to walk past buildings that I can't interact with.


There's no reason we can't have a mix of both. Something's going to have to replace the suburban areas along Weber, Erb, Bridgeport, Northfield, and Hespeler Road (among others).

Exactly.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Other interesting works dealing with this issue are Suburban Nation by Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, The Geography of Nowhere and The City in Mind by Kunstler, and The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jacobs. If anybody from the other side of the debate could provide some material to counterbalance the above positions for traditional (read: pre-steel skyscraper) density, I would appreciate the opportunity to engage with some opposing arguments.

I've read Suburban Nation and a chunk of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. With Jane Jacobs, she always brought home the message of having neighborhoods with a wide variety of uses interacting with each other, which she liked to call "synergy". I think that's a very important element to consider as our cores progress. But what I interpreted about her views on highrises was not necessarily that highrises were wrong, but single-use monocultures like public housing projects, office skyscraper CBDs, and bland yuppie condo districts (esp w/o retail) like Park street were destined to become deadzones.

[bcwessel]

Page 181: Although I agree we'll eventually hit peak oil, I do not believe we'll ever hit peak energy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GooNhOIMY0



This isn't the place to get into it, and I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I'm not so sure that we should be approaching one of the most difficult and potentially catastrophic problems we might ever face as a species with the speculative musings of a man who -- while being a brilliant physicists in his own right -- is best know for cribbing episodes of Star Trek. Physics of the Impossible is a lot of fun, but it's dangerous to suggest that it holds the key to our energy future. Blind faith is blind no matter which direction your facing when you close your eyes.

[garthdanlor]

IMO, one thing would be the number of amenities in my building & on my block. Not that you'd want to eat at the restaurant in your building every day, it's just very convenient that one exists, or a barber shop, or a Beer Store (this is the home of Oktoberfest after all :RpS_tongue:). The number of places within 5 minutes is far greater in Hong Kong than in London, to me that makes the city more livable.

If London doesn't have enough amenities for you, how do you survive in a relative backwater like KW??

[bcwessel]

An article on the recent erosion of Paris's long-standing height limits (http://www.planetizen.com/node/47061).

For more by Dr. Mary Campbell Gallagher, see her excellent writings on a diverse array of topics here (http://www.marycampbellgallagher.com/index.htm).

[BuildingScout]

An article on the recent erosion of Paris's long-standing height limits (http://www.planetizen.com/node/47061).

I think this article misses the mark. One of the things that make Paris the city that it is, is the willingness to move forward and not stay stuck in the past. Think the Grand Palais, the Eiffel Tower, the centre Pompidou, the Louvre Pyramid, the l'arc de la Defense, the Ministry of Finance (http://ladefense.free.fr/1/aerien/1.jpg) extending onto the Seine river, you name it, these were all innovative projects in their day. Paris has managed to preserve its character and charm without being stuck in the past.

Paris has remained at the top of the league as one of the most beautiful cities in the world precisely for this ability to renew itself while preserving the past. Grand Paris is a clear step forward.

[mikeyp]

If I don't see the Ultima Tower in downtown Kitchener by 2031 I'll be greatly dissapointed.

http://www.tdrinc.com/images/photos/large/Towers04a1.jpg

[UrbanWaterloo]

Let Cities Reach For The Sky
March 4, 2011 | Marcus Gee | Globe and Mail | Link
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/let-cities-reach-for-the-sky/article1931176/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Toron%20%20to&utm_content=1931176)

...Prof. Glaeser says that as much as he admires Jacobs for her “enormous wisdom and insight,” she was also wrong when she argued in her early work that preserving older, shorter buildings would keep accommodation affordable for homeowners and entrepreneurs. “Her vision for Greenwich Village produced an area that was enshrined in amber, that was unable to produce enough supply to create affordability – and now it’s $5-million to buy a house in Greenwich Village,” he said at a University of Toronto talk this week.

Greenwich Village is a charming place, for certain. So is central Paris, where high-rise buildings are rare. But the enormous cost of residing in such places inevitably turns them into preserves of the rich. Cities that encourage high-rise living are not only more affordable, they are ultimately more livable. The population density that comes with high-rise buildings brings livelier streets, more efficient transit use, less energy consumption and healthier, less car-dependent lifestyles. The alternative to building up is building out – the curse of urban sprawl...

[bcwessel]

"The alternative to building up is building out – the curse of urban sprawl..."

I would argue that urban sprawl is not the alternative to high-rise development, it is the product. I see an intimate relationship between the high-rise condos springing up along Toronto's lakeshore and the incessant outward sprawl of the GTA's suburban "cities." This idea becomes particularly relevant when taken in the context of the greenbelt no-grow zones drawn around existing urban areas with important economies, where new development is inevitable (and completely unavoidable). In cases where greenbelts are in place, growing up in the centre without limit essentially subsidizes the kind of energy-heavy, dead-street suburbs which Professor Glaeser condemns in his analysis. The common refrain "better up than out" really ought to be reframed "if you go up, you can (and will) also go out." I find it to be somewhat disingenuous to propose high-rise development as an alternative to sprawl, considering that today nobody is proposing razing traditional downtowns in order that sprawling suburbs might be erected in their place. Conversely, new greenfield developments (to my knowledge) are rarely, if ever, designed as high-rise urbanism. Furthermore, there is nothing height or density specific about high-rise development. Places like Toronto (and many other urban areas) have an unfortunate legacy of Corbusier-inspired high-rises "in the park," set within suburban building patterns, which are no more (and very likely less) functional than what has become the traditional suburb.

As to Glaeser's assertion that height restrictions effectively "enshrine [older neighbourhoods] in amber" and thus leading directly to the kind of hyper-gentrification to Glaeser is taking issue, there are many potential factors which could have led to the now-inaccessible prices of places like Greenwich Village. One possible conclusion might be that as greenfield development became increasingly dominated by car-dependent sprawling suburbia, traditional low and medium rise urbanism became more and more uncommon, and through the basic principles of supply and demand (to which Glaeser also refers), the functional urbanisms that did remain became increasingly more expensive due to the high demand and now extreme lack of adequate supply. Had those car-dependent greenfield subdivisions been constructed in the same manner as places like Greenwich Village, not only would you have less of what is dysfunctionally energy-heavy and transit-light, more of what people obviously love (as evidenced by the high prices of Greenwich, the American affinity for taking vacations to European towns merely to drink coffee on nice streets, and the successes of traditional urban forms from the Kentlands to Seaside), but you would also have less need to "build up" -- as a suitably urban density would be achieved throughout New York and its concomitant mega-region, rather than unsuitably low and sprawling areas being subsidized by central high-rise areas. It seems pretty likely to me that Long Island and Lower Manhattan have just as much (if not more) to do with the prohibitive cost of Greenwich Village than the height restrictions imposed on the Village itself.

[BuildingScout]

I see an intimate relationship between the high-rise condos springing up along Toronto's lakeshore and the incessant outward sprawl of the GTA's suburban "cities."

Care to explain? Toronto sprawl has been going on for decades, the lakeshore condo's have been there for less than ten years.

I think prof. Glaeser got it right. People need to live somewhere, if it is not outwards, it has to go upwards. Of course that does not mean we need to build 100 story towers in the park, but it sure calls for 10 story condos all over downtown.

[bcwessel]

Because we sprawled to our limits, and are now forced to go up in order to accommodate for the profligate development of the past. However, due to Glaeser's reductive bifurcation of the city along the lines of sprawl/high-rise, he is able to avoid genuinely addressing the continuum of building patterns which he constructs when he enters Greenwich into the discussion as a hollow non-alternative.

It is certainly not my place to tell people where to live and what to demand from their environment, and only time will tell what type of fate awaits the still-shining glass towers we are producing today -- and will undoubtedly continue to produce for the foreseeable future -- as they become 30, 40, 50 years old. Perhaps my view of the future of high-rise downtowns will, upon retrospect, turn out to be as quaint and antiquated as Greenwich Village in Glaeser's narrative. However, I take issue with Glaeser's fairly weak assertion that places like Greenwich are victims of their own short-sighted resistance to change, and their desire to retain traditional urban qualities, rather than a failing on the part of our dysfunctional contemporary culture of development, of which I see high-rise triumphalism to be a significant part.

[mpd618]

I'd say that the counterpoint is that if we put all the effort and urban growth into high-rises, then we miss an enormous segment of people who are interested in a more down-to-earth experience -- and who would continue to be pushed out to the suburbs. A mixed approach would entail allowing high-rises to be built in such a way that they do not negative impact the street level (e.g. 4 story podiums and so on), and actively trying to make lower-height development more urban, more dense, and more attractive. And if we are building on greenfield, then it might as well have some thought put into making it as good as it can be, instead of being ignored (in favour of shiny high-rises) and allowed to continue in its current form.

[BuildingScout]

I'd say that the counterpoint is that if we put all the effort and urban growth into high-rises,

I think you got it backwards. it was Jane Jacobs who took an all-or-nothing attitude between low density and high-rises. It is Prof. Glaeser the one who is taking a more balanced approach by proposing some high density alongside Greenwich village style developments.

Also the fact that some of the current high rises are of the wrong form (glass towers over 40 stories high) does not mean that all high rises have to be like that.