Complete Lang Tannery Redevelopment | 20 m | 5 fl

[wendy]

Hi,
I made a presentation and met a couple of "Wonderful Waterloo" members at the council meeting last Monday.
Yes, all the focus is now on designation to prevent demolition.
But, after hearing what the councillors were saying at the meeting, and seeing the whole process unfold, I'm wondering--which councillors are going to be voting for designation?
And even if they did, Cadan could oppose it, sending it to a review board. It's clear the last thing the city wants is a showdown with Cadan.
I think continued public support will show both parties what the public wants, and that is to save these buildings. For the sake of the urban landscape, and the idea of a "warehouse district" that is more than one warehouse and a parking garage.
To me, it doesn't matter what they want to demolish them for--whether it's surface parking, a six storey garage-retail structure, or the next Frank Gehry masterpiece. The bottom line(s) are that they have significant heritage value, they are perfectly suited for adaptive reuse, and it's part of the city's official plan to protect and re-use such properties.
The secondary issue is that there are plenty of parking alternatives. Which negates the justification for demolition in the Heritage Impact Assessment, ie, the immediate and crucial need to use that land for parking for tenants.
I'm not sure what kind of heritage architect writes a report that says to tear down buildings to make parking, but, I guess I'm just a crazy idealist who rides a bike and likes to see old buildings put to good use.
Wendy

[Urbanomicon]

Welcome to the site Wendy!

[Spokes]

Welcome to Wonderful Waterloo Wendy!

Im wondering....If they designated the buildings, is that a decision Cadan could take to the OMB? Because we all know how that would end.

[panamaniac]

.......The bottom line(s) are that they have significant heritage value, they are perfectly suited for adaptive reuse, ........

I guess that's the issue that has not been very clear in the discussion to date - at present the buildings do not impress and far more important heritage structures are long gone (not that that is an argument re these particular structures). It also puzzles me that this has arisen so late in the Lang Tannery renovation process - when did the City first know that Cadan was planning to clear the site? Will heritage designation achieve anything if the developer is not committed to reusing the structures (abandoned structures have a way of becoming derelict in very short order)? I get the feeling that somebody dropped the ball on this one.

[taylortbb]

Im wondering....If they designated the buildings, is that a decision Cadan could take to the OMB? Because we all know how that would end.

I dislike the OMB as much as anyone, but in this case they just might take our side. The OMB is always pro-developer, unless the official plan is very clear that it's prohibited. Fortuantely the official plan not just mentions preservation of heritage structures, but specifically mentions avoiding building surface parking in the district.

[mpd618]

Im wondering....If they designated the buildings, is that a decision Cadan could take to the OMB? Because we all know how that would end.

They certainly could take it to the OMB, but I'm not sure they'd have a good case. Just a few days ago the OMB upheld Stratford keeping out a Wal-Mart because it went against their official plan. This demolition would go against the Kitchener official plan quite blatantly -- and I'm not sure Cadan would want to be known for taking this to the OMB.

[wendy]

...at present the buildings do not impress...

It's not possible to appreciate these buildings just by driving by. They have to be viewed in relation to the other structures on the site, and it helps to have an understanding of what they were used for. It also helps to consider not just the buildings themselves, but the spaces between them, and the atmosphere that creates. Heritage isn't about "beautiful, old whatever" anymore. This is about something more real, in my opinion. I am new to the area, but I have heard and seen how the city has treated heritage resources in the past.There are bits and pieces of industrial factory gear placed around the downtown, ironically, one right in front of the Lang Site B buildings, with a plaque "celebrating industrial heritage, and the men and women who worked"
Expressing heritage should no be limited to perfunctory scraps and plaques. There's no need for it! It's nice, but little but gloss over far more important issues about honouring history in the everyday landscape, and the best way to do that is to re-use buildings that 1. have significant cultural value, 2. have not exhausted their use, 3. have a contribution to make to a well-planned urban landscape.
What made the City hesitate on demolition was public pressure. That has to continue! I would like to see people from the Universities get involved, and I would like to hear something from Heritage Kitchener, a group supposed to be protecting heritage interests that rubber-stamped the demolition plan. It has been shown, over and over, that public pressure, combined with the proper implemetation of heritage laws, is the most effective way to protect historic places, whether they're beautiful buildings or a former industrial landscape like the Lang site.

Oh, and by the way....this is a great forum!

Wendy

[Spokes]

I guess that's the issue that has not been very clear in the discussion to date - at present the buildings do not impress and far more important heritage structures are long gone (not that that is an argument re these particular structures). It also puzzles me that this has arisen so late in the Lang Tannery renovation process - when did the City first know that Cadan was planning to clear the site? Will heritage designation achieve anything if the developer is not committed to reusing the structures (abandoned structures have a way of becoming derelict in very short order)? I get the feeling that somebody dropped the ball on this one.

Maybe one of the architects fighting for them should put together a proposal to show how they could be reused, Im sure it would help build more support and get Cadan thinking the same way.

[Spokes]

I dislike the OMB as much as anyone, but in this case they just might take our side. The OMB is always pro-developer, unless the official plan is very clear that it's prohibited. Fortuantely the official plan not just mentions preservation of heritage structures, but specifically mentions avoiding building surface parking in the district.

Thanks for the thoughts, I hadn't thought of how the official plan would impact things. You too mpd618.

[BusyBerliner]

Hey all, thought I'd chime in on this one..

If the City wants to designate the the buildings or a district and the owner objects, I believe it would actually go to the Conservation Review Board rather than the OMB (http://www.crb.gov.on.ca/english/home.html).

Also, does anyone know if they've considered how much parking could fit on the site without demolishing the builldings? Looking at the property, it seems that they could still fit a decent number of cars on the site without clearing it. This will allow them to address much of their short-term parking needs without squandering our/their heritage resources.

One other option (undesirable, but better than demolition), could be to gut the interior of the buildigs and use them as garages until a higher/better use than parking is feasible on the site. This way Candan gets their parking, doesn't have to pay for demolition, and the facades will be largely preserved.

[Spokes]

...at present the buildings do not impress...

It's not possible to appreciate these buildings just by driving by. They have to be viewed in relation to the other structures on the site, and it helps to have an understanding of what they were used for. It also helps to consider not just the buildings themselves, but the spaces between them, and the atmosphere that creates. Heritage isn't about "beautiful, old whatever" anymore. This is about something more real, in my opinion. I am new to the area, but I have heard and seen how the city has treated heritage resources in the past.There are bits and pieces of industrial factory gear placed around the downtown, ironically, one right in front of the Lang Site B buildings, with a plaque "celebrating industrial heritage, and the men and women who worked"
Expressing heritage should no be limited to perfunctory scraps and plaques. There's no need for it! It's nice, but little but gloss over far more important issues about honouring history in the everyday landscape, and the best way to do that is to re-use buildings that 1. have significant cultural value, 2. have not exhausted their use, 3. have a contribution to make to a well-planned urban landscape.
What made the City hesitate on demolition was public pressure. That has to continue! I would like to see people from the Universities get involved, and I would like to hear something from Heritage Kitchener, a group supposed to be protecting heritage interests that rubber-stamped the demolition plan. It has been shown, over and over, that public pressure, combined with the proper implemetation of heritage laws, is the most effective way to protect historic places, whether they're beautiful buildings or a former industrial landscape like the Lang site.

Oh, and by the way....this is a great forum!

Wendy

I think that's one of the issues, people look at the buildings as is and don't see much. I, as many people on here can attest to, did a 180 about my thoughts about these buildings only when people started giving me ideas about how they can be reused. I think one of the important things (and hardest) to do is to look at them and see how they COULD be if restored. That's why I hope someone puts together some drawings of what they could be like with the restaurant/pub/boutique/gallery thing going on there. It'll allow people to see the vision even if they can't picture it themselves.

[Spokes]

Hey all, thought I'd chime in on this one..

If the City wants to designate the the buildings or a district and the owner objects, I believe it would actually go to the Conservation Review Board rather than the OMB (http://www.crb.gov.on.ca/english/home.html).

Also, does anyone know if they've considered how much parking could fit on the site without demolishing the builldings? Looking at the property, it seems that they could still fit a decent number of cars on the site without clearing it. This will allow them to address much of their short-term parking needs without squandering our/their heritage resources.

One other option (undesirable, but better than demolition), could be to gut the interior of the buildigs and use them as garages until a higher/better use than parking is feasible on the site. This way Candan gets their parking, doesn't have to pay for demolition, and the facades will be largely preserved.

They do have a fair amount of space, especially since they bought the land fronting on Victoria. But not enough, even with the buildings demolished and the ~100 spots they'll get, they still dont have enough.

As for using the buildings as garages, Im wary of that, just because of the potential stress all that weight and traffic could have on old buildings. If they're not going to fix them up right away (which they should) then ya, use every inch surrounding the buildings for parking.

[wendy]

That's right, if Cadan objects to designation, it's not the OMB who reviews.

I would like to add that it is a big job to prepare plans for re-use, and isn't much good if done in isolation. That's the whole idea behind a public planning process. it's not a single person implementing their ideas and agenda.

I am not in favour of keeping facades to appease heritage interests. There has been a lot of talk from all sides about making the Tannery "a people place"

Not "a parking place".

[panamaniac]

...at present the buildings do not impress...

It's not possible to appreciate these buildings just by driving by. They have to be viewed in relation to the other structures on the site, and it helps to have an understanding of what they were used for. It also helps to consider not just the buildings themselves, but the spaces between them, and the atmosphere that creates. Heritage isn't about "beautiful, old whatever" anymore. This is about something more real, in my opinion. I am new to the area, but I have heard and seen how the city has treated heritage resources in the past.There are bits and pieces of industrial factory gear placed around the downtown, ironically, one right in front of the Lang Site B buildings, with a plaque "celebrating industrial heritage, and the men and women who worked"
Expressing heritage should no be limited to perfunctory scraps and plaques. There's no need for it! It's nice, but little but gloss over far more important issues about honouring history in the everyday landscape, and the best way to do that is to re-use buildings that 1. have significant cultural value, 2. have not exhausted their use, 3. have a contribution to make to a well-planned urban landscape.
What made the City hesitate on demolition was public pressure. That has to continue! I would like to see people from the Universities get involved, and I would like to hear something from Heritage Kitchener, a group supposed to be protecting heritage interests that rubber-stamped the demolition plan. It has been shown, over and over, that public pressure, combined with the proper implemetation of heritage laws, is the most effective way to protect historic places, whether they're beautiful buildings or a former industrial landscape like the Lang site.

Oh, and by the way....this is a great forum!

Wendy

You make good points. Sometimes I wonder whether Kitchener isn't in fact rather ambivalent about its industrial/blue collar heritage? For all the positive spin, designation of Warehouse District, machinery set up as urban art, etc, I suspect that there is also a perception that "progress" is needed to improve on what we have by getting rid of the old. Can a city be said to have a psychology? Anyway, probably a discussion for a different forum and in the meantime I do hope that something creative comes out of the current discussion on the Lang Buildings.

[smably]

Regarding how these buildings could be reused, I'll re-post the photos I used in my presentation to council. These are the Wychwood streetcar barns in Toronto. They're a similar sort of industrial architecture, but in some ways the tannery site is even more promising because of the potential for the spaces between the buildings. But the Wychwood Barns stand out as a particularly good example of adaptive reuse of structures of this type.

Before:


After:





Here is the Eye Weekly article I quoted.

[BusyBerliner]

There has been a lot of talk from all sides about making the Tannery "a people place"

Not "a parking place".

Agreed, 100%. I'm just suggesting that they should work around the buildings until somebody steps up to make that happen. I don't think parking on that site in the short term is a bad idea if it helps the Tannery attract tennants, but not at the cost of losing those buildings.. its a waste.

[RangersFan]

Very cool pictures Smably. Another readaptive project in the region that I like is Southworks Outlet Mall in Cambridge, although the Tannery buildings are not as large.

[WatDot]

Good job Smably. Great example!
Pushing creativity a little more here, I wonder if the Brick Brewery and/or Seagrams would be interested in being involved in a distillery type of project? I realize they are technically Waterloo companies, but would be an amazing tribute to the industrial/blue collar history and theme that this current "Warehouse District" portrays. Also using the Distillery in Toronto as an example, unique gift stores could also be included in this project. Imagine boutique stores selling vintage and/or current products (if possible) from the manufacturers that were or are based in the Region. An example would be Kaufman boots/shoes.

When it comes to Kitchener-Waterloo I am totally a Waterloo snob. Should Kitchener run with the Warehouse District 100% and redevelop these buildings into something "cool" I will start to change my attitude. Redevelop these buildings into a Distillery (Toronto) style development and I will become completely envious.

[KLM]

If they save those buildings, Lang could become something like Distillery disctrict in Toronto.

[Urbanomicon]

As for using the buildings as garages, Im wary of that, just because of the potential stress all that weight and traffic could have on old buildings. If they're not going to fix them up right away (which they should) then ya, use every inch surrounding the buildings for parking.

They would also have to install carbon monoxide detectors and exhaust fans (likely in the existing window openings) to keep the air breathable.