323 King Street North (X-Flats) | 57 m | 19 fl | Proposed

WaterlooInvestor · #1 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 10:08 AM**

-

#2 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 2:45 PM**

^ I hope that beast looks better in colour. And once again, no ground retail.

waterloowarrior · #3 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 3:06 AM**

http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Porta...il_Meeting.pdf

p. 104

this beast is now proposed to be 24 storeys, 181 units (p.104). hard to read but looks like it's still called X-Flats

waterloowarrior · #4 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 3:14 AM**

new tallest? clarica building has fewer floors (at least according to emporis), but could be taller due to higher floors. This building should be up there, at least.

#5 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 3:48 AM**

Clarica is 79m, so it's likely close, if not taller. Will there be ground retail with the changes?

HAMRetrofit · #6 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 4:22 AM**

Lets be honest the design of this building is sickening. I understand that this is a student building but please. At the minimum they could propose something like these McMaster condos. This building is going for LEED status and includes some retail at grade. Mind you they are still not that pretty, they are at least not an absolute monstrosity.

#7 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 5:53 AM**

^Yeah, I totally agree. Especially with the ground floor retail. The current proposal is a prototype commie block.

myfaceisonfire · #8 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 3:08 PM**

Well, at least the updated rendering is slightly better looking than the old one. This building in general is better looking than the POS that's going up next door. In general though I'd say all hope for King between University and Colombia is lost. The feather in the cap of course being that disaster just north of King & Columbia and the plaza beside it.

jcollins · #9 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by myfaceisonfire

Well, at least the updated rendering is slightly better looking than the old one. This building in general is better looking than the POS that's going up next door. In general though I'd say all hope for King between University and Colombia is lost. The feather in the cap of course being that disaster just north of King & Columbia and the plaza beside it.

Where did you see an updated rendering?

I guess it kind of fits in with the building done by andys apartments on the other side of the street.

Is there anything these buildings can be flanked with to take away from their blandness?

myfaceisonfire · #10 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcollins

Where did you see an updated rendering?

I was only looking at the drawings in this thread

jcollins · #11 Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by myfaceisonfire

I was only looking at the drawings in this thread

Oh, ok, I thought there was something out there more definitive, more detailed.
That'd be nice.
It actually doesnt look horible, at least it could be worse.

WaterlooRegioner · #12 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 3:14 PM**

I don't know, but for some reason I like this "monstrosity". It doesn't look amazing, but it defenitely doesn't look horrible either. Hopefully the colour renderings will justify this when they come out. This represents a great trend of high density we have been seeing happen throughout the region. One defenite backfall is the lack of ground-level retail, but it's not a complete ruin for this design. As for it possible being a new tallest for the region, I doubt it, mind you it will be close. The old design was 57 m, 19 floors, so just for estimation purposes divide 57 by 19. You come up with three, which represents three metres per floor. Multiply 5 by 3 and you get 15, add that onto 57 and you've got 72 metres, 7 short of the clarica building. The top peak also looks similar in height so there is no point in including that. There is always the chance a few more floors will be added(very slight), or that there will be minor fluctuations in height during construction, but nothing that will bring it to 79 metres if you ask me. But as far as I know this will make it the second highest in the region.

kitchener-lrt · #13 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 5:17 PM**

They can still add ground level retail can't they? Proposals can always change (fingers crossed).

jcollins · #14 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitchener-lrt

They can still add ground level retail can't they? Proposals can always change (fingers crossed).

I dont see why not, but what would their reason be to do so if they hadnt done so in the first place?

jcollins · #15 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterlooRegioner

I don't know, but for some reason I like this "monstrosity". It doesn't look amazing, but it defenitely doesn't look horrible either.

Do you feel similarly about it's neighbor?
The one going up at 345 King St.

(being discussed in the Suburbs and Townships forum)

WaterlooRegioner · #16 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 8:35 PM**

I don't know wether you've read that thread already or not, because I already posted my oppinion. I suggested that I like the density it provides, and the fact that it will be cleaner and probably nicer looking than a lot of houses in that area with slum landlords, I never said I liked the design(by nicer looking I mean I prefer a relatively clean apartment over a house providing little density with beer bottles, lawn chairs and trash in the frontyard.) The design of this building atleast in these preliminary renders looks more promising to me.

jcollins · #17 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 11:48 PM**

I just re-read what you posted, must have slipped my mind.
I'd definitely agree with you. While some may think this is bland, or have other problems with it, I think it (both buildings for that matter) will look good on King st. Sure there are other things that might add to it, we've all seen buildings that look far worse. I have a feeling that once done, we'll see some minds being changed.

rapid_business · #18 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 4:28 AM**

Hmmm... Well, the latest design looks about 14% better, but my opinion still holds as mentioned in the other thread.

WaterlooRegioner · #19 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 3:17 PM**

And you can hold that, everybody has their own oppinions. I just don't understand what you are looking for... a luxury aparment building with glass all over? As long as it's a private developer in this market(universities), we will not see that. The demand is not there for an up-scale building, where-as it is there for an apartment building with cheap rates. The one part I do agree with you though is addresing the street front better, which can be accomplished through ground level retail, something that this unfortunately does not have.

rapid_business · #20 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 4:11 PM**

Addressing the street is the most important. But, no, not a 'luxury' tower as you put it. Good design doesn't have to me glass-curtain wall, nor does it have to mean more expensive. Good design does mean avoiding stucco and bargin-bin blueprints. It also means having a design control board at a municipal level to protect areas of importance from discount designs dominating our skyline for the next 50 years.

Like I said before, look to the new Laurier residence just up the street. Far from perfect, but a building that will age better, and already looks 200% then this. And it was built with institutional/public money where they always like to keep it cheap!