I am writing with my concerns regarding the proposed 18 story apartment tower, and subsequent equivalent developments.
I have lived in Guelph for 4 years now, drawn by the unique community, and the beauty of the city – especially it’s downtown core, with it’s blend of historic architecture. There are really only two major eyesores downtown (although there are several lesser ones) – the Cooperators Building and the apartment tower at Quebec and Norfolk. Both of these stick out like sore thumbs as you descend into the city centre from the university district… and they are both HALF the height of the newly proposed apartment tower. The 12 story (?) apartment towers that already bookend the downtown core, on Cardigan and Neeve, also already serve as markers as to how high is “too high”, not to mention how drab architecture takes away from the beauty and vitality of the city.
Over the last 4 years I have heard Guelph lauded for it’s vision, for it’s beauty, for it’s community awareness. There have been many examples where it has been held up as a top ranking city to live in… and none of those cite it’s lack of towering edifices as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it is it’s low to medium rise buildings that keep its sense of human scale, and generate comments on how “comfortable” and “European” it feels for a small Canadian city.
Why the city council has seen fit to ignore the existing building height restrictions and okay this project is beyond me. It is short sighted to say the least, looking for a quick fix of tax revenues and paving the way to Guelph echoing Milton and Oakville as “just another” sprawling dense Commuter City rather than the gem that it has, for the most part, been recognized as until now.
In years to come this moment will be looked back upon as a turning point in Guelphs history – and not one in a good direction.
I should note, that for all that I have been following this debate on-line for weeks now, it was only this past week that I’d seen images of the proposed building. That is in no way, shape, or form an example of the cities vision of “building beautifully”, or, as Aidan Ware stated, a “state of the art architectural landmark”. Without seeing details of materials proposed in it’s construction, that might add some character, it comes across as plain and ugly. The stepped lower levels begin to add some interest but the massive garage doors dwarf the facade, and the rest looks like 80s and 90s re-hash of what has gone before in Toronto and Vancouver.
There so many examples of interesting and forward thinking architecture out there in the world, especially in low to medium height designs – think Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, so many areas of Eastern Europe that have been rebuilt since the Wall came down – even aspects of Toronto and Vancouver (I’m thinking the Distillery District and Whychwood Barns in Toronto, and Arthur Ericksons iconic Waterfall Building and many of the surrounding mid-rise developments along False Creek and Granville Island). Why anyone would see this drab and unimaginative blight on the skyline as a move forward is beyond me.
There are indeed people who would love to live in the downtown core, and yes, it would be a great benefit to the city for it to wrestle the “student vibe” to a manageable level, but this can be done with style, and care, not to mention at least a nod to LEEDS considerations and green architecture. There is no need to stack them like bland sardine cans. A development that echoes the fantastic blend of historic and contemporary that is embodied in the new city hall (all 4 floors of it!) or to a lesser extent, in the imminent Market Commons condos (Waterloo and Gordon across from the farmers market) would be a welcome addition to the city, both in this location, and in the many that are awaiting their fate at the hands of greedy and shortsighted developers.
I also question the push for this as a solution to the downtown areas business woes. There are already several sites sitting with “awaiting development” signs on them that have sat for so long the paint has faded – the proposed “9 story” beside Counselor Findlays video store being a prime example, as is the >gap< where the family Thrift store stood on Wyndham. Where are the crowds of investors for THESE sites?
There is no question the city can and will benefit from developing the down town core – this can and should be done. Bringing in a larger down town residency population is also welcome. But please, may it be down thoughtfully, with great consideration to both the cities past, and to its future.
I can only hope that tonight, when the city councilors decide what they would like to be remembered for by future generations, that they choose a beautiful and forward thinking vision. EM