+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: University Area (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=25)
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Spokes - 10-04-2015
(10-02-2015, 09:31 AM)insider Wrote:(10-02-2015, 09:15 AM)Brenden Wrote: Well this isn't going to go over well.
This needs to become viral. Has it been sent to The Record, Imprint, The Chord, etc yet?
I first saw it mentioned on CTV (although now know it was posted here well before....no surprise there!)
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Spokes - 10-04-2015
(10-02-2015, 09:45 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: ...and local builders keep on paying the price of their cavalier attitude to construction delays. I don't know when it became kosher in Waterloo to be really late with construction, but builders don't seem to even care anymore. Schembri lost big time, 144 went bankrupt and now it's Sage II turn.
Does anyone recall the delays in the Bauer, 42 and 144? they went far beyond any "oops we had some bad weather" problems.
Seriously what will it take before local developers get their act together?
I think the buildings are actually built at a decent pace. The problem is they promise dates that will never be achieved. They promise these dates to make them more appealing compared to their competition. Not good.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - nms - 04-01-2016
I noticed today that there was an application in the Waterloo Chronicle to renovate this property to convert the second floor commercial space into residential space. I wasn't able to find it online.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - rangersfan - 04-01-2016
I didn't realize that more than one floor was designated for commercial space in this building.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - jd2015 - 04-03-2016
(04-01-2016, 01:06 PM)nms Wrote: I noticed today that there was an application in the Waterloo Chronicle to renovate this property to convert the second floor commercial space into residential space. I wasn't able to find it online.
The application can be found here: http://www.waterloo.ca/en/business/318_spruce_street_and_8_hickory_street_west.asp
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Viewfromthe42 - 04-04-2016
So first we saw a bunch of density requirements that developers wanted to skirt by removing doors from second bedrooms and calling it "1+den" with every den the right size and entryway width to have a bedroom with a door. Now, in this case, max out your residential density and add in much-pushed commercial space, but then post-convert the commercial to over-density residential.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 04-04-2016
(04-04-2016, 07:50 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: So first we saw a bunch of density requirements that developers wanted to skirt by removing doors from second bedrooms and calling it "1+den" with every den the right size and entryway width to have a bedroom with a door. Now, in this case, max out your residential density and add in much-pushed commercial space, but then post-convert the commercial to over-density residential.
And I suspect both of those are driven by the city's rather high minimum parking requirements for residential. Maybe it's time for some root cause analysis?
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Viewfromthe42 - 04-05-2016
Seems less likely that it's driven by parking when the overall density is at the maximum before conversions, unless there's some unlikely situation where the density is meant to allow a building of X floors to still have sufficient empty oasis around it at ground level to provide full parking. You'd do something like 1Vic if you needed lots of parking, build higher, with some parking underground, and some behind the first few levels' units.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 04-05-2016
(04-05-2016, 07:43 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Seems less likely that it's driven by parking when the overall density is at the maximum before conversions, unless there's some unlikely situation where the density is meant to allow a building of X floors to still have sufficient empty oasis around it at ground level to provide full parking. You'd do something like 1Vic if you needed lots of parking, build higher, with some parking underground, and some behind the first few levels' units.
What density limit do you think is being breached? Number of floors is unchanged, building height is unchanged, floor area ratio is unchanged. Is there a limit on the number of bedrooms or the number of residential units based on the lot size?
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Markster - 04-05-2016
(04-05-2016, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Is there a limit on the number of bedrooms or the number of residential units based on the lot size?Actually yes, there is.
bedrooms/ha or units/ha is cited frequently in the zoning bylaw.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - BuildingScout - 04-05-2016
(04-05-2016, 11:50 AM)Markster Wrote:(04-05-2016, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Is there a limit on the number of bedrooms or the number of residential units based on the lot size?Actually yes, there is.
bedrooms/ha or units/ha is cited frequently in the zoning bylaw.
And said limits are in general far too low. They were set a long time ago trying to prevent some large development next to a single family home, which is reasonable, but they haven't been updated accordingly in some parts of the city where the urban reality today is very different than 20 years ago. For example the Princess Condos, a modest height-and-size downtown apartment building, ran against the density restriction.
p.s. This is my 1,000 post here... man I should get back to work
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - Markster - 04-05-2016
Yeah. That a limit exists doesn't mean that the limit is set correctly.
Though, I'd prefer to tweak parking requirements first.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - MidTowner - 04-05-2016
The application should be rejected, not because the density limits would be exceeded (those are too low), but because it would be taking commercial amenities away from the people living here. The building was approved as it was for various reasons- because it was within the density limit, which is not a particularly good reason, but also because much of its parking was to be underground, and it was to have a certain amount of commercial/office space to serve both the building’s population and nearby residents.
Now, they’re proposing removing the office space, making the area more uniformly residential, less mixed-use. It’s a positive thing to have developers pay into funds to pay into funds to contribute to amenities when they can’t on their own land, but those funds are fungible- if approved, the application will mean residents here will pay for a park somewhere else in the city, and lose some important mixed-use elements in their neighbourhood.
Edit: And, of course, if the City were sensible, surplus parking would be considered a drawback, not a benefit. This is definitely one part of the Region where extra parking is not needed. Keeping a variety of uses within the development will reduce the draw on parking- conceivably, someone working in one of the offices on the second floor might decide to live in this very development, and go car-free since other things are right in his or her building or around the corner, too.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - mpd618 - 04-06-2016
(04-05-2016, 01:35 PM)MidTowner Wrote: The application should be rejected, not because the density limits would be exceeded (those are too low), but because it would be taking commercial amenities away from the people living here. The building was approved as it was for various reasons- because it was within the density limit, which is not a particularly good reason, but also because much of its parking was to be underground, and it was to have a certain amount of commercial/office space to serve both the building’s population and nearby residents.
I think this line of reasoning is kind of crazy. There are no current commercial amenities there - commercial zoning does not mean that such uses will appear, because ultimately it's also subject to market demand. In Northdale in particular, the city listened to the reasoning that the zoning should be a lot more flexible with commercial uses on the ground floor along streets other than big arterials. And not only does the zoning have that, it also requires convertible frontages along some side-streets, so that commercial uses in the future are not precluded. There's a lot of possible commercial spaces.
Which is to say that the flip side of flexible mixed-use zoning is that it can (and should, IMHO) have multiple uses depending on the actual market demands in the neighbourhood. Right now there's a fair number of empty, new ground-floor commercial spaces in and near Northdale, plus more coming with the Sage development at Hickory/Lester, among others. There is not a clear municipal rationale for forcing spaces to remain commercial-only if there are more in-demand uses for them.
RE: Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C - notmyfriends - 04-06-2016
When you click on the link http://www.sagecondos.ca/ the page comes up advertising SAGE PLATINUM now. Hadn't heard of that one before. Looks like it's at 250 Albert. They also wrote Starbucks on one of the facades with a street front patio.
"Sage Platinum is something different.
Comprised of exclusively one bedroom suites, Sage Platinum is designed to capitalize on the Waterloo housing market, by offering in demand premium accommodations."