+- 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: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=1613)
Pages:
1
2
290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | U/C - CP42 - 09-17-2021
290-298 Hemlock Street
Proposed is the construction of a new 6 storey residential building containing 92 residential dwelling units (one bedroom units), 281 sq. m. (3030 sq. ft.) of amenity area and 24 parking units.
Attached is the urban design brief:
https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/resources/Documents/Zone-Change-Applications/Hemlock-St/Urban-design-brief.pdf
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 09-17-2021
I kind of wish I had my own development company so I could propose some buildings that are not one bedroom units. That's all they ever build here.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - Bjays93 - 09-18-2021
Looks surprisingly decent
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 09-19-2021
(09-17-2021, 06:21 PM)ac3r Wrote: I kind of wish I had my own development company so I could propose some buildings that are not one bedroom units. That's all they ever build here.
They used to focus on 3-5 bedroom units, and back then everyone always complained there should be more 1 bedroom units.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 08:38 AM)jwilliamson Wrote:(09-17-2021, 06:21 PM)ac3r Wrote: I kind of wish I had my own development company so I could propose some buildings that are not one bedroom units. That's all they ever build here.
They used to focus on 3-5 bedroom units, and back then everyone always complained there should be more 1 bedroom units.
Yes, it’s almost like developers are responding to demand…
Of course, it’s also parking minima, which I believe used to be, idiotically, based on number of units rather than something more closely tied to the number of people. So the bigger the units, the fewer parking spots required per bedroom, person, or square metre.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - CP42 - 11-17-2021
Approved.
"Council also gave the go-ahead Monday to a six-storey apartment building with 92 one-bedroom units on Hemlock Street in the campus Northdale neighbourhood.
The mid-rise building at 290-298 Hemlock St. is replacing five detached homes and is beside a planned city park."
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/11/16/waterloo-council-says-yes-to-22-storey-tower-in-the-downtown.html
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - nms - 11-18-2021
Alternate headline: City approves removing 5 family homes and approves 92 homes for single people.
(and yes, I know that these five detached were very likely not being used by families before they were redeveloped).
I wonder whether the City has any tools to encourage redeveloped parcels to replace existing multi-bedroom dwellings in the new construction. I know that elsewhere developers are required to replace any units that are lost on the existing site.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - taylortbb - 11-18-2021
(11-18-2021, 10:31 PM)nms Wrote: I wonder whether the City has any tools to encourage redeveloped parcels to replace existing multi-bedroom dwellings in the new construction.
I think this is a perfect example of a well intentioned policy that would have negative effects in practice.
Families aren't going to want to live in this area, so large units would just end up being 5 bedroom student units. Unless the city is going to ban students from specific units (which would never fly at the OHRC), it would achieve nothing but making living arrangements shittier for a couple dozen students.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - plam - 11-19-2021
(11-18-2021, 10:59 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(11-18-2021, 10:31 PM)nms Wrote: I wonder whether the City has any tools to encourage redeveloped parcels to replace existing multi-bedroom dwellings in the new construction.
I think this is a perfect example of a well intentioned policy that would have negative effects in practice.
Families aren't going to want to live in this area, so large units would just end up being 5 bedroom student units. Unless the city is going to ban students from specific units (which would never fly at the OHRC), it would achieve nothing but making living arrangements shittier for a couple dozen students.
Turns out that student status (in itself) is not a protected grounds of discrimination under Canadian and Ontario human rights law. My previous townhouse complex banned renting to students. I was surprised and read the Charter of Rights and, nope, it's not there. Age is, of course.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 11-19-2021
(11-19-2021, 06:43 AM)plam Wrote:(11-18-2021, 10:59 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think this is a perfect example of a well intentioned policy that would have negative effects in practice.
Families aren't going to want to live in this area, so large units would just end up being 5 bedroom student units. Unless the city is going to ban students from specific units (which would never fly at the OHRC), it would achieve nothing but making living arrangements shittier for a couple dozen students.
Turns out that student status (in itself) is not a protected grounds of discrimination under Canadian and Ontario human rights law. My previous townhouse complex banned renting to students. I was surprised and read the Charter of Rights and, nope, it's not there. Age is, of course.
As usual with Charter restrictions on age discrimination, it is legal to discriminate against young people. A townhouse complex would be allowed to ban either anyone under 55 from living in it, or ban families with minor children.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - plam - 11-19-2021
(11-19-2021, 07:52 PM)jwilliamson Wrote:(11-19-2021, 06:43 AM)plam Wrote: Turns out that student status (in itself) is not a protected grounds of discrimination under Canadian and Ontario human rights law. My previous townhouse complex banned renting to students. I was surprised and read the Charter of Rights and, nope, it's not there. Age is, of course.
As usual with Charter restrictions on age discrimination, it is legal to discriminate against young people. A townhouse complex would be allowed to ban either anyone under 55 from living in it, or ban families with minor children.
These things exist, but are they legal? I couldn't quickly find anything about it. In general, the Ontario Human Rights Commission says that it is also not legal to discriminate against young:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/age-discrimination-brochure
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 11-20-2021
OHRC explicitly says seniors only communities are legal.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-discrimination-against-older-people-because-age/6-housing-accommodation
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - plam - 11-24-2021
(11-20-2021, 09:57 AM)jwilliamson Wrote: OHRC explicitly says seniors only communities are legal.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-discrimination-against-older-people-because-age/6-housing-accommodation
Under limited conditions:
"There is no defence, however, that will permit “adult lifestyle” housing that results in the exclusion of children or persons under a certain age."
Here's the code: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19#BK17
Requiring specifically 65+ is OK under s15, but you could not say 60+.
s14 allows relieving hardship or economic disadvantage. So you still can't say "50+" under that, unless you tied it to some reason that 50+ were disadvantaged.
s18 allows some orgs which serve older persons to provide housing to that group of older persons. That doesn't sound like a general carve-out.
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 11-24-2021
A lot of the life lease buildings require at least one 50+ or 55+ resident. Targeted at retired people but technically not requiring that. I don't think those would generally meet the requirements of section 18. Maybe no one has just made an issue of it yet?
RE: 290-298 Hemlock Street | 6 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 11-24-2021
(11-24-2021, 03:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: A lot of the life lease buildings require at least one 50+ or 55+ resident. Targeted at retired people but technically not requiring that. I don't think those would generally meet the requirements of section 18. Maybe no one has just made an issue of it yet?
Not a lawyer here, but I do wonder if some of this is just a matter of nobody pushing hard on it. I understand that realtors will avoid showing 4 and 6 Willow (condo towers) to people with children, even though as far as I know the condo has no right at all to have any sort of “no children” rule. Not sure why buyers’ realtors would follow such a rule, but I don’t know the dynamics within the industry.