(02-09-2021, 12:34 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: Some neighbours are upset by the proposal for a six-storey development on Union St: https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-story/10324938--why-can-t-we-just-build-what-suits-neighbours-in-waterloo-s-mary-allen-district-worried-about-redevelopment/


It's interesting that the thing the one neighbour is most upset about is that the developer is asking to build less parking: "The city is being asked to reduce parking to permit the six-storey building, and that’s where Stinson draws the line.“Why can’t we build what suits the neighbourhood instead of getting the neighbourhood to suit itself to what they want?” he wonders. “If the city doesn’t care about anything else to do with surrounding residents, it could at least make (developers) follow the rules.”

Quote:A Mary Street resident since 1984, Stinson says he’s sunk his life savings into his home and pays property taxes, which should afford him the ability to feel safe, have privacy and expect a reasonable amount of sunlight.

(02-11-2021, 09:10 AM)Watdot Wrote: A least it seems the complaining residents realize they are fighting a losing battle.  Intensification will and must happen in the neighbourhood.  With such close proximity to the LRT, this aligns with City growth plans.  A reduction of parking is justified as a result of this fact.  Perhaps underground/covered parking with a 5 storey building that has a wider foot print would be better received?  It is unfortunate that surface parking remains to some degree.

Here is the Planning Justification Report for the project.  https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/resources/Documents/Zone-Change-Applications/24-30-Union-St-E/Planning-justification-report.pdf

(02-11-2021, 10:05 AM)westwardloo Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 09:10 AM)Watdot Wrote: A least it seems the complaining residents realize they are fighting a losing battle.  Intensification will and must happen in the neighbourhood.  With such close proximity to the LRT, this aligns with City growth plans.  A reduction of parking is justified as a result of this fact.  Perhaps underground/covered parking with a 5 storey building that has a wider foot print would be better received?  It is unfortunate that surface parking remains to some degree.

Here is the Planning Justification Report for the project.  https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/resources/Documents/Zone-Change-Applications/24-30-Union-St-E/Planning-justification-report.pdf

Looks like a nice quality infill project. Underground parking is my preferred option, but I think surface parking fits this site perfectly fine. The building is built along the street and hides the parking completely. I prefer that over having the parking take up the first floor and have some horrendous façade like DTK or one28.

(02-11-2021, 10:33 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 10:05 AM)westwardloo Wrote: Looks like a nice quality infill project. Underground parking is my preferred option, but I think surface parking fits this site perfectly fine. The building is built along the street and hides the parking completely. I prefer that over having the parking take up the first floor and have some horrendous façade like DTK or one28.

Generally agree, it is a shame though, there could be a far larger, nicer ammenity space in behind.

The garage facades are generally quite ugly, but for a six storey building, a single underground parking level would easily be sufficient, more so with the reduced parking requirements, that could look something like these buildings on Ellen St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4549223,-80.4839038,3a,75y,50.91h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTZWOhW1hk465OJIgDaFROA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Even my building manages to get away with only two levels of underground parking for a 13 storey building.

Just another reason midrise development is better (at least when you aren't willing to entirely forego parking).

(02-11-2021, 10:46 AM)westwardloo Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 10:33 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Generally agree, it is a shame though, there could be a far larger, nicer ammenity space in behind.

The garage facades are generally quite ugly, but for a six storey building, a single underground parking level would easily be sufficient, more so with the reduced parking requirements, that could look something like these buildings on Ellen St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4549223,-80.4839038,3a,75y,50.91h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTZWOhW1hk465OJIgDaFROA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Even my building manages to get away with only two levels of underground parking for a 13 storey building.

Just another reason midrise development is better (at least when you aren't willing to entirely forego parking).

I prefer the parking in the back verses the building on Ellen st.  Two separate parking garage entrances  both buildings set back from a fairly quiet street to provide a car drop off. I find it so hostile to pedestrians whenever I walk by those buildings.  

I would love to see the city reduce or remove parking minimums and have the free market determine how many parking spaces are needed. I think an infill project like this in "Mid Town" would still see a similar amount of parking provided.

(02-11-2021, 10:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 10:46 AM)westwardloo Wrote: I prefer the parking in the back verses the building on Ellen st.  Two separate parking garage entrances  both buildings set back from a fairly quiet street to provide a car drop off. I find it so hostile to pedestrians whenever I walk by those buildings.  

I would love to see the city reduce or remove parking minimums and have the free market determine how many parking spaces are needed. I think an infill project like this in "Mid Town" would still see a similar amount of parking provided.

I mean, the car drop off is a separate thing, that could easily be included or not in either configuration.  As for parking, the garage entrances are on the street yes, but the entrance to the rear parking lot is also on the street, ultimately, cars need to get to the street.

Yeah, eliminating parking minimums would be so easy...of course, it would be met with huge resistance...from people who are afraid of...*checks notes*...car traffic.

(02-11-2021, 11:05 AM)westwardloo Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 10:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, the car drop off is a separate thing, that could easily be included or not in either configuration.  As for parking, the garage entrances are on the street yes, but the entrance to the rear parking lot is also on the street, ultimately, cars need to get to the street.

Yeah, eliminating parking minimums would be so easy...of course, it would be met with huge resistance...from people who are afraid of...*checks notes*...car traffic.

Both of these buildings have parking in the back, underground parking and car drop off lanes. basically every access point to these buildings are built for cars.  I don't think they are great examples of providing parking to midrise buildings. But I do agree that this project could have done underground parking and provided an outdoor amenity space for the residence like a park or a garden. 

I feel like we are a decade away from eliminating parking minimums. If Edmonton can do it without sky is falling complications we will surely follow suit.

(02-11-2021, 10:05 AM)westwardloo Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 09:10 AM)Watdot Wrote: A least it seems the complaining residents realize they are fighting a losing battle.  Intensification will and must happen in the neighbourhood.  With such close proximity to the LRT, this aligns with City growth plans.  A reduction of parking is justified as a result of this fact.  Perhaps underground/covered parking with a 5 storey building that has a wider foot print would be better received?  It is unfortunate that surface parking remains to some degree.

Here is the Planning Justification Report for the project.  https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/resources/Documents/Zone-Change-Applications/24-30-Union-St-E/Planning-justification-report.pdf

Looks like a nice quality infill project. Underground parking is my preferred option, but I think surface parking fits this site perfectly fine. The building is built along the street and hides the parking completely. I prefer that over having the parking take up the first floor and have some horrendous façade like DTK or one28.

(02-11-2021, 12:16 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 10:05 AM)westwardloo Wrote: Looks like a nice quality infill project. Underground parking is my preferred option, but I think surface parking fits this site perfectly fine. The building is built along the street and hides the parking completely. I prefer that over having the parking take up the first floor and have some horrendous façade like DTK or one28.

Podiums don't need to be ugly. 144 Park/Caroline facades look fine, no worse than the rest of the building. 1 Victoria is fine as well, I think, as is the Garment/100 Victoria cluster. Not architectural masterpieces but the podiums are not atrocious.

(02-11-2021, 12:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 12:16 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Podiums don't need to be ugly. 144 Park/Caroline facades look fine, no worse than the rest of the building. 1 Victoria is fine as well, I think, as is the Garment/100 Victoria cluster. Not architectural masterpieces but the podiums are not atrocious.

They may look better, but it's still apparent you are facing a garage.  You'd have to have a pretty big development to completely encircle the inner garage with active uses on the outside (if such a thing is even possible within building codes), which is the only way I see a garage facade not being a net negative.

But certainly you are right that they can be better or worse.