+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=7)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - bgb_ca - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 09:57 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Similar size ... to which development? We got badly off topic in this thread, so I can't figure out which development we were discussing.
I think they are talking about that proposed one near King and Union where the NIMBY is using parking as an argument against it.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 12:42 AM)nms Wrote: Can anyone point to similar sized developments that either have too much or too little parking in Waterloo Region? It might be useful when addressing these concerns to either be able to say, "Actually, here are several developments that have too much parking as it is," or, "In certain contexts there is not enough parking."
Our building, a few blocks away from the LRT, has about 140 units, mostly two-bedroom, 1000+ sqft. Our parking garage has about 190 spaces, excluding visitor spaces. Out of those, probably 25-30 are currently going unused.
In a new development on the LRT, with mostly 1BR units, would likely need less than one space per unit.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - nms - 06-24-2021
(06-22-2021, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Our building, a few blocks away from the LRT, has about 140 units, mostly two-bedroom, 1000+ sqft. Our parking garage has about 190 spaces, excluding visitor spaces. Out of those, probably 25-30 are currently going unused.
In a new development on the LRT, with mostly 1BR units, would likely need less than one space per unit.
25-30 unused spaces suggests that there are 160-165 used spaces, or slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio of units in the building to parking spots required per unit and/or bedroom.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-24-2021
(06-24-2021, 01:00 AM)nms Wrote:(06-22-2021, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Our building, a few blocks away from the LRT, has about 140 units, mostly two-bedroom, 1000+ sqft. Our parking garage has about 190 spaces, excluding visitor spaces. Out of those, probably 25-30 are currently going unused.
In a new development on the LRT, with mostly 1BR units, would likely need less than one space per unit.
25-30 unused spaces suggests that there are 160-165 used spaces, or slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio of units in the building to parking spots required per unit and/or bedroom.
Yes, but how many people in that building selected that building and that parking BEFORE the LRT existed?
These things are changing our city, we should plan for the future, not the past.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 06-24-2021
(06-24-2021, 01:00 AM)nms Wrote:(06-22-2021, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Our building, a few blocks away from the LRT, has about 140 units, mostly two-bedroom, 1000+ sqft. Our parking garage has about 190 spaces, excluding visitor spaces. Out of those, probably 25-30 are currently going unused.
In a new development on the LRT, with mostly 1BR units, would likely need less than one space per unit.
25-30 unused spaces suggests that there are 160-165 used spaces, or slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio of units in the building to parking spots required per unit and/or bedroom.
The ratio is units in the building to parking spots used, not “required”. Just because people will use the parking if it is provided for free does not mean it is “required”.
Imagine if we regulated the bread market in the same way. Each grocery store is required to bake a certain number of loaves of bread per day, with some formula based on some measurements such as floor area of the store, number of employees, surrounding population, and/or other factors. But the formula is designed such that so much bread is required to be baked that even at $0/loaf every single store has lots left over at the end of every day that must be composted.
Clearly, bread consumption would be higher than it is. The amount of bread “required” (i.e., used) would be higher than the amount that is actually purchased in real life. Yet with the actual system, where grocery stores make or buy as much as they think is best and sell it for a price which they determine, nobody complains about bread shortages. The quantity traded at a zero price is not the “required” amount.
Given the enormous cost of providing parking, and how amazingly cheap flour is, it might actually be less disruptive to the economy to have a bread regulation such as discussed above than the existing parking minimum system.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 06-24-2021
(06-24-2021, 01:00 AM)nms Wrote:(06-22-2021, 11:48 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Our building, a few blocks away from the LRT, has about 140 units, mostly two-bedroom, 1000+ sqft. Our parking garage has about 190 spaces, excluding visitor spaces. Out of those, probably 25-30 are currently going unused.
In a new development on the LRT, with mostly 1BR units, would likely need less than one space per unit.
25-30 unused spaces suggests that there are 160-165 used spaces, or slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio of units in the building to parking spots required per unit and/or bedroom.
We have over 200 bedrooms in the building, most units are 2BR. We're well below one (utilized) space/bedroom.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Tony_Plow - 06-29-2021
I noticed the Erb-Kumpf house at 172 KING Street S in Waterloo has been listed for sale, and the listing touts the site for redevelopment. Would they have to encase the existing home in glass (or preserve it some other way) in order to do a condo development on this site?
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/23369138/172-king-street-s-waterloo
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 06-29-2021
Astonishing to think of this as a "redevelopment property".
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 06-29-2021
Why is it listed for one dollar?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - KingandWeber - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 10:01 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Astonishing to think of this as a "redevelopment property".
I think it could be tastefully done. There's quite a large parking lot and tons of empty space at the side on George if someone had a vision to maintain the existing building and then build something around it, perhaps in an "L" shape. Now whether any developer in Waterloo is capable of tasteful redevelopment is another story entirely.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - mastermind - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 10:47 AM)ac3r Wrote: Why is it listed for one dollar?
Maybe an attempt to wait and see what the market offers rather than impose their own perceived value on it?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 11:50 AM)mastermind Wrote:(06-29-2021, 10:47 AM)ac3r Wrote: Why is it listed for one dollar?
Maybe an attempt to wait and see what the market offers rather than impose their own perceived value on it?
This can also occur when the property is contaminated and has a negative value (i.e., remediation of the soil would cost more than the property is worth).
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 10:01 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Astonishing to think of this as a "redevelopment property".
Is that house not protected? That’s a perfect example of the sort of unique property that needs to be conserved. By all means, build a huge building right behind it but don’t demolish. Isn’t that property pre-1850? We don’t have many in this city that old.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 06-29-2021
(06-29-2021, 03:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(06-29-2021, 10:01 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Astonishing to think of this as a "redevelopment property".
Is that house not protected? That’s a perfect example of the sort of unique property that needs to be conserved. By all means, build a huge building right behind it but don’t demolish. Isn’t that property pre-1850? We don’t have many in this city that old.
It's designated so cannot be demolished or (externally) altered without approvals.
There is a portion built in 1812, but kind of hard to tell which part of from when. (The Schneider Haus has not been altered quite as many times.)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 06-29-2021
I've got a dollar on my desk! I'd happily buy this and keep it as is. It's a nice building.