General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[tomh009]

Or for a more relatable comparison, all the new construction you see in China or Japan only happened by destroying the historic fabric of those cities.

I can't speak for China ... but in Tokyo, much of the historic fabric burned down to the ground in WW2. Much of what has been torn down for new construction has been cheap post-WW2 housing, not historic buildings.

[danbrotherston]

Or for a more relatable comparison, all the new construction you see in China or Japan only happened by destroying the historic fabric of those cities.

I can't speak for China ... but in Tokyo, much of the historic fabric burned down to the ground in WW2. Much of what has been torn down for new construction has been cheap post-WW2 housing, not historic buildings.

Who are we to say that a post-WW2 building is more historic than a pre-WW2 building?

[panamaniac]

I can't speak for China ... but in Tokyo, much of the historic fabric burned down to the ground in WW2. Much of what has been torn down for new construction has been cheap post-WW2 housing, not historic buildings.

Who are we to say that a post-WW2 building is more historic than a pre-WW2 building?

Kitchener even has a post WW2 heritage district.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

"New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood." I hear this often at council meetings. If it were true, shouldn't we have a city full of 'destroyed neighbourhoods'? Where locally has this occurred - where a new development has wrecked an existing neighbourhood? I get that it's subjective too but I honestly can't think of examples.

The area surrounding the Universities used to be primarily single family homes and a few low-rise apartments. I don't know what you'd call it now... but I think you could argue that those neighborhoods have been destroyed.

[neonjoe]

"New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood." I hear this often at council meetings. If it were true, shouldn't we have a city full of 'destroyed neighbourhoods'? Where locally has this occurred - where a new development has wrecked an existing neighbourhood? I get that it's subjective too but I honestly can't think of examples.

The area surrounding the Universities used to be primarily single family homes and a few low-rise apartments. I don't know what you'd call it now... but I think you could argue that those neighborhoods have been destroyed.

In one way yes.. in another way the houses were all derelict and rundown as accommodations for students. There were few actual home owner residents left even 20 years ago.

[danbrotherston]

The area surrounding the Universities used to be primarily single family homes and a few low-rise apartments. I don't know what you'd call it now... but I think you could argue that those neighborhoods have been destroyed.

In one way yes.. in another way the houses were all derelict and rundown as accommodations for students. There were few actual home owner residents left even 20 years ago.

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

In one way yes.. in another way the houses were all derelict and rundown as accommodations for students. There were few actual home owner residents left even 20 years ago.

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

In one way the neighborhood was destroyed for any family that may have wanted to buy a house and live there. Obviously "Lester St." isn't on anyone's shopping list anymore. It was also destroyed for families who owned houses near student-occupied slums. 

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment. Who refused to accommodate change? Families who owned or occupied properties within walking distance of Laurier/UW? Anyone who didn't accommodate the slumification of that area? 

On the other hand, the neighborhood has been reborn as a (figuirative) mecca for slum lords and developers.

[cherrypark]

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

In one way the neighborhood was destroyed for any family that may have wanted to buy a house and live there. Obviously "Lester St." isn't on anyone's shopping list anymore. It was also destroyed for families who owned houses near student-occupied slums. 

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment. Who refused to accommodate change? Families who owned or occupied properties within walking distance of Laurier/UW? Anyone who didn't accommodate the slumification of that area? 

On the other hand, the neighborhood has been reborn as a (figuirative) mecca for slum lords and developers.

If only there had been prior land owners / residents, city council, and planners with some kind of vision for making an appropriately designed and integrated student neighbourhood... but that would have required admitting to students as been acceptable neighbours instead of recipients of cashed out, derelict former family homes that "slumify" the area.

As if there wasn't a better example for how future residents have so little power in shaping where they will be forced to live. I guarantee you most students would much rather live in a properly configured and lively village if someone had been willing to plan for it and swallow the pill of change.

Instead we have a sterile concrete wall on King, Albert with zero street activation or coordination, and 140m of innovative 'woonerf'-lite on Larch St to pat on the back for making a nice community.

[danbrotherston]

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

In one way the neighborhood was destroyed for any family that may have wanted to buy a house and live there. Obviously "Lester St." isn't on anyone's shopping list anymore. It was also destroyed for families who owned houses near student-occupied slums. 

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment. Who refused to accommodate change? Families who owned or occupied properties within walking distance of Laurier/UW? Anyone who didn't accommodate the slumification of that area? 

On the other hand, the neighborhood has been reborn as a (figuirative) mecca for slum lords and developers.

Yes, the city, residents, etc. refused to build high density student housing, as a result home after detached home was taken over and converted into housing for students. The same thing is happening near Conestoga college. The residents oppose building housing for students, then complain when landlords buy out their homes to house students.

Once the neighbourhood is "destroyed" (again, only "destroyed" for some, students are still living there--not destroyed for them), there are no more to oppose change, and the area got redeveloped AFTER.

Refusing to build housing doesn't make people go away.

[ijmorlan]

Once the neighbourhood is "destroyed" (again, only "destroyed" for some, students are still living there--not destroyed for them), there are no more to oppose change, and the area got redeveloped AFTER.

Refusing to build housing doesn't make people go away.

I would say that “destroyed” neighbourhoods are also bad places for students to live. The various problems associated with houses turned into overfull rooming situations make the area into a party town that I can’t imagine any serious student wanting to live in.

By contrast, the low- and mid-rise apartments that have been built that last few years keep the parties in the individual apartments. The overall area just feels like an area that has apartment buildings, not an area that has formerly-nice houses festooned with garbage and in poor repair.

In a sense it’s still destroyed, just as 1860s Toronto has been almost entirely destroyed, but in a way that leaves a different but still useful and desirable neighbourhood in its place.

Every planner needs to have that last sentence tattooed on their forearm: “Refusing to build housing doesn't make people go away”. The trick is that the required action is not to allow single family homes into the suburban infinity, but rather to allow denser forms of housing in the already-urbanized area.

[ac3r]

In one way yes.. in another way the houses were all derelict and rundown as accommodations for students. There were few actual home owner residents left even 20 years ago.

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

Eh...I beg to differ on that. Indeed, the refusal to initially build student housing resulted in old neighbourhoods with primarily single family homes being taken over by students. It has been a student ghetto for decades. But that aside, the new high density student housing has created a wasteland of bad that has greatly upset the fabric of the university area. There are entire lectures that are given at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture on how bad the new high density student housing has messed up the neighbourhoods. The professors, students and residents all hate it. It is truly, truly awful stuff in terms of architectural design, streetscape, the city skyline and now uninviting and depressing all that stuff is for everyone who lives there or simply has to look at it as they travel through the area. And as Joedelay Highhoe mentioned, it's a mecca for slum lords preying on students.

All of that stuff is going to be stuck there for the next 50 or 60 (assuming those poorly constructed buildings even last that long). And sadly, there isn't going to be much opportunity to improve the area in other ways. The City of Waterloo likely won't put much effort into improving the streetscape for people there, so it'll likely just remain this horrible student ghetto devoid of anything but ugly buildings and bubble tea shops.

It's possible to create student housing and have it still be nice, while also improving the neighbourhoods they are in (parks, new streets, infrastructure, lights, greenery etc) but for some reason Waterloo doesn't seem to care about any of that, they just rubber stamp the proposals and let the developers go crazy.

[danbrotherston]

Exactly this, the neighbourhoods were destroyed by a refusal to accommodate change. Not by the development of high density student housing.

Eh...I beg to differ on that. Indeed, the refusal to initially build student housing resulted in old neighbourhoods with primarily single family homes being taken over by students. It has been a student ghetto for decades. But that aside, the new high density student housing has created a wasteland of bad that has greatly upset the fabric of the university area. There are entire lectures that are given at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture on how bad the new high density student housing has messed up the neighbourhoods. The professors, students and residents all hate it. It is truly, truly awful stuff in terms of architectural design, streetscape, the city skyline and now uninviting and depressing all that stuff is for everyone who lives there or simply has to look at it as they travel through the area. And as Joedelay Highhoe mentioned, it's a mecca for slum lords preying on students.

All of that stuff is going to be stuck there for the next 50 or 60 (assuming those poorly constructed buildings even last that long). And sadly, there isn't going to be much opportunity to improve the area in other ways. The City of Waterloo likely won't put much effort into improving the streetscape for people there, so it'll likely just remain this horrible student ghetto devoid of anything but ugly buildings and bubble tea shops.

It's possible to create student housing and have it still be nice, while also improving the neighbourhoods they are in (parks, new streets, infrastructure, lights, greenery etc) but for some reason Waterloo doesn't seem to care about any of that, they just rubber stamp the proposals and let the developers go crazy.

Are you suggesting that the new housing built is worse than a run down house converted to house 10 students in 8 bedrooms?

Nobody is arguing that there couldn't be better. But the point is, the problems did not arise from the development of new housing, it arose from the refusal to develop appropriate housing.

[cherrypark]

The City of Waterloo likely won't put much effort into improving the streetscape for people there, so it'll likely just remain this horrible student ghetto devoid of anything but ugly buildings and bubble tea shops.

It's possible to create student housing and have it still be nice, while also improving the neighbourhoods they are in (parks, new streets, infrastructure, lights, greenery etc) but for some reason Waterloo doesn't seem to care about any of that, they just rubber stamp the proposals and let the developers go crazy.

Or the Region too. The proposed update to University makes it clear they are fine with the status quo. I just hope that Kitchener can take a lesson, though the area around Conestoga College doesn't seem much better.

[danbrotherston]

The City of Waterloo likely won't put much effort into improving the streetscape for people there, so it'll likely just remain this horrible student ghetto devoid of anything but ugly buildings and bubble tea shops.

It's possible to create student housing and have it still be nice, while also improving the neighbourhoods they are in (parks, new streets, infrastructure, lights, greenery etc) but for some reason Waterloo doesn't seem to care about any of that, they just rubber stamp the proposals and let the developers go crazy.

Or the Region too. The proposed update to University makes it clear they are fine with the status quo. I just hope that Kitchener can take a lesson, though the area around Conestoga College doesn't seem much better.

Contrary to the claims here, I feel the new housing is significantly better than earlier housing. And the city has spent a significant amount of effort to improve the urban design of the area.

The region is definitely status-quoing it...(although I'll give them a little credit for protected bike lanes).

For Kitchener, yes, exactly the same thing is happening, multiple housing proposals in the area have been killed, meaning students are again going to be forced into living in converted houses.

[the_conestoga_guy]

Or the Region too. The proposed update to University makes it clear they are fine with the status quo. I just hope that Kitchener can take a lesson, though the area around Conestoga College doesn't seem much better.

Contrary to the claims here, I feel the new housing is significantly better than earlier housing. And the city has spent a significant amount of effort to improve the urban design of the area.

The region is definitely status-quoing it...(although I'll give them a little credit for protected bike lanes).

For Kitchener, yes, exactly the same thing is happening, multiple housing proposals in the area have been killed, meaning students are again going to be forced into living in converted houses.

The housing situation is actually quite dire. Many of the townhomes in the area have instituted rules than ban students. The neighbours have fought new housing developments if they’re intended for students (the retirement home barely scraped through the approval process). Plus, the city has started cracking down on the rooming houses. 

At some point, the city will need to recognize that the college is one of its greatest assets, and that it needs to approve some housing projects to support it, regardless of what neighbours say.