General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[Acitta]

Things look to be happening at Rockway, in the block bounded by Charles St E, Sydney St S and Delta St.

Delta St. is permanently closed and is supposed to be redeveloped as a cycling/pedestrian route.

[tomh009]

Things look to be happening at Rockway, in the block bounded by Charles St E, Sydney St S and Delta St.

Delta St. is permanently closed and is supposed to be redeveloped as a cycling/pedestrian route.

That, too, yes. Although the sign still says "proposed multi-use trail".

However, that's separate from any construction activity on the block.

[Rainrider22]

Things look to be happening at Rockway, in the block bounded by Charles St E, Sydney St S and Delta St.

This is the block:


This is what was there until recently; the demolition of the industrial building (at 669 Charles St E, highligted) was completed last month. The two houses on Sydney were demolished a long time ago, and the houses on Charles St E in 2019.




The demolition is pretty much complete, with only some of the scrap concrete and metal remaining to be removed.


Interestingly, there is fencing being put up around the remaining industrial building. Not around the entire property, but only the building. To me, this indicates that the building will be used for secure storage, but the surrounding land will not.


The large industrial building was used by several Seegmiller Group companies. And the demolition permit for the first two houses was issued to Charles Place Holdings, based at 5 Hill St, where multiple Seegmiller companies are located. (The other demolition permits do not show any contact information.) And, as the remaining building is fenced off but the associated property is not, that is likely part of the project.

To me, this looks like the entire block -- over 2 hectares (5 acres) in total -- is up for development. Either one of the Seegmiller Group companies (Charles Place Holdings?) will be developing it, or they will be putting it up for sale. But, in the latter scenario, I don't think it would make sense to be fencing off that remaining building.

Will be watching this one more closely now.

That building used to be Grand River Cable at one time, before they were purchased by Rogers....

[ac3r]

NIMBYs are hoping to block the proposed residential tower at 22 Weber Street, claiming it will disrupt the heritage of the area, as if a dilapidated surface lot doesn't look worse: https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/uncategorized...reet-west/

[Rainrider22]

There is a commercial office tower almost across the street too....

[catarctica]

Where can we show support for city densification in general? We can’t have 2 condos canceled by NIMBYs in a week.

[danbrotherston]

Where can we show support for city densification in general? We can’t have 2 condos canceled by NIMBYs in a week.

Email city council.  If you have the time, show up at a council meeting.

[nms]

How much grief could the developer for 22 Weber St have saved if they had stayed within the existing zoning limitations?
Or, what kind of outreach within a community could a developer do before making a proposal in order to get the community on their side? If you promise community space of some sort (a rentable, multipurpose community room perhaps?) or some sort of gathering space outside (eg a restaurant space with patio? Benches for informal gatherings?).

[dtkmelissa]

Where can we show support for city densification in general? We can’t have 2 condos canceled by NIMBYs in a week.

We always have room for new folks to join our Waterloo Region YIMBY meetings  https://www.wryimby.com/

[danbrotherston]

How much grief could the developer for 22 Weber St have saved if they had stayed within the existing zoning limitations?
Or, what kind of outreach within a community could a developer do before making a proposal in order to get the community on their side? If you promise community space of some sort (a rentable, multipurpose community room perhaps?) or some sort of gathering space outside (eg a restaurant space with patio? Benches for informal gatherings?).

None, are you naive? In Toronto, we have a community ralleying behind a bloody parking lot. There is no proposal that will get "the community" on side. We have it here too, we have midrange rental units being scaled back because of "heritage" claims for a dilapidated unremarkable house surrounded by highrises.

[nms]

No, Dan, I am not naïve. There are projects all the time that proceed in this Region, many of them without needing variances or density bonusing that appears to be tilted in the developers favour. Yes, there is neighbourhood opposition in many cases, but it is a lot easier for a politician or staff to approve a project if it clear that it fits within the existing guidelines. Politicians side with the neighbourhood against a developer if it is clear that the developer is asking for more than the density bonusing was intended for in the first place.

Density bonusing in itself is a poor way to plan a community. The community, through its planners, its politicians and its community engagement should be able to set the limits and guidelines for the community that the developers are willing to to play within. The community should not be forced to bribe developers (or have developers bribe the community) in order to achieve what we want in this community. Community benefits should not be transactional. Cities managed to demand that developers include running water, electricity and properly built buildings without giving away extra density to make it worth the builders while. Yes, I know that the building code is not managed at the municipal level, but I can't at the moment come up with a good example of where the Cities have set rules for development and the developers can't choose not to follow them unless there is a little something extra in it for them.

[danbrotherston]

No, Dan, I am not naïve. There are projects all the time that proceed in this Region, many of them without needing variances or density bonusing that appears to be tilted in the developers favour. Yes, there is neighbourhood opposition in many cases, but it is a lot easier for a politician or staff to approve a project if it clear that it fits within the existing guidelines.  Politicians side with the neighbourhood against a developer if it is clear that the developer is asking for more than the density bonusing was intended for in the first place. 

Density bonusing in itself is a poor way to plan a community.  The community, through its planners, its politicians and its community engagement should be able to set the limits and guidelines for the community that the developers are willing to to play within.  The community should not be forced to bribe developers (or have developers bribe the community) in order to achieve what we want in this community.  Community benefits should not be transactional. Cities managed to demand that developers include running water, electricity and properly built buildings without giving away extra density to make it worth the builders while.  Yes, I know that the building code is not managed at the municipal level, but I can't at the moment come up with a good example of where the Cities have set rules for development and the developers can't choose not to follow them unless there is a little something extra in it for them.

It's not easier, it's unnecessary. If the project meets zoning, then they don't have to approve it. But as you point out, the community still opposes and communities which have the resources still make it a nightmare for developers.

I.e., no, developers don't save grief by following zoning. The city is generally on the side of developers and  the city is easy to negotiate with. It's the neighbours that are holding things up, and killing projects.

[taylortbb]

Density bonusing in itself is a poor way to plan a community.  The community, through its planners, its politicians and its community engagement should be able to set the limits and guidelines for the community that the developers are willing to to play within.  The community should not be forced to bribe developers (or have developers bribe the community) in order to achieve what we want in this community.  Community benefits should not be transactional. 

The problem is cities are constrained by provincial restrictions on zoning. Zoning has a lot of rules around what it's allowed to specify, and what it's not. However, what the city can do is set zoning low, and then only agree to zoning changes when the developer agrees to things that can't be written in to the zoning bylaw itself. Standards like "high quality architecture" can only be enforced this way.

I think it's questionable if those things really are worth enforcing that way, because a lot of the time developers just build the mediocre buildings within zoning rules. But it really is a fully intentional part of our zoning, and an attempt by cities to control things they otherwise couldn't.

[tomh009]

Density bonusing in itself is a poor way to plan a community.  The community, through its planners, its politicians and its community engagement should be able to set the limits and guidelines for the community that the developers are willing to to play within.  The community should not be forced to bribe developers (or have developers bribe the community) in order to achieve what we want in this community.  Community benefits should not be transactional. Cities managed to demand that developers include running water, electricity and properly built buildings without giving away extra density to make it worth the builders while.  Yes, I know that the building code is not managed at the municipal level, but I can't at the moment come up with a good example of where the Cities have set rules for development and the developers can't choose not to follow them unless there is a little something extra in it for them.

And that's what the zoning bylaws do. If the proposed development meets the zoning bylaw requirements, there is no need for variances or bonusing -- or neighbourhood negotiations. Because the community, through its planners and its politicians, has already defined those zoning parameters.

But then the city (and the community) have no direct input or influence on what is built (as long as it meets zoning), and there will rarely be "extras" like affordable housing units, green space, or better architecture or materials. If you think this is the better way, then you need to push city council to strictly enforce zoning bylaws and refuse any variances, regardless of what improvements are offered in exchange.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

Things look to be happening at Rockway, in the block bounded by Charles St E, Sydney St S and Delta St.

Delta St. is permanently closed and is supposed to be redeveloped as a cycling/pedestrian route.

That's also where I tend to spray my tee shots on Rockway #10