1668 King Street East | 22+23 fl | Proposed

[tomh009]

Chapman opposed this, what do ya know

Yes, just as reliably as the sun rose from the east this morning!

[dtkvictim]

So, I'm rather confused here. I just got an email: Region to Open New King Street Emergency Shelter as part of Interim Housing Solutions Strategy (Engage link here: https://www.engagewr.ca/king-street-shelter)

The new shelter is supposedly at the same address as this project, and opens in 2 days, replacing the one next to CHCI (and amusingly is still next to a school).

In response to the urgent needs in the community, a new emergency shelter site will be opening for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness at 1668 King Street East, Kitchener.

The shelter will open on September 29, 2022 and will replace the shelter currently operating at 104 Stirling Avenue South, Kitchener in the former Edith MacIntosh Child Care Centre. In response to feedback from individuals with lived experience, the King Street Shelter will support all gender identities, couples, and pets.

Operated by The Working Centre, the King Street site will provide urgently needed shelter services. In phase one, it will provide services for up to 70 individuals from 7 p.m. to 9 a.m., seven days a week for the first few months. In phase two, the plan is for the shelter to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with increased capacity for a period of 18 - 24 months, as part of the Region of Waterloo’s Interim Housing
Solutions strategy.

We are working closely with our community partners. The Region’s Housing Team is working to notify local residents and businesses in the area. This will be the community’s initial opportunity to provide feedback. We will be conducting extensive public consultation as part of the development of the Homelessness Master Plan in early 2023. A video tour of the site will be available following the opening and will be posted to this webpage.

The FAQ suggest this will be a 2 phase project (the second phase being open 24/7), and that the second phase could last for up to 2 years.

Is there a mistake in addresses here, or whats going on?

[panamaniac]

What's the issue? The apartment towers are not going to start construction immediately. Why not use the space in the meantime?

[dtkvictim]

What's the issue?  The apartment towers are not going to start construction immediately.  Why not use the space in the meantime?

For 2+ years? I thought it would move quicker than that, but I guess I don't really know the process.

Unless phase 2 of this shelter involves moving to a new location.

[ac3r]

I don't think this project will start for a while. 2 years would be optimistic for anything. Vive has about a dozen mid-rise and high-rise tower projects waiting to start. They're in it for the long term so I don't think they have any plans on rushing things.

Edit: Updated the original post as 2 additional floors were granted: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/city-counci...-1.6086942

[panamaniac]

It would be nice if the project included a main floor component for an emergency shelter ...

[ac3r]

Hopefully you're being sarcastic lol.

[panamaniac]

Just slightly tongue in cheek.

[nms]

I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for. Maybe boost it to 1:2 if a project is eliminating existing affordable housing (I think Toronto has something that forces the replacement of demolished units on site). It would satisfy some of the cynicism about the development industry.

[taylortbb]

I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for.  

I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage.

[ijmorlan]

I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for.  

I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage.

The idea seems to be assuming that developers are pulling a fast one if they exceed current zoning and that they need to pay for doing so, when in many cases current zoning is absurdly restrictive and we should be encouraging developers to exceed it. Of course as stated that’s silly: you don’t make it hard to do something and then encourage people to do it; if it’s desirable, just make it easy.

[tomh009]

I think it would be entirely reasonable to negotiate a 1:1 ratio of new market rate floors with affordable housing floors for projects that want to go above and beyond what a site is currently zoned for.  

I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage.

Whether 1:1 is a realistic ratio or not, I do like the concept.

But, in order to do this, "affordable" needs to be clearly defined. Is it 20% below market? Is it income-geared? Something else? And how can we ensure those units remain affordable?

[dtkvictim]

I think that would ensure nothing was ever built above zoning, no way are those additional floors that profitable. Given our zoning is generally pretty low that seems inadvisable in a housing shortage.

The idea seems to be assuming that developers are pulling a fast one if they exceed current zoning and that they need to pay for doing so, when in many cases current zoning is absurdly restrictive and we should be encouraging developers to exceed it. Of course as stated that’s silly: you don’t make it hard to do something and then encourage people to do it; if it’s desirable, just make it easy.

Exactly, such an approach just discourages much needed market rate development.

I don't understand why we were so quick to push this public burden on to private developers. If we need income geared housing, it seems to me it would be much more effective to demand our government just build the damn housing.

[bravado]

The idea seems to be assuming that developers are pulling a fast one if they exceed current zoning and that they need to pay for doing so, when in many cases current zoning is absurdly restrictive and we should be encouraging developers to exceed it. Of course as stated that’s silly: you don’t make it hard to do something and then encourage people to do it; if it’s desirable, just make it easy.

Exactly, such an approach just discourages much needed market rate development.

I don't understand why we were so quick to push this public burden on to private developers. If we need income geared housing, it seems to me it would be much more effective to demand our government just build the damn housing.

I think if people were presented with the bill for building just 1 modern day unit, they would never ever agree to it in 2022.

[jwilliamson]

All these proposals to address a housing shortage by imposing additional taxes on new housing seem totally backwards to me.