Kraus Development (525-565 Conestogo Road) | 3-35 fl | Proposed

[danbrotherston]

Well I know you can design a tunnel to be wider and better lit, but it's still an enclosed space and that makes people nervous. The wider you make it and the more lighting you put in, the more the costs go up to construct and maintain it. Private developers want to make money, so they'll go with the cheapest option.

I'd have no problem walking through one since I've lived in cities like Berlin where they are everywhere, but what about the experience for a 15 year old girl or young university student? Women feel nervous just walking down the street after dark these days due to how often they get harassed. It could very well end up being a waste of money if not that many people used it, which then increases how dilatated it ends up becoming. I'm sure the developer/architects considered a tunnel, but realized a bridge is a lot cheaper and arguably safer for people.

Also, I'm not sure what greenspace you're referring to around here. The little forest beside the ION facility is ROW property and fenced in as it's part of their property, likely for future expansion of the facility. Everything else belongs to private property owners or the MTO. I'm not sure why you'd want to connect to Dutton Drive either, there is nothing there. The bridge will provide direct access to Northfield Station which makes a lot more sense.

It would be nice if they could somehow connect the Laurel Trail to Northfield Station and the trail to St. Jacob's. The offices at the end of Dutton get in the way of this, unfortunately.

As far as I'm aware, there will be a MUT along Weber between Albert and Parkside in order to make this connection between the Laurel trail and the trail to the Farmer's Market. As for the connection to Northfield station, it would be believable if they were trying not too. The Farmer's market trail goes on the wrong side of Northfield. But it's okay, there's a crossing, except the fire hall is in the way.  Of course, they could have built real infra along Northfield Dr. but there's a dead horse that still gets regular beatings.

[ac3r]

Again, a bridge is also going to be massively expensive. The cheapest possible crossing being built at 7/8 and Strasburg is projected to cost 7 million. This is a significantly larger project, with ramps at least twice as large. So the idea that a tunnel would be too expensive, pretty much means there is never going to be a bridge either.

As for whether the amenities are worth providing access to...leaving aside the hundreds of units of housing that you ignored, I think it's entirely unreasonable for us to judge that a plaza isn't worth providing access to. Even if YOU don't like the stores there, others may, and those stores may also change. As for distance, it would be a 20 minute walk...which is a perfectly reasonable walk out to a restaurant for dinner (there's a second plaza as well with a restaurant, tims, etc).

It's the developers money though, so it doesn't really matter what it costs.

I'm not sure why a connection to a couple hundred single family homes matters either. There's got to be <100 homes there even when you include the townhouses. Overall, I get your logic in providing more connections to things, but you have to look at it from an investment point of view a project developer takes. They're not going to have any interest in connecting this site to a plaza and some homes in addition to Northfield Station. Northfield Station makes sense to provide a connection to since this opens up access to the rest of the city without the need for a car. The fact they're even proposing a bridge is unique. Most developers aren't interested in infrastructure beyond the actual project site. If this was a City of Waterloo or Region of Waterloo bridge/tunnel proposal, they'd be more likely consider more connections to things, but a private developer is usually not going to burden themselves with this. This bridge would just be a bonus feature for people who live in the condos to get hop on the LRT a bit easier, not to make it easier to get to Pizza Pizza or your friends house on Albert Street or whatever.

[jamincan]

It's the developers money though, so it doesn't really matter what it costs.

I would be astonished if the developer is planning on paying for it. The Planning Justification Report seems deliberately vague that this is a future option that the city would need to partner with the MTO and Region to work out.

[danbrotherston]

Again, a bridge is also going to be massively expensive. The cheapest possible crossing being built at 7/8 and Strasburg is projected to cost 7 million. This is a significantly larger project, with ramps at least twice as large. So the idea that a tunnel would be too expensive, pretty much means there is never going to be a bridge either.

As for whether the amenities are worth providing access to...leaving aside the hundreds of units of housing that you ignored, I think it's entirely unreasonable for us to judge that a plaza isn't worth providing access to. Even if YOU don't like the stores there, others may, and those stores may also change. As for distance, it would be a 20 minute walk...which is a perfectly reasonable walk out to a restaurant for dinner (there's a second plaza as well with a restaurant, tims, etc).

It's the developers money though, so it doesn't really matter what it costs.

I'm not sure why a connection to a couple hundred single family homes matters either. There's got to be <100 homes there even when you include the townhouses. Overall, I get your logic in providing more connections to things, but you have to look at it from an investment point of view a project developer takes. They're not going to have any interest in connecting this site to a plaza and some homes in addition to Northfield Station. Northfield Station makes sense to provide a connection to since this opens up access to the rest of the city without the need for a car. The fact they're even proposing a bridge is unique. Most developers aren't interested in infrastructure beyond the actual project site. If this was a City of Waterloo or Region of Waterloo bridge/tunnel proposal, they'd be more likely consider more connections to things, but a private developer is usually not going to burden themselves with this. This bridge would just be a bonus feature for people who live in the condos to get hop on the LRT a bit easier, not to make it easier to get to Pizza Pizza or your friends house on Albert Street or whatever.

If it doesn't matter what it costs, then it doesn't matter if a tunnel is more expensive. If we think a tunnel is the right choice, then we can require the developer to build a tunnel.

The developer wants money, what we want is a good city, we force the developer to build a good city, in return, they get to make money.

I understand that connecting the LRT is their goal by building the bridge. They have that goal largely to justify reducing parking requirements. I am slightly impressed they are proposing it, but developers, like our city staff, are very conservative, they don't generally go outside the box. We shouldn't care what their goal is, we should only care about making the city a livable city, and for that I believe what we need to make it less necessary to own a car. The point of the planning process is to influence developers to develop what makes sense in the broader context of the city, rather than just what is most profitable to build.

By the way, it's almost 1000 homes, most of which are mid density, and more than double that number of residents at least. Plus a community centre. These are people who might work at businesses in the mixed use development, or shop at the tiny proposed plaza (which I think should be bigger) or just visit friends, improving transportation connections for options other than the car is key to making owning a car less necessary.

[KevinL]

Another downside to a tunnel is that it may run into drainage issues. I believe a watercourse transitions this area and the highway is already in a relatively low part of the landscape; digging even further down could run into a whole host of other issues.

[danbrotherston]

Another downside to a tunnel is that it may run into drainage issues. I believe a watercourse transitions this area and the highway is already in a relatively low part of the landscape; digging even further down could run into a whole host of other issues.

There could be drainage issues, I'm not a hygrologist, and I haven't looked at the area. That could add cost and complexity to be sure.

All I know is that a 1/4 km long bridge and causeway is very far from my preferred option, it squanders the opportunity to expand the greenspace, as well as limits the transportation connectivity options, and frankly, a 1/4 km long bridge is just not likely to be a particularly pleasant experience, summer or winter.

[ac3r]

If it doesn't matter what it costs, then it doesn't matter if a tunnel is more expensive. If we think a tunnel is the right choice, then we can require the developer to build a tunnel.

The developer wants money, what we want is a good city, we force the developer to build a good city, in return, they get to make money.

It's not their job to build infrastructure to make a livable city...that is the city/region's job. Developers do things like build homes and businesses. If I buy a small plot of land somewhere and seek to build a house on it, it's not up to me to fork out cash to build a sidewalk or curbs. The developer proposed a bridge as a favour to the residents of this project to get them safer and more direct access to Northfield Station. It's not up to them to start building tunnels and bridges so people can hit up The Beer Store or so it's easier for Albert Street residents to get to Conestoga Mall.

If - as a city/region - they start imposing these sort of restrictions, then you will have far fewer developers willing to work here which is even more detrimental to the city. This is what makes affordable housing so tricky as well. If it matters so much, the city/region could build a tunnel under the expressway right here but they won't because it makes absolutely no sense if you understand the first thing about urban planning. This is largely an industrial and retail part of the city. Yeah more infrastructure is desperately needed, but you can't seriously expect to hold developers hostage by saying well this is a great project, but we need you to improve the surrounding city infrastructure as well if you want approval. They'd laugh at you and think you're out of your mind, then immediately pull out.

[dtkvictim]

Going over the highway? Put traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing through the highway.

Going under? Put a moving walkway through the tunnel so people can't loiter.

Problems solved!

[ijmorlan]

I don’t understand the comment that connecting to Dutton Drive doesn’t do anything. True, there is “nothing” (not literally nothing, but I’ll stipulate to “not much”) actually on Dutton Drive, but the hypothetical connection links the Kraus site with the entire area near Albert and Weber. The alternative is Northfield — Parkside — Weber, including going up and over on Weber to cross the LRT line.

This is a pretty significant improvement to pedestrian connectivity in general, enough so that I submit it would encourage the development of more pedestrian-oriented facilities. For example, a hypothetical retail store on the Kraus site would be accessible to more people walking from near Albert/Weber. So as with many planning questions the current level of demand is irrelevant. Remember, if we used “current demand”, no more bridges across rivers would ever be built (some of the first ones would have been because people used to ford rivers or take a ferry; but now that it’s possible to take a bridge, no additional bridges are justified based on existing traffic across the river at a specific location).

Also I would just point out that any talk of tunnelling under the LRT facility is completely missing the point of what Dan is suggesting. As I said, I’m skeptical of tunnelling vs. bridging, even though he raises some interesting points, but a quick look at the map will instantly reveal that he cannot reasonably be interpreted to be proposing to tunnel under the LRT facility. The tunnel would be around 70m at most and due to the elevation of the highway vs. surrounding land the exit ramps at either end would be relatively short compared to what would be required for a bridge.

[KevinL]

I really think the Kraus site and the highway crossing discussion need their own thread(s) by this point.

[ijmorlan]

It's not their job to build infrastructure to make a livable city...that is the city/region's job. Developers do things like build homes and businesses. If I buy a small plot of land somewhere and seek to build a house on it, it's not up to me to fork out cash to build a sidewalk or curbs.

Just a small nitpick, if you buy a plot of land and build a house, I believe you are liable for development charges, so you actually are on the hook for money to build sidewalk and curbs, or at least the collective developers of a larger area are even if each development doesn’t necessarily lead immediately to the construction of any specific piece.

If - as a city/region - they start imposing these sort of restrictions, then you will have far fewer developers willing to work here which is even more detrimental to the city. This is what makes affordable housing so tricky as well.

This is a good point. It’s very easy to spend other people’s money. We have to be very judicious with what we require as part of development and not get ahead of what can be paid for with the development; indirectly, by the occupants and users of the development, not by the “deep pocket” developers.

[ac3r]

Also I would just point out that any talk of tunnelling under the LRT facility is completely missing the point of what Dan is suggesting. As I said, I’m skeptical of tunnelling vs. bridging, even though he raises some interesting points, but a quick look at the map will instantly reveal that he cannot reasonably be interpreted to be proposing to tunnel under the LRT facility. The tunnel would be around 70m at most and due to the elevation of the highway vs. surrounding land the exit ramps at either end would be relatively short compared to what would be required for a bridge.

I'm struggling to figure out where he imagines a tunnel to go, though. I'll refer to the image below.

Everything within the yellow border is owned by the ROW for the ION facility. The forested area is likely for future expansion as we get more trains/LRT lines and need extra space since this is all fenced in right now and highly secured. They're not going to allow a tunnel to come out on this property. Everything within the red belongs to the MTO and there is zero chance they'd allow a pedestrian walkway within that area or anywhere near 4 lanes of expressway - not to mention, there are two marshy ditches running along both sides, so they'd have to figure out how to deal with the water. So...where would this tunnel supposed to really go? Real life isn't SimCity where you can just build whatever you want, wherever you want. There are limitations of all sorts and I have no doubt the developer conceded that a bridge is the simplest and most ideal way to provide the residents here access to the LRT, lest they provided them with nothing at all.

I'm glad they've proposed a tunnel, it's sensible. But you have to be realistic when you're developing something. It's easy to fantasize about all sorts of things but when you actually work in this sort of field, you have to deal with a heck of a lot of limitations and try your best to make the most ideal thing you can within those confines.

[danbrotherston]

If it doesn't matter what it costs, then it doesn't matter if a tunnel is more expensive. If we think a tunnel is the right choice, then we can require the developer to build a tunnel.

The developer wants money, what we want is a good city, we force the developer to build a good city, in return, they get to make money.

It's not their job to build infrastructure to make a livable city...that is the city/region's job. Developers do things like build homes and businesses. If I buy a small plot of land somewhere and seek to build a house on it, it's not up to me to fork out cash to build a sidewalk or curbs. The developer proposed a bridge as a favour to the residents of this project to get them safer and more direct access to Northfield Station. It's not up to them to start building tunnels and bridges so people can hit up The Beer Store or so it's easier for Albert Street residents to get to Conestoga Mall.

If - as a city/region - they start imposing these sort of restrictions, then you will have far fewer developers willing to work here which is even more detrimental to the city. This is what makes affordable housing so tricky as well. If it matters so much, the city/region could build a tunnel under the expressway right here but they won't because it makes absolutely no sense if you understand the first thing about urban planning. This is largely an industrial and retail part of the city. Yeah more infrastructure is desperately needed, but you can't seriously expect to hold developers hostage by saying well this is a great project, but we need you to improve the surrounding city infrastructure as well if you want approval. They'd laugh at you and think you're out of your mind, then immediately pull out.

Developers don't build multi-million dollar bridges as a "favour"...they are doing it because they believe it helps advance their proposal. They want concessions from the city, this is their opening bid.

The city isn't "starting" to impose these restrictions...this is literally how planning has worked at the city since planning was invented....or shortly there after.

They are proposing a bridge instead of more parking (which is a requirement), we can respond with a different proposal. This is how virtually every zoning variance goes. I'm not sure about Waterloo, but as I understand it, in Kitchener, it's formalized as density bonusing.

[danbrotherston]

It's not their job to build infrastructure to make a livable city...that is the city/region's job. Developers do things like build homes and businesses. If I buy a small plot of land somewhere and seek to build a house on it, it's not up to me to fork out cash to build a sidewalk or curbs.

Just a small nitpick, if you buy a plot of land and build a house, I believe you are liable for development charges, so you actually are on the hook for money to build sidewalk and curbs, or at least the collective developers of a larger area are even if each development doesn’t necessarily lead immediately to the construction of any specific piece.

If - as a city/region - they start imposing these sort of restrictions, then you will have far fewer developers willing to work here which is even more detrimental to the city. This is what makes affordable housing so tricky as well.

This is a good point. It’s very easy to spend other people’s money. We have to be very judicious with what we require as part of development and not get ahead of what can be paid for with the development; indirectly, by the occupants and users of the development, not by the “deep pocket” developers.

We have been spending other people's money since zoning started. That's what parking minimums, setbacks, building codes, basically every legal requirement on development is. The bridge is there because the developer feels it is profitable to build the bridge than more parking.

[danbrotherston]

Also I would just point out that any talk of tunnelling under the LRT facility is completely missing the point of what Dan is suggesting. As I said, I’m skeptical of tunnelling vs. bridging, even though he raises some interesting points, but a quick look at the map will instantly reveal that he cannot reasonably be interpreted to be proposing to tunnel under the LRT facility. The tunnel would be around 70m at most and due to the elevation of the highway vs. surrounding land the exit ramps at either end would be relatively short compared to what would be required for a bridge.

I'm struggling to figure out where he imagines a tunnel to go, though. I'll refer to the image below.

Everything within the yellow border is owned by the ROW for the ION facility. The forested area is likely for future expansion as we get more trains/LRT lines and need extra space since this is all fenced in right now and highly secured. They're not going to allow a tunnel to come out on this property. Everything within the red belongs to the MTO and there is zero chance they'd allow a pedestrian walkway within that area or anywhere near 4 lanes of expressway - not to mention, there are two marshy ditches running along both sides, so they'd have to figure out how to deal with the water. So...where would this tunnel supposed to really go? Real life isn't SimCity where you can just build whatever you want, wherever you want. There are limitations of all sorts and I have no doubt the developer conceded that a bridge is the simplest and most ideal way to provide the residents here access to the LRT, lest they provided them with nothing at all.

I'm glad they've proposed a tunnel, it's sensible. But you have to be realistic when you're developing something. It's easy to fantasize about all sorts of things but when you actually work in this sort of field, you have to deal with a heck of a lot of limitations and try your best to make the most ideal thing you can within those confines.

The developer hasn't planned anything beyond "a bridge looks best on the renders"...they haven't done any detailed design whatsoever. Which is why now is the right time to express what is the ideal situation.

As for where, the forested area *IS* the greenspace I am referring to. The site has considerable room for expansion already. There region (and I realize they are generally un-co-operative but they shouldn't be) should just sell that space to the city, now that it can be used for this amenity.