General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[robdrimmie]

Spur Line Commons, I think

[danbrotherston]

Apparently City of Kitchener councillors are being lobbied by wealthy developers (and probably some well to do but misinformed other folks) to prioritize SFHs (the existing development plans STILL include tons of greenfield SFHs, just not enough to satisfy these folks).

How about some pitch forks for these people who wish to further sprawl our city, destroy our farmland, and doom future generations to unsustainable, unaffordable, isolating, and environmentally destructive development?

You know---actions that literally contribute to the destruction of our society and biosphere...

But they didn't deflate any tires so I guess we'll talk rationally about it....

Yeah sorry guys I'm bitter and cynical...

[ac3r]

The cities and region have rules in place that already prevent most sprawl. Some projects or project areas do get approved (Doon is one area we still allow a lot), but overall we don't permit any such projects with ease, so developers don't even propose them anymore and haven't regularly done so in years. It's mostly the townships that allow traditional, sprawling suburban developments so you'd have to take their policy making up with them.

You didn't include the actual The Record story here so that comment seems a bit disingenuous anyway (here it is for those curious). In it, it says that the council members and mayor are aware that private developers are trying to pressure them into opening up more lands for development. But the cities and region all know they have plans in place to prevent sprawl, so I can't see a couple home building developers achieving much no matter how much money they have or how much they start to lobby to the general public about this (which I can see them doing...which would be annoying: Mayor Vrbanovic doesn't want YOU owning your own home!"). It's not like they're secretly paying people under the table or anything. The council basically just said "so yeah, some greedy devs are trying to talk us into opening up land for more sprawl" and The Record ran the story.

The plan the city(cities) and region have is mostly fine anyway. Developers - as well as tech groups and local BIAs, of who we should definitely not be listening to anyway - are ignoring the fact that using census data, not even half of Canadians have families anymore...so the argument that we need more single family homes is just ridiculous. But those professionals working in planning understand that fact. There is a reason we're building condos and why so many of them only have 1 or 2 bedrooms. And since we are also attempting to densify as per our regional plans, that should hopefully open up the door for more missing middle which is one thing residents know we are missing. Missing middle homes can be a good alternative for families who want to live in the city but who don't want or can't afford a detached home in the suburbs, so hopefully we can adjust zoning to make it easier to build such stuff.

[danbrotherston]

The cities and region have rules in place that already prevent most sprawl. Some projects or project areas do get approved (Doon is one area we still allow a lot), but overall we don't permit any such projects with ease, so developers don't even propose them anymore and haven't regularly done so in years. It's mostly the townships that allow traditional, sprawling suburban developments so you'd have to take their policy making up with them.

You didn't include the actual The Record story here so that comment seems a bit disingenuous anyway (here it is for those curious). In it, it says that the council members and mayor are aware that private developers are trying to pressure them into opening up more lands for development. But the cities and region all know they have plans in place to prevent sprawl, so I can't see a couple home building developers achieving much no matter how much money they have or how much they start to lobby to the general public about this (which I can see them doing...which would be annoying: Mayor Vrbanovic doesn't want YOU owning your own home!"). It's not like they're secretly paying people under the table or anything. The council basically just said "so yeah, some greedy devs are trying to talk us into opening up land for more sprawl" and The Record ran the story.

The plan the city(cities) and region have is mostly fine anyway. Developers - as well as tech groups and local BIAs, of who we should definitely not be listening to anyway - are ignoring the fact that using census data, not even half of Canadians have families anymore...so the argument that we need more single family homes is just ridiculous. But those professionals working in planning understand that fact. There is a reason we're building condos and why so many of them only have 1 or 2 bedrooms. And since we are also attempting to densify as per our regional plans, that should hopefully open up the door for more missing middle which is one thing residents know we are missing. Missing middle homes can be a good alternative for families who want to live in the city but who don't want or can't afford a detached home in the suburbs, so hopefully we can adjust zoning to make it easier to build such stuff.

Yes...sorry I have a bad habit of copying links and then not actually pasting them...it was not intentional. My bad.

The plan the city and region have in place is not finalised yet...that's why this lobbying is happening now. The lobbyists are trying to push back on the plan and make it worse. Even if you think the plan is fine, there's still plenty of time to fuck it up.

And I'm not suggesting that there is anything underhanded going on. This isn't a big secret. These people are openly working to destroy our planet and it's not even controversial, there's no reason to hide it.

[bravado]

What's the plan to stop the townships from inviting their own financial and environmental ruin with new low density development? It seems like the problem still exists, it's just moved outside of the formal cities.

[Bytor]

The plan the city(cities) and region have is mostly fine anyway.

No, not really. It ignores the missing middle.

so the argument that we need more single family homes is just ridiculous.

That's correct, but that doesn't mean that we mostly need one-bedroom (condo) apartments, either

There is a reason we're building condos and why so many of them only have 1 or 2 bedrooms.

Yeah, it's called bad zoning plans that extremely strongly bias new builds toward single-family houses or condo towers. And the condo towers are biased towards one-bedroom units because the land is expensive, concrete+steel is more expensive than timber-framed, so the developers want to squeeze in as many units as possible so the sale price doesn't go beyond what people are wiling to pay.

It doesn't really have anything to do with "the market" because we've distorted thing with that extreme bias. We don't know whether people want to buy missing middle housing types because for so long we've really only given the the possible of a single-family house or a one-bedroom condo. Surveys usually ask 1) "what type of home do you plan on buying" rather than 2) "What type of housing would you like to buy, if it were available". If you're a young couple wanting to have kids and your only options are a SFH in the 'burbs or a one bedroom condo in the core, of course you're going to say SFH when answering 1), even if you'd really rather have a larger two-bedroom in a mid-rise just outside the core but still walkable to it.

We have no clue how many people are like that, and assuming that everybody just automatically wants an SFH in the 'burbs shows how strongly we've been forced and locked into that box. ironically it's just as tiny, metaphorically speaking, as the "tiny concrete shoe box in the sky" that so many NIMBYs ignorantly rail against.

And since we are also attempting to densify as per our regional plans, that should hopefully open up the door for more missing middle which is one thing residents know we are missing.

No. No they don't.

Missing middle homes can be a good alternative for families who want to live in the city but who don't want or can't afford a detached home in the suburbs, so hopefully we can adjust zoning to make it easier to build such stuff.

Nobody's talking about changing zoning, though. Whenever I bring it up in response to others talking about the housing crisis, outside of niche groups like WRC, I get blank, uncomprehending stares that have never heard of the missing middle (even by a different name), or adamant, even angry rejection of upzoning the 'burbs for a variety of reason WC people are already familiar with.

Kitchener's CRoZBy is a pathetic attempt to make it look like they are without actually doing anything. Changing zoning bylaws isn't even on the radar for Waterloo and Cambridge.

[Bytor]

What's the plan to stop the townships from inviting their own financial and environmental ruin with new low density development? It seems like the problem still exists, it's just moved outside of the formal cities.

The townships still have designated urban growth boundaries, just like what exists around Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, and they are required to meet densification targets in them. Not a big as in the three, cities, but they still have them. Ontario's Places to Grow and the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plans also deal with rural areas.

It's not some "any sprawl goes" wild west in rural areas.

[dtkvictim]

Developers - as well as tech groups and local BIAs, of who we should definitely not be listening to anyway - are ignoring the fact that using census data, not even half of Canadians have families anymore...so the argument that we need more single family homes is just ridiculous. But those professionals working in planning understand that fact. There is a reason we're building condos and why so many of them only have 1 or 2 bedrooms.

I believe there is a good chance you have the cause and effect backwards here. I am at the family starting age, as are most of the people are know. The majority of them, myself included, would like to have families but simply can't afford it. The single largest factor in that affordability is adequate family friendly housing, because in Canada that type of housing is almost exclusively increasingly out of reach single family homes. The only people I know who have had children are those who manage to purchase a single family home.

Denser family friendly housing can and should exist, but it's simply not happening. The only real density increases seem to be happening in the urban core, and I sure as hell wouldn't raise a family DTK (and while many on this forum may disagree with that, I think you are in the extreme minority with that opinion).

So the decrease in families and housing size, I think, is more driven by worsening economic conditions than by peoples personal preferences.

The cities and region have rules in place that already prevent most sprawl. Some projects or project areas do get approved (Doon is one area we still allow a lot), but overall we don't permit any such projects with ease, so developers don't even propose them anymore and haven't regularly done so in years. It's mostly the townships that allow traditional, sprawling suburban developments so you'd have to take their policy making up with them.

You didn't include the actual The Record story here so that comment seems a bit disingenuous anyway (here it is for those curious). In it, it says that the council members and mayor are aware that private developers are trying to pressure them into opening up more lands for development. But the cities and region all know they have plans in place to prevent sprawl, so I can't see a couple home building developers achieving much no matter how much money they have or how much they start to lobby to the general public about this (which I can see them doing...which would be annoying: Mayor Vrbanovic doesn't want YOU owning your own home!"). It's not like they're secretly paying people under the table or anything. The council basically just said "so yeah, some greedy devs are trying to talk us into opening up land for more sprawl" and The Record ran the story.

I don't know where you are getting your confidence that KWs growth boundary is untouchable. It's great that we have it, and it hasn't been touched yet, but you can look nearly anywhere in North America with an urban growth boundary to find examples of this promise being broken. Ottawa voted to expand their boundary just 2 years ago, and there is a good chance developer money had influence (not "under the table", but involved nonetheless): https://development.money/

Though it's probably worth considering that urban vs suburban developers probably have opposing views on urban growth boundaries.

What's the plan to stop the townships from inviting their own financial and environmental ruin with new low density development? It seems like the problem still exists, it's just moved outside of the formal cities.

IIRC, this City Beautiful video touches on that issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-KrSqy1EM (I haven't rewatched it, so sorry if I'm wrong, but it's still relevant to the current topic).

But this is a really important point. Unless 1) the province steps in OR 2) cities start to build desirable alternatives to SFH sprawl, then the demand for this type of housing will find a way to be met.

[ac3r]

I don't know where you are getting your confidence that KWs growth boundary is untouchable. It's great that we have it, and it hasn't been touched yet, but you can look nearly anywhere in North America with an urban growth boundary to find examples of this promise being broken. Ottawa voted to expand their boundary just 2 years ago, and there is a good chance developer money had influence (not "under the table", but involved nonetheless): https://development.money/

Though it's probably worth considering that urban vs suburban developers probably have opposing views on urban growth boundaries.

Oh I definitely don't think it's untouchable. Quite the opposite is likely to be the case as we grow larger and larger. But there are a few things working in our favour to ensure it hopefully does not, or at least not in a way where they return to building massive subdivisions in every last bit of usable land.

The cities aren't exactly large in terms of their square kilometer area. Much of it has already been developed so there aren't many areas of land left to utilize. Regardless of what happens, the fact of the matter is we're going to be building up more than we are building out. With the Region of Waterloo projected to be nearing 1 million people by 2051, that is going to require a lot of new homes (of whatever form) to be constructed. And with the region and cities (particularly Kitchener, as they've been the real leaders of this region) have developed plans to densify cities, regardless of what the couple pessimists of this forum who love to constantly reply "no, you're wrong, here's why" to the rest of us this think. The plans we have now are not perfect, but it's an attempt for now and will evolve.

I think as we grow over the next couple decades, zoning changes will become more flexible. We will see more of that missing middle going up because we're going to understand it's required. Simple math can demonstrate that we can't have a couple hundred thousand more people living here primarily living in single family detached homes, but nor can they all live in 1 or 2 bedroom condos. Even if fewer people are having families these days, there will still be a need for more than a 1 or 2 bedroom home. Not everyone is going to want to live in a skyscraper. Those who do decide to start a family, if they are unable to afford or just do not want a detached home, then they may consider a rowhouse, duplex, a low or midrise apartment/condo and similar. And just keeping in line with the various development plans, that missing middle is not going to be such a fantasy anymore, though we'll have to change zoning rules to get there. I also know that by 2051 we'll no doubt have an additional LRT line (and will keep on adding more), which will continue to spur transit oriented development along those lines. That will also help to densify and develop areas in the city, even up to the borders, with things other than towering skyscrapers of condos or low rise homes. Generally speaking...it's just inevitable we'll see more middle density being built. Look at any large city you wish and you'll see they have everything: single family homes, a wide variety of middle housing and skyscrapers in high density areas.

But secondly, this sort of approach can benefit the townships too. They're still in a place where they can create specific plans for their communities. And that means, while for sure they'll see generic single family home neighbourhoods built by extremely wealthy developers, they can also lay down rules and allow their communities to follow a good, progressive, sustainable path of evolution and development. That is, while they have the time, they can start to think of things like MUTs, where to allow retail and services in convenient locations, to zone areas that can permit the development of rowhouses, low/mid rise apartments, to maintain their downtown by limiting stuff like strip malls and huge big box stores and so on. There's a good video which I'll link below which explores why not all small towns out there suck and it's worth the watch, though isn't exactly detailed about things:

[ac3r]

All of Club Abstract is gone. I imagine they'll start on the neighbouring building soon.

[mastermind]

I noticed what appears to be a new Porsche dealership starting construction on Victoria street on the way out to Breslau. Based on the concrete walls they've built so far it looks like it has a basement. Odd for a car dealership, no?

[CP42]

I noticed what appears to be a new Porsche dealership starting construction on Victoria street on the way out to Breslau.  Based on the concrete walls they've built so far it looks like it has a basement.  Odd for a car dealership, no?

Looks like it will have an underground garage:
https://porschecentrekw.ca

[Chris]

I noticed what appears to be a new Porsche dealership starting construction on Victoria street on the way out to Breslau.  Based on the concrete walls they've built so far it looks like it has a basement.  Odd for a car dealership, no?

Heffner has a basement too. Has some staff amenities and a parking garage for picking up your new car.

[tomh009]

It's really not unusual now: parking space is often at a premium, and underground parking is more easily secured, too.

[danbrotherston]

It's really not unusual now: parking space is often at a premium, and underground parking is more easily secured, too.

Parking space is at a premium? In sprawling edge of city developments?

If that's true, it's not a supply problem: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kitche...80.4925337

The vast majority of the land is parking.

I suppose it's possible that parking is saturated, but adding more probably won't help. But that's never stopped people before.