Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Charlie West (Charles & Gaukel) | 31 fl | U/C
#46
I'm pretty sure a "condo comb over" is when there's a vertical wall / feature which goes up to the top of the building, then sideways to one side. City Centre has one, visible in http://www.condo-living-west.com/toblog/...-intro.jpg . It's been a very popular condo design trend lately.
Reply


#47
Thank you taylortbb! Smile
Reply
#48
"Today, banning pets is (and I believe should) be seen as outrageous as trying to ban children from a building."

I'm mostly in agreement with what you're saying about accommodating pet owners, and I can't really think of a situation (maybe a small building with a common forced-air system and occupants with allergies?) in which pets should be banned from a building. But that sentence of yours is nutty, and unlikely to sway anyone's opinion who doesn't (yet) see it your way. Banning children from buildings (which is done) is not equivalent to banning pets. I don't think either is often justifiable, but they're not equally outrageous.

The pet cleaning facilities on the top of the podium strike me as a good selling feature and a sensible amenity. But you're right that they're not exactly permanent.
Reply
#49
(03-30-2017, 12:41 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Attempting to require dogs be carried in/out or put in a wagon would further discriminate against people who aren't strong. Think of all the older folks who may have a 14 lbs schnauzer as my former neighbour relied upon when her husband died, but lo they can't open doors or handle stairs while carrying even that light a dog. Today, banning pets is (and I believe should) be seen as outrageous as trying to ban children from a building.

Out building has three entrances plus the garage entrance.  I expect most condos will have at least a front entrance and a garage entrance, so what Panamaniac is suggesting is that people walking dogs use the garage entrance (or another side entrance, if one exists).

Pet bans happen when there are a number of problem owners (note, owners, not pets) and the board does not enforce the rules.  Then at some point the owners get fed up and demand that the building go pet-free.  To avoid that, the building needs to have some (reasonable!) rules for pets -- and enforce them.
Reply
#50
(03-30-2017, 11:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 11:12 AM)clasher Wrote: The city/region should just mandate all new builds have to sort organics and recycle.

Absolutely. How is this not part of the building code?

Actually we should go a bit further: decide on the refuse categories (probably garbage, recycling, compost). Then make all public trash receptacles match, and use the building code to require all apartment buildings and commercial establishments which provide trash receptacles to do the same. Identify each category with a colour and a symbol, and apply the colour and symbol to the appropriate parts of all receptacles. Also, provide all streams at all locations — don’t have a garbage can here, a recycling bin there, and a compost bin in yet another location. Also use the same symbols to explain Regional garbage pickup, and make sure the categories there match precisely.

This would reduce the mental load involved in proper trash disposal. One would quickly learn which category each item is, and no matter where one needed to get rid of it, it would go in the same-labelled category.

I agree with your points, but there's a few things to consider.  Mandating that all builds have organics and recycling really only works for residential properties that have municipal collection.  Commercial and ICI developments don't have municipal collection, so the only reason recycling (two stream garbage) collection is mandated is due to Provincial Law.  Since many regions/counties (mainly rural) don't even have organics collection it is unlikely the province will require it in the near future.
While all streams at all locations sounds nice, from a cost perspective it just isn't always feasible.  I know a number of waste management departments have considered it but it is really only possible in locations where there are high amounts of waste, many locations just aren't generating the weights necessary to justify adding to the collection schedule.
Reply
#51
(03-30-2017, 05:40 PM)andrewhann7 Wrote: I agree with your points, but there's a few things to consider.  Mandating that all builds have organics and recycling really only works for residential properties that have municipal collection.  Commercial and ICI developments don't have municipal collection, so the only reason recycling (two stream garbage) collection is mandated is due to Provincial Law.  Since many regions/counties (mainly rural) don't even have organics collection it is unlikely the province will require it in the near future.
While all streams at all locations sounds nice, from a cost perspective it just isn't always feasible.  I know a number of waste management departments have considered it but it is really only possible in locations where there are high amounts of waste, many locations just aren't generating the weights necessary to justify adding to the collection schedule.

I'm really not understanding the argument here. Provincial law requires recycling. I agree that due to the sparseness of organics collection (at this point in time at least), it won't be a provincial law, but why can it not be a municipal requirement.

Of course, it would cost more than simply throwing everything out (so does recycling, mainly due to perverse incentives), however, that doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be done. The fact is there are options for buildings to contract to private collectors in this region, so it's feasible, and further, if the region can justify organics collection in low density suburban neighbourhoods, then clearly a much higher density building could justify it.
Reply
#52
How on earth did I miss this new rendering...it's gorgeous.
Reply
#53
I like the radiator wall, it looks just like one that someone has run their fingers all over the fins.
Reply
#54
Signs up at 191 King St (across from City Hall) - soon to be sales centre


[Image: 234bcnf.jpg]

Close up of render:

[Image: 9pRPynm.jpg]
Reply
#55
FYI, I went to the sales event of this one last night... and WOW, huge lines waiting outside, and the units were selling like pancakes! They must be at around 75% sold already with only 2 sales events. Impressive.
Reply
#56
Of note, they are selling most units without a parking spot, and if you buy one of those they give you a free one year ION/GRT pass!
Reply
#57
(06-16-2017, 10:20 AM)urbd Wrote: Of note, they are selling most units without a parking spot, and if you buy one of those they give you a free one year ION/GRT pass!

VERY cool idea!

In projects like these do units typically have spots attached to them, or is that an "add on" you can buy but don't have to?
Reply
#58
i am interested to see how fast they will sell out. I will be at the event on Saturday =)
Let you guys know what i see
Reply
#59
(06-16-2017, 10:38 AM)Spokes Wrote:
(06-16-2017, 10:20 AM)urbd Wrote: Of note, they are selling most units without a parking spot, and if you buy one of those they give you a free one year ION/GRT pass!

VERY cool idea!

In projects like these do units typically have spots attached to them, or is that an "add on" you can buy but don't have to?

the42 had all units with one spot included, extras could be bought. They wound up overselling parking, installed a car lifter over one spot to double its capacity, and then couldn't ever use it (at least not before I left) due to some regulatory issue.
Reply
#60
I'm less interested in how fast it's selling compared to whether it's selling to local owners who want to move in, local owners who want to rent it out, non-local owners who want to rent it out (I notice they tend to charge more for rent when I peruse listings), or anyone looking to buy and flip it when occupancy starts.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  27 Gaukel St redevelopment | 3 fl | U/C panamaniac 35 10,069 05-17-2018, 04:48 PM
Last Post: tomh009

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links