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. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: Three whole years! We've grown so much over the past three years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. To this point it has been funded out of my own pocket. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover all of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
One Hundred | 21 & 17 fl | U/C
#16
If memory serves, it will indeed be to the west of Arthur Place. I think it's going to be on the nondescript industrial building's lot.

It appears Arthur Place is also being updated per this site. They're renting out individual rooms as well as houses, so I'm guessing it's student-oriented.
Reply
#17
Council balks at plans to build big
September 18, 2014 | Catherine Thompson | Waterloo Region Record | Link
Quote:KITCHENER — Plans to encourage higher-density development along the planned LRT route are running into snags at Kitchener council.

This week, after earlier postponements, council delayed decisions on two projects that seem tailor-made for the city's new planning policies: high-quality developments that bring more residents in areas close to the future transit line, within walking distance of shops, offices and other amenities.

But nearby landowners say the developments are too much and will have too large an impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. Councillors agreed, and put off decisions until mid-November.

The Momentum development would replace four commercial buildings at 100 Victoria St. S., very close to the planned transit hub at King and Victoria streets, with two residential towers, one 14 storeys and the other 18, atop a three-storey podium of offices and retail shops. The Vanguard development on Walter Street, beside King Edward School, would see a residential building, rising from four storeys on Walter to six storeys on the back of the lot toward King Street.

Planning staff recommended approval for both projects, saying they are compatible with nearby existing buildings.

"They're very different developments — one is much larger in scale than the other — but we feel they are appropriate for both respective contexts, and they both add value to the community that's around them," said Alain Pinard, the city's director of planning.

"They're both high-quality developments, they're well thought out, and they will achieve a lot of things that intensification is supposed to achieve," attracting more residents, who will in turn provide greater demand for nearby businesses and inner city schools.

But residents from adjacent streets came out in droves to city council to object to both projects, which they say are too large and don't respect the existing buildings nearby.

Owen Allerton owns five properties on Arthur Place, the street next to the Momentum project. He and about two dozen supporters wearing red "Stop the Tower" T-shirts showed up at planning and council meetings in the past couple of weeks.

Allerton argues that the Momentum tower nearest Arthur Place is less than three metres from the property line, and will limit the potential for future development of his properties, which now contain rented single-family homes but are zoned for greater density.

Residents in the Walter Street neighbourhood also came out in droves to recent meetings, saying the six-storey Vanguard building would look massive on a street with mainly two-storey homes, and arguing that current zoning allows for only a three-storey building.

"Our neighbourhood is 100 years old," Alan Kocher, who lives on Gruhn Street just behind Walter, told council. "I find the size of the building is not in tune with the character or feel of our neighbourhood. I fear that if this proposal is passed, what precedent will this set for all the other properties along Walter Street?"

Planners and the province promote intensification because it has several benefits.

• It doesn't pave over greenfield land.

• Research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, car use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.

• It makes more efficient use of infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as "soft" infrastructure such as public schools and social services.

Pinard stressed that his staff aren't supporting just any high-density projects. "We are not saying that all intensification projects are good projects. It has to be well-designed and appropriate."

Like most of the councillors around the horseshoe, Coun. Frank Etherington said he liked the design of the Walter Street building, and believes it's been done with care and attention to detail. But says he's seen several recent instances where developments are proceeding apace in older areas, despite the commitments in the Official Plan to protect established neighbourhoods.

"I'm very concerned about the impact such development is having on mature neighbourhoods," Etherington said. "I'm not against intensification, but it has to dovetail and be compatible with our existing older communities."

Council's hesitation over the projects suggests the city needs to have clearer guidelines for building in established areas, and for how close two adjacent high-rises can be in high-density areas, said Coun. Berry Vrbanovic, who chairs the planning committee.

But Coun. Kelly Galloway-Sealock suggested that politics may be at play, in the lead-up up to the Oct. 27 municipal vote. "This development is coming forward at election time, and no-one want to alienate the electorate."

In both projects, council urged developers to continue talking to all parties and refining their projects, which they'll consider again on Nov. 17.
Reply
#18
Well I guess I was wrong, the Arthur Pl owner is the one upset. How does this project affect his properties? There's a road separating them!

Anyways, this really annoys me. These are exactly what we need. The planning department is right, both projects should be built. I'm hoping that once the election is over that the elected representatives do what's right for the City long term and approve both of these.

What happened to Places to Grow where 40% of all development had to happen in EXISTING AREAS.
Reply
#19
Spokes Wrote:Well I guess I was wrong, the Arthur Pl owner is the one upset. How does this project affect his properties? There's a road separating them!

My understanding was that the properties are adjacent. And the owner has made it clear: he claims it will affect how much he can intensify his own property.
Reply
#20
I am still wondering whether that's a relevant consideration. He could be developing the property today. To see his options limited by his own delay seems to me just the operation of the market.
Reply
#21
IMO Momentum should buy the Arthur place properties, I believe it would benefit them by getting rid of the property line conflict, and they could also expand the building, or have another smaller project like Red condominiums.
Reply
#22
^ I agree! They are looking pretty drab lately. Could be easily fixed up by a new developer and tied into One Hundred. I like the idea of a smaller maybe 'RED Style' building. Someone should stop that owner and give him a copy of the 'Places to Grow' report.
Reply
#23
I was always thinking that the properties that were opposed to this were the row houses on the North side of Arthur and this never made sense to me. Looking at the map again, its clearly the five properties on the South side. Not sure what I was thinking.

TMKM94 makes a good point, Momentum should definitely look into buying these, but given that the owner owns all five homes, he'll want a significant sum of money I'm guessing. I'd prefer a second project rather than an expanded 100 project.

My guess is that as soon as the election is done this goes through. Momentum clearly has a good relationship with council, staff approved this, this is what the City needs.

Whatever happens, Arthur Pl needs to be addressed moving forward. This is going to be a major entrance into the Innovation District, and it needs to be interesting. Having the south side of the street with low rise (4 storey) mixed use buildings would create interest fronting the street, and across the street has a lot of potential too. Changing these from residential units to small commercial units would be very interesting. Imagine little shops and restaurants/cafes/pubs in these.
Reply
#24
Well put Spokes!
Reply
#25
Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".

The same might be said for any number of variance requests. Presumably, higher density buildings are approved based on staff analysis of the surrounding infrastructure's ability to accomodate. For instance, if one property owner proposed to use up all of the existing infrastructure capacity (water, sewage etc), would the neighbouring property owners be able to complain that their development potential is restricted? Similarly, regardless of density, there are presumably existing building code regulations that must be followed about how close one building can be to another or what provisions must be in place to protect one from the other, like a fire wall. If one property owner expands beyond what they would normally be allowed, their neighbours will be affected with either higher costs or lower ability to expand themselves. Or, for example, if a property owner proposes to go right up against an existing public right-of-way, that will restrict possible future expansion (think of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stops etc).
Reply
#26
nms Wrote:Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".

The same might be said for any number of variance requests. Presumably, higher density buildings are approved based on staff analysis of the surrounding infrastructure's ability to accomodate. For instance, if one property owner proposed to use up all of the existing infrastructure capacity (water, sewage etc), would the neighbouring property owners be able to complain that their development potential is restricted? Similarly, regardless of density, there are presumably existing building code regulations that must be followed about how close one building can be to another or what provisions must be in place to protect one from the other, like a fire wall. If one property owner expands beyond what they would normally be allowed, their neighbours will be affected with either higher costs or lower ability to expand themselves. Or, for example, if a property owner proposes to go right up against an existing public right-of-way, that will restrict possible future expansion (think of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stops etc).

As long as there is ability to accommodate the development and the City staff has exercised due diligence, I'm not sure how anything other than "First come, First served" could apply. This is why I asked a while back whether the objections of the adjoining property owner based on his hypothetical ability to develop his property were even a consideration? I'm not aware of anything official that would have prevented him from developing his property at any time prior to Momentum's applications, so I'm not sure I feel for him.
Reply
#27
panamaniac Wrote:
nms Wrote:Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".

As long as there is ability to accommodate the development and the City staff has exercised due diligence, I'm not sure how anything other than "First come, First served" could apply. This is why I asked a while back whether the objections of the adjoining property owner based on his hypothetical ability to develop his property were even a consideration? I'm not aware of anything official that would have prevented him from developing his property at any time prior to Momentum's applications, so I'm not sure I feel for him.

I see both your points. But given that a developer can only push the limits of zoning with the City's consent, neighbour concerns need to be carefully considered by the city, whether they're "It'll shade my back yard and kill my begonias" or "I may want to build up this property soon and I'll be constrained by these variances."

After all, zoning rules are in place in part to protect the interests of other stakeholders, especially neighbours.
Reply
#28
The promotional sign for this development at the One Victoria Site says that its 65% sold and construction will start in 2015 (It might have said Spring but I was driving and didn't catch the entire message).
Reply
#29
The Record is reporting that the revised proposal increases the height of the two towers to 21 and 17 storeys, from 19 and 16, and increases the setback on the Arthur Place side to 12 meters from the originally proposed 1.1 metres.   Number of residential units would increase to 306 from 276 and the commercial space would be reduced.  Still recommended for approval by council.

Anybody seen a render of the revised proposal?
Reply
#30
They're essentially saying to the city, we'll comply with the setback, if you back us on the height.

Smart move.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)