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
#46
A new tallest for Kitchener (if it's built)?
Reply
#47
(11-18-2014, 10:10 AM)Owen Wrote: Scenario A:  City Defers
- Momentum takes city to the OMB, the City has to hire lawyers and external planners, Momentum has to hire lawyers and planners, AND I still have to hire lawyers and planners to come along.

Scenario B:  City Approves
- I take Momentum to the OMB, city is no longer involved and we don't spend our tax dollars on lawyers and planners.   Momentum and I have the same expense as Scenario A.

... It doesn't feel like "the right thing to do" but it's rational.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, Owen. It's really great to get information like this from the source.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's the best outcome here. I know Momentum has acquired some goodwill from some users of this board (as well as city planners) for having brought a couple of interesting and thoughtful projects to realization quickly. Are they doing the right thing here? Are they burning that goodwill by exploiting this property at the expense of neighbouring landowners' development potential?

There's a point to be made that they deserve to have their project considered by the city under the rules of the day, even if your case shows an inadequacy in those rules. And I think you're doing the right thing by going to the OMB.

I have a feeling that this case will be a lesson for why the rules need to change for "next time" but too late to change things here. If so, that would be unfortunate. I'd hate to see the Arthur properties end up as another paved parking lot because the site's development potential has been too restricted.
Reply
#48
Thanks Owen! So will you be going to the OMB against Momentum?
Reply
#49
For every ones sake I really hope Momentum buys Owen out at a reasonable market rate. I think they could use the land and Owen gets to take home a tidy profit.

Not holding my breath though.
Reply
#50
(11-18-2014, 11:38 AM)Owen Wrote: With all that said - I'm not too upset by the decision.  I get it - council is focused on attracting and facilitating development.   If this is going to the OMB either way, why not maintain the city's good reputation with developers and let the OMB be the bad guy.   Similarly - as a tax payer, I agree with the decision - if it's going to the OMB either way, why involve the city (and OMB hearing would probably cost the city $50k-$100k at least.).  At the end of the day, it was a rational decision, but definitely not "the right thing to do".   In my mind, the right thing to do would have been to a) move the tower back to 10m setback, b) somehow incorporate Arthur Place into the development (i.e. buy the one side of Arthur Place and put million dollar town homes on it like they did with the 144 Park condos), or c) redesign the project in some other way (i.e. flip the whole thing) - and I don't fault momentum for not doing these things, I fault whoever told them they didn't have to.

Welcome to WR Connected, Owen. This is often the case in Toronto, where Council essentially passes the buck to the OMB, ridding themselves of having to make politically unpopular planning/development decisions. Often times the development proposals before Council comply with planning legislation, yet Council still rejects it... but that rant is for another time Tongue.

(11-18-2014, 11:42 AM)Owen Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 11:27 AM)Spokes Wrote: Thanks Owen!  So will you be going to the OMB against Momentum?

That's the plan - again, not to oppose the project - but to ask for the south tower to be set back further to allow for proper tower separation so that Arthur Place can be redeveloped and intensified in the future as per the OP.  Lots of paperwork and process we have to sort through.
I hope that you and Momentum will be able to settle on a tower setback that works for both of you. Based on what you've stated earlier in this thread, I believe that your appeal is credible (you're not some NIMBY) and the Board will take into consideration what Momentum has done to address your concerns.

My feeling is that that should you proceed with an appeal, the case will likely end in a settlement, with Momentum meeting you halfway on the tower setback issue (adding an additional meter or two to their current tower setback for a total of approximately 8 meters; 16 meters total between their tower and a future tower on a consolidated Arthur Place lot).
Reply
#51
(11-18-2014, 11:38 AM)Owen Wrote: ...council is focused on attracting and facilitating development.   If this is going to the OMB either way, why not maintain the city's good reputation with developers and let the OMB be the bad guy.   Similarly - as a tax payer, I agree with the decision - if it's going to the OMB either way, why involve the city (and OMB hearing would probably cost the city $50k-$100k at least.).  At the end of the day, it was a rational decision, but definitely not "the right thing to do".   

I think the city is taking a myopic view if they think they will be saving money now. Sticking your head in the sand and crossing your fingers isn't how problems get solved. It is how big problems get created. If the OMB or a future court accepts your argument, then you have been wronged and someone will be paying your costs. Is that not how these things end up?
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Reply
#52
If I had to pick a side it would be Momentum.

Momentum has shown what it can do and in a timely fashion. Momentum is planning to build One Hundred. It is building One Victoria. It has built the Red Condominium, FortyTwo, and the BPR Lofts.

So far as I know (and I could be really wrong here), Owen and the Lakeshore Group have not done anything in the Region of Waterloo. Their first(?) foray into this region is to go to the OMB to demand changes to One Hundred. That just doesn't look good. Perhaps if they showed some renders of what they would like to build I could warm up to their proposal(s). As it is, are we supposed to be sympathetic to what they may or may not be able to do?

If Owen and the Lakeshore Group want to intensify development along the LRT I wish them well. But please show me what you have in mind, other than an OMB challenge.

By the way, I want to welcome Owen to WRC.
Reply
#53
(11-18-2014, 12:49 PM)jgsz Wrote: If I had to pick a side it would be Momentum.

Momentum has shown what it can do and in a timely fashion.  Momentum is planning to build One Hundred.  It is building One Victoria.  It has built the Red Condominium, FortyTwo,  and the BPR Lofts.

So far as I know (and I could be really wrong here), Owen and the Lakeshore Group have not done anything in the Region of Waterloo.  Their first(?) foray into this region is to go to the OMB to demand changes to One Hundred.  That just doesn't look good.  Perhaps if they showed some renders of what they would like to build I could warm up to their proposal(s).  As it is, are we supposed to be sympathetic to what they may or may not be able to do?

If Owen and the Lakeshore Group want to intensify development along the LRT I wish them well.  But please show me what you have in mind, other than an OMB challenge.

By the way, I want to welcome Owen to WRC.

I don't see anything wrong with Owen protecting the development potential of his properties. What does Owen's lack of development in the Region have anything to do with his OMB appeal? He's a landowner, not a developer like Momentum.
Reply
#54
Is it unrealistic to hope that the Arthur Pl buildings (except the one fronting on Victoria) stay intact?  With the coming development in the immediate area, it seems to have potential as an entertainment district.  Perhaps the economics of that are not realistic, I don't know.
Reply
#55
(11-18-2014, 12:55 PM)YKF Wrote: I don't see anything wrong with Owen protecting the development potential of his properties. What does Owen's lack of development in the Region have anything to do with his OMB appeal? He's a landowner, not a developer like Momentum.

But the area is slated for development. The OMB is bound to take that into consideration. Still having a bit more separation than presently approved seems sensibly even in terms of intensification.
Reply
#56
The houses on Arthur Pl are in the Warehouse District Zone, what does that zoning look like? Is it the same as the MU zoning on Victoria?
Reply
#57
(11-18-2014, 12:24 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: For every ones sake I really hope Momentum buys Owen out at a reasonable market rate. I think they could use the land and Owen gets to take home a tidy profit.

Not holding my breath though.

Part of the problem is that Owen only owns 2 of the 4 properties.

Owen, is this something that was ever proposed?  Or that you'd consider?
Reply
#58
(11-18-2014, 01:08 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 12:55 PM)YKF Wrote: I don't see anything wrong with Owen protecting the development potential of his properties. What does Owen's lack of development in the Region have anything to do with his OMB appeal? He's a landowner, not a developer like Momentum.

But the area is slated for development. The OMB is bound to take that into consideration. Still having a bit more separation than presently approved seems sensibly even in terms of intensification.

I think there's some confusion here Cool . I was trying to point out that Owen has every right to appeal on the grounds of protecting the development potential of his properties (via an appeal to the OMB with regard to the sideyard setback of one of Momentum's towers). Appealing the sideyard setback does not limit development in the downtown. As stated in The Record and on this thread, Owen is not anti-development, nor is his future appeal anti-development.

It's very common for parties with an interest in a matter (be it land owners, developers, etc.) to appeal a City Council decision even when they are supportive of said decision. In this case, Owen's appeal wouldn't stop this development. At most, it would just push the tower further away from the lot line, while still allowing for development to occur on the Arthur Place lots.
Reply
#59
(11-18-2014, 01:35 PM)Owen Wrote: As for what kind of development will go on Arthur Place - I have no idea.  I'm not a developer!    For all we know, it could end up being Momentum developing there in a few yearsWink  The point is the city's official plan says it should be developed, so the city PLANNING department should make sure their PLAN allows for itWink

Thanks for the clarification.  I finally get what you're trying to do.  Good luck with your endeavour. 

(As an aside, I would like to say that I'm very pleased that the discussions on this site are respectful.  It goes to show that people can debate, argue and clarify without degenerating into name calling.) 
Reply
#60
(11-18-2014, 12:49 PM)jgsz Wrote: If I had to pick a side it would be Momentum.

Momentum has shown what it can do and in a timely fashion. Momentum is planning to build One Hundred. It is building One Victoria. It has built the Red Condominium, FortyTwo, and the BPR Lofts.

So far as I know (and I could be really wrong here), Owen and the Lakeshore Group have not done anything in the Region of Waterloo. Their first(?) foray into this region is to go to the OMB to demand changes to One Hundred. That just doesn't look good. Perhaps if they showed some renders of what they would like to build I could warm up to their proposal(s). As it is, are we supposed to be sympathetic to what they may or may not be able to do?

If Owen and the Lakeshore Group want to intensify development along the LRT I wish them well. But please show me what you have in mind, other than an OMB challenge.

By the way, I want to welcome Owen to WRC.

Well...the fellow has owned these properties and rented them out, it sounds like for some time, and renovated them long before big development money came to downtown Kitchener. So that's not nothing.

I'm usually among the first to dismiss NIMBY types who think that nothing should ever change in a neighbourhood by virtue of the fact that they live there. That's not the case here, and I personally didn't have most of the facts at first, so I thought that was what we were dealing with- the articles in the Record and info elsewhere led me to believe that was the issue. Owen, thanks for posting on here to give us a fuller perspective.

If the issue is that the One Hundred project as proposed will impact the future development opportunities on a piece of adjacent land, the adjacent landowner should obviously be concerned about the value of his property, and we should be concerned about the fact that it will one day limit the intensification we desire. There don't necessarily need to be renders or plans to develop in the near-term- the possibility of development should be retained.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)