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.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
115-117 Erb St E | 40m | 12 fl | Proposed
#1
   

94 units
140 bedrooms
12 storeys in front, 6 in back
1.19 parking spaces/units

City of Waterloo project information page
Renderings
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#2
This right next to Waterpark Place, for those trying to figure out where this is located.
Reply
#3
This is rental?
Reply
#4
(11-05-2017, 06:03 PM)panamaniac Wrote: This is rental?

The documents describe it as a "residential apartment building" so I think you are correct.
Reply
#5
Basically at Erb and Moore, for those who are like me, and couldn't exactly picture it.
Reply
#6
(11-06-2017, 10:34 AM)Markster Wrote: Basically at Erb and Moore, for those who are like me, and couldn't exactly picture it.

Across the street from the Heartland Farm Mutual building. Smile
Reply
#7
I am only slightly joking, but in situations like this, my question of clarification is always "which neighbourhood assotiation is it which will be leading the charge of opposition?"
Reply
#8
This time there are no single-family home neighbours! Waterpark Place on one side and behind, and a triplex (I think) on the other side.  A commercial building on the other side of the street.

And the variances they are asking for are quite minimal.
Reply
#9
I want to agree with you, but there is only one neighbour to the proposal for Roger and Moore, and a great proximity to LRT, and it's a much smaller/shorter proposal, and it's still been panned by its nearby residents, so...
Reply
#10
(11-06-2017, 02:38 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I am only slightly joking, but in situations like this, my question of clarification is always "which neighbourhood assotiation is it which will be leading the charge of opposition?"

MANA is the answer you're looking for. Also the property line will border the backyard for a number of single families on Moore. Not to mention all the single family homes sight lines of the Waterpark Place. I would expect traffic concerns from any homes on Tweed as well, since that would be the major access for westbound traffic.
Reply
#11
(11-06-2017, 03:19 PM)Andy Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 02:38 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I am only slightly joking, but in situations like this, my question of clarification is always "which neighbourhood assotiation is it which will be leading the charge of opposition?"

MANA is the answer you're looking for. Also the property line will border the backyard for a number of single families on Moore. Not to mention all the single family homes sight lines of the Waterpark Place. I would expect traffic concerns from any homes on Tweed as well, since that would be the major access for westbound traffic.

5, maybe 7 homes on Moore Ave S. They all have deep backyards and the back of the structure will be 6 stories so based on the fact that this is a city I would consider opposition based on the very limited impact on 6 houses to be ill-considered.

I’m more concerned about traffic on Tweed. One possible fix might be to improve the corner of Laurel, Peppler, and Erb. If traffic turning left from Peppler/Laurel onto Erb and from Erb onto Peppler or Laurel didn’t have to cross, that intersection would work better and probably be safer. This is a case where I think traffic over a larger area needs to be considered, not just the intersection itself.
Reply
#12
Ahhh, so I was wrong!  The land assembly includes a third lot behind 115 and 117, and that does indeed border some additional houses.  The property line is about 25.5m away from the back of those houses (and the new building itself will be 12.5m away, for a total distance of 38m) but it may indeed trigger some complaints.  Shadow analysis doesn't show a big impact, though, given the much-taller Waterpark Place next to it.

   
Reply
#13
(11-06-2017, 04:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m more concerned about traffic on Tweed. One possible fix might be to improve the corner of Laurel, Peppler, and Erb. If traffic turning left from Peppler/Laurel onto Erb and from Erb onto Peppler or Laurel didn’t have to cross, that intersection would work better and probably be safer. This is a case where I think traffic over a larger area needs to be considered, not just the intersection itself.

Or, or, they could just make Erb and Bridgeport both two-way.

Angel
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#14
(11-06-2017, 10:09 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 04:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m more concerned about traffic on Tweed. One possible fix might be to improve the corner of Laurel, Peppler, and Erb. If traffic turning left from Peppler/Laurel onto Erb and from Erb onto Peppler or Laurel didn’t have to cross, that intersection would work better and probably be safer. This is a case where I think traffic over a larger area needs to be considered, not just the intersection itself.

Or, or, they could just make Erb and Bridgeport both two-way.

Angel

That definitely does qualify as considering traffic over a larger area. Smile
Reply
#15
Overall, it's a good area for rentals though. I live pretty close by, and the combination of bridgeport plaza and uptown in walking distance is nice. Plus highway access is pretty easy with bridgeport/erb.

Another possible traffic concern could be increased traffic on Moore in front of the elementary school. It's pretty busy as is, and might be good ammo for any objections.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)