Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


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
The Breithaupt Block Phase III | 12 fl | Proposed
#16
In my comments above I don't mean to push aside residents concerns.
I can see shadow impacts having a significant impact on a property in general especially if the people impacted intend on gardening for example. Also traffic impacts, if you live on a quiet 2 Lane street and it becomes a 4 lane thoroughfare I'd be significantly concerned, especially if previously my children played in the street.

Now having said that we need to balance the needs of residents with the needs of the city. If you make it too restrictive to build in your city's core or make it hard to build desirable developments you loose the opportunity to bring more people, jobs and amenities to the area where it makes most sense. In those cases the developments either don't happen or go somewhere where they are wanted, losing the city the tax dollars and other associated benefits.
Reply
#17
(04-06-2018, 12:26 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 11:28 AM)tomh009 Wrote: The tower is tall, and the property abuts (a fairly small number of) single-family residential -- but the tower itself does not abut those properties. The parts abutting residential consist of the mid-rise office building and the parkette (shadow study shown below).  And it should be noted that the developer did make a number of changes to address the original resident concerns, and the shadow impact, for example, is far smaller than in the original.

You're right about this. Actually, the properties shown as abutting in the rendering you posted are mostly multiple dwelling or duplexes. It only directly abuts (actually, across the laneway) four single-family residences.

I think the accommodations made should be sufficient for anyone living on Wellington. A lot of the complaints come from people further into the neighbourhood, and I really wonder what their motivation is. Shanley, for instance, is a much different street than Wellington. Wellington is quite busy with traffic now. And this site is a very short walk from King and Victoria.

As someone who lives in Mount Hope, though, my opinion is the same as welltoldtales: we need more amenities, and to justify them there will need to be more residents or employees, or ideally both. So this is a great development for the neighbourhood.

(04-06-2018, 12:44 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: There's something wrong about "innovation corridor" being limited to 14m in height, more than a bit of contradiction.

What is the contradiction?  I'm not seeing it.
Reply
#18
(04-06-2018, 01:50 PM)welltoldtales Wrote: Pretty positive the Tannery is an average height of 14 meters. As is the Google building. Liberty village as well mostly contains 3-4 story former factories that originally drew the tech companies. They have been rezoned and are now building large condos (and tech companies are moving out).

From what I have seen 3-4 stories is good height for development.

It all depends on what we want our city to be in the future. Of course we could limit the core to 3-4 stories and avoid all neighbourhood backlash. But we'll run out of available real estate much sooner, and then either we'll need to start encroaching on existing single-family residential neighbourhoods, or go back to extending the suburbia.

In my personal view, intensification generally means (and needs) new construction taller than 3-4 stories. Conversions of existing factory buildings are a different story, of course.

In this particular case, we're replacing a surface parking lot, the development is aligned with the PARTS strategy, is located half a block from King St (and near an LRT station), and the developer has made a number of changes to address neighbourhood concerns. I respect the residents' opinions but I believe that in this case the positives far outweigh the negatives, and I do hope the city council draws the same conclusion.
Reply
#19
(04-06-2018, 02:40 PM)rangersfan Wrote: In my comments above I don't mean to push aside residents concerns.
I can see shadow impacts having a significant impact on a property in general especially if the people impacted intend on gardening for example.  Also traffic impacts, if you live on a quiet 2 Lane street and it becomes a 4 lane thoroughfare I'd be significantly concerned, especially if previously my children played in the street.

Now having said that we need to balance the needs of residents with the needs of the city. If you make it too restrictive to build in your city's core or make it hard to build desirable developments you loose the opportunity to bring more people, jobs and amenities to the area where it makes most sense. In those cases the developments either don't happen or go somewhere where they are wanted, losing the city the tax dollars and other associated benefits.

In this case, we're not talking about quiet two lane streets, and not talking about any streets turning into four lane thoroughfares. I agree that such a change would be significant. There are no children playing in the street on either Wellington or Moore.

I can see the arguments about the impacts of shadow, and I'm glad that shadow analysis is undertaken for developments like this. For sure the residents on Wellington are justified in their concern about shading, but I think the changes have addressed those concerns quite well.
Reply
#20
(04-06-2018, 01:50 PM)welltoldtales Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 12:44 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: There's something wrong about "innovation corridor" being limited to 14m in height, more than a bit of contradiction.

Pretty positive the Tannery is an average height of 14 meters. As is the Google building. Liberty village as well mostly contains 3-4 story former factories that originally drew the tech companies. They have been rezoned and are now building large condos (and tech companies are moving out).

From what I have seen 3-4 stories is good height for development.

You're right from a residential point of view. I wouldn't want 63 meters of glass and concrete blocking my view. However, it'll likely be approved since this in on an LRT line, and intensification needs to be done around that area. Really, this is ground central for the LRT, people living in that area will be surrounded by castle in the sky in about 10 years or so.
Reply
#21
The project is up for approval tomorrow, hoping to see this project go through as designed.
Reply
#22
(04-08-2018, 03:14 AM)jeffster Wrote: You're right from a residential point of view. I wouldn't want 63 meters of glass and concrete blocking my view. However, it'll likely be approved since this in on an LRT line, and intensification needs to be done around that area. Really, this is ground central for the LRT, people living in that area will be surrounded by castle in the sky in about 10 years or so.

Out of curiosity, blocking your view of what? I can see that, if you have a view of something (I don't know what- anything, I guess) unique, there might be a complaint if you can't see it any more. I can see, in downtown Toronto, losing a view of the lake because of a wide building across the street might be worth a complaint. But, in this case, are we just talking about losing a view of the sky in one direction? Can't you just look in the other direction? Our neighbourhood won't actually be "surrounded" for a long, long while.
Reply
#23
Is there any doubt that the project will be approved? I noticed that yesterday's Record op-ed on the project sat so firmly on the fence that they must have been in pain. They did seem to hope that a compromise would be found that would satisfy everyone. Good luck with that ...
Reply
#24
(04-08-2018, 01:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is there any doubt that the project will be approved?  I noticed that yesterday's Record op-ed on the project sat so firmly on the fence that they must have been in pain.  They did seem to hope that a compromise would be found that would satisfy everyone.  Good luck with that ...

I believe the "compromise" has already been proposed, the site has been redesigned to make substantial improvements.  

To reject this would be foolhardy.  It would be another case of council yielding to NIMBYs but in reality screwing them over, because chances are, they would win at an OMB hearing, and then all those improvements that were proposed, well, no budget left for those after fighting an OMB hearing.  (Not to mention taxpayer dollars being spent to fight it).

That being said, I have no idea what council will do.  They seem to do sensible things downtown and in the transit corridor, but senseless things other times in other places.
Reply
#25
(04-08-2018, 03:25 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-08-2018, 01:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is there any doubt that the project will be approved?  I noticed that yesterday's Record op-ed on the project sat so firmly on the fence that they must have been in pain.  They did seem to hope that a compromise would be found that would satisfy everyone.  Good luck with that ...

I believe the "compromise" has already been proposed, the site has been redesigned to make substantial improvements.  

To reject this would be foolhardy.  It would be another case of council yielding to NIMBYs but in reality screwing them over, because chances are, they would win at an OMB hearing, and then all those improvements that were proposed, well, no budget left for those after fighting an OMB hearing.  (Not to mention taxpayer dollars being spent to fight it).

That being said, I have no idea what council will do.  They seem to do sensible things downtown and in the transit corridor, but senseless things other times in other places.

The OMB is history.  So it's hard to say what will happen.
Reply
#26
I wonder why they didn't design two shorter buildings more in line with the original buildings across the street.  They could have put 3-4 stories on top of the parking garage and taken the tower down a few floors to reduce the extreme difference from tower to single family residences.

Seems there is lots of land there to get the amount of building they want....
Reply
#27
(04-08-2018, 12:31 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(04-08-2018, 03:14 AM)jeffster Wrote: You're right from a residential point of view. I wouldn't want 63 meters of glass and concrete blocking my view. However, it'll likely be approved since this in on an LRT line, and intensification needs to be done around that area. Really, this is ground central for the LRT, people living in that area will be surrounded by castle in the sky in about 10 years or so.

Out of curiosity, blocking your view of what? I can see that, if you have a view of something (I don't know what- anything, I guess) unique, there might be a complaint if you can't see it any more. I can see, in downtown Toronto, losing a view of the lake because of a wide building across the street might be worth a complaint. But, in this case, are we just talking about losing a view of the sky in one direction? Can't you just look in the other direction? Our neighbourhood won't actually be "surrounded" for a long, long while.

I'm thinking that they'll be missing the afternoon sun, more importantly, during BBQ season. Though I might be wrong.

Personally though, even if I was in that area, I wouldn't be fighting it. I'd think my home would be worth so much more now, being close to Google and to the central station, it makes it worth while.
Reply
#28
(04-08-2018, 04:04 PM)REnerd Wrote: I wonder why they didn't design two shorter buildings more in line with the original buildings across the street.  They could have put 3-4 stories on top of the parking garage and taken the tower down a few floors to reduce the extreme difference from tower to single family residences.

Seems there is lots of land there to get the amount of building they want....

Which could be a worse design.

Spreading the tower out will block out sun more of the time.  And you'd end up with a monolithic design instead of a more stepped design.  You're also moving workplaces away from King and the LRT.  Depending on how extreme you take it, you might also lose the park.

And to gain what?  I seriously doubt that such a change would have mitigated NIMBY responses.

I'm not saying that a different design couldn't work, I'm just saying that I don't think it would change anything to do with opposition, and isn't necessarily an objectively better design anyway.
Reply
#29
(04-08-2018, 04:04 PM)REnerd Wrote: I wonder why they didn't design two shorter buildings more in line with the original buildings across the street.  They could have put 3-4 stories on top of the parking garage and taken the tower down a few floors to reduce the extreme difference from tower to single family residences.

Seems there is lots of land there to get the amount of building they want....

(04-08-2018, 04:18 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-08-2018, 12:31 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Out of curiosity, blocking your view of what? I can see that, if you have a view of something (I don't know what- anything, I guess) unique, there might be a complaint if you can't see it any more. I can see, in downtown Toronto, losing a view of the lake because of a wide building across the street might be worth a complaint. But, in this case, are we just talking about losing a view of the sky in one direction? Can't you just look in the other direction? Our neighbourhood won't actually be "surrounded" for a long, long while.

I'm thinking that they'll be missing the afternoon sun, more importantly, during BBQ season. Though I might be wrong.

Personally though, even if I was in that area, I wouldn't be fighting it. I'd think my home would be worth so much more now, being close to Google and to the central station, it makes it worth while.

I haven't seen the shadow projections but, unless their BBQ season runs from December to March, I think you're wrong.  The revised proposal for the tower seems to result in no shadowing on residential properties from mid-day on in the summer.
Reply
#30
(04-08-2018, 03:55 PM)jgsz Wrote: The OMB is history.  So it's hard to say what will happen.

Yes, OMB is now LPAT. Mostly the same body but with different rules. Simpler yes/no answers -- and hopefully also quicker decisions.

Quote:Before: The OMB would hear arguments from both sides and make decisions based on what it believed to be the "best" planning outcome, at times overruling the decisions of local councils.

Now: The LPAT will answer a simple "yes or no" legal test — does the proposal follow the city's official planning rules? If not, the matter will be sent back to municipal councils to issue another decision. The tribunal will not make planning decisions itself.
Reply


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

              Advertise