Welcome Guest!
WIn 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:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Breithaupt Block Phase III | 10 fl | Proposed
#41
Colour me sceptical about the idea that this proposal would set a precedent that would put the neighbouring residential areas at risk of redevelopment. The only block at "risk", istm, would be the King/Wellington/Moore triangle, which should be redeveloped at higher density in any event.
Reply
#42
(04-09-2018, 01:25 PM)MidTowner Wrote: The "land banking" she identifies certainly is a growing issue in the neighbourhood- the letter-writer identifies 18 Guelph Street, which is zoned R6, so could accommodate a four- or six-plex within existing zoning, but has been boarded up and left to deteriorate. That has had accompanying issues- squatters, and attention from the police- and I think she's right when she assumes that the owner of the property is speculating on an eventual variance being approved for more density.

I would argue (albeit without any evidence) that most of the "land banking" is simply waiting for someone to want to buy the land for enough money, and that most of those properties are not owned by people/companies who actually plan to develop them.

Here is a random sampling of long-term vacant properties from downtown; most of them are not lacking in terms of zoning:
  • King & Cameron (now Drewlo): deteriorating for decades
  • King & Madison: empty for decades
  • Charles across from Kent (former Canadian Tire): empty for decades
  • Charles at Borden: deteriorating for decades
  • Weber & Scott: empty, empty, empty
  • Duke & Young (now City Centre): empty for decades
  • King & Breithaupt (now Google): deteriorating for decades
None of these were vibrant buildings that were allowed to run down. They were either empty in the first place, or they had run-down industrial buildings with no rental demand. Few landlord would want functional buildings to just rot while they wait for the values to improve, they would want to be collecting rent to at least cover costs, and hopefully even make a profit. (132 Queen S is a great example, the new owner renovated the existing building, even though the long-term plan is to tear it down and develop it.)

P.S. I have suggested before, and I will suggest it again: we should NOT be taxing vacant land at a lower rate than developed land. Lower tax rates just make it easier for the owners to sit on vacant land for the long term.
Reply
#43
In the case of 18 Guelph, the property was recently sold (within the last year). So it's a new owner who has acquired the property and not (yet?) pursued plans for redevelopment, and letting the building deteriorate. And it is not a lack of zoning: the site can be redeveloped as zoned with modest density, and I think Dawn has a point that part of it is speculation about more favourable zoning in the future. Her other examples (Sacred Heart, Electrohome) are different cases, of course.

But I agree with you about taxation of vacant land, vacant commercial units, etc.
Reply
#44
(04-09-2018, 02:56 PM)MidTowner Wrote: In the case of 18 Guelph, the property was recently sold (within the last year). So it's a new owner who has acquired the property and not (yet?) pursued plans for redevelopment, and letting the building deteriorate. And it is not a lack of zoning: the site can be redeveloped as zoned with modest density, and I think Dawn has a point that part of it is speculation about more favourable zoning in the future. Her other examples (Sacred Heart, Electrohome) are different cases, of course.

But I agree with you about taxation of vacant land, vacant commercial units, etc.

Indeed, there's a three storey 12-plex (?) next door.
Reply
#45
(04-09-2018, 10:54 AM)jamincan Wrote: There's also nothing wrong with being happy with the status quo and not wanting your neighbourhood to change. If I'm happy in my home and neighbourhood, why shouldn't I be concerned about these changes? NIMBY is really when people reject a change, but then suggest it's better off somewhere else. This is normally an issue with social services, the classics being halfway houses, needle exchanges, homeless shelters, soup kitchens etc. People don't want to appear unsympathetic, so instead of voicing their real concerns, they argue that it's better off somewhere else rather than near their homes. In this case, it seems that people aren't inherently opposed to density, they just disagree with the form.

But the problem with the "NIMBY" is that you'll find it in just about every neighbourhood.

In this particular case, this area is really ground zero for intensification. It doesn't make sense not to approve it. Though as I mentioned earlier, I really don't blame the home owners in that area, but it is what it is. The city needs to approve this.
Reply
#46
dawn parker = biased because shes a resident. i wonder if she didnt live in the area if shed have the same opinions.....
Reply
#47
The right decision was made. Excited to see what the final site plan looks like.
Reply
#48
(04-09-2018, 11:25 PM)welltoldtales Wrote: The right decision was made. Excited to see what the final site plan looks like.

what was the decision??
Reply
#49
Breithaupt Block Phase 3 is a go.
Reply
#50
(04-10-2018, 08:19 AM)welltoldtales Wrote: Breithaupt Block Phase 3 is a go.

Are there major changes to the plan?
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Arrow Lofts phase II | 15 fl | U/C tomh009 70 24,841 09-18-2018, 04:55 PM
Last Post: KevinL
  American Block Redevelopment | 3 fl | Proposed taylortbb 78 33,086 08-09-2018, 10:48 AM
Last Post: tomh009
  The Breithaupt Block | 16 m | 4 fl | Complete Spokes 174 119,357 04-19-2018, 05:54 AM
Last Post: rangersfan

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