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
#61
Sorry, I missed the sarcasm! Smile
Reply
#62
(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....

Double/triple the new developer infrastructure costs for additional building ... two or three below ground structures versus one.

Building intensification is required for future downtown or midtown growth > 30-50 years into future.
Reply
#63
Did anyone attend the council meeting the other night? Council deferred a decision until June- I'm wondering how council members tried to spin that one. From what I heard about the delegations that were planned in opposition, they were pretty intractable problems that were brought up. I'm not sure what changes could be made between now and June that would appease those in opposition. Were there actually many honest questions brought up that could be answered, that haven't?
Reply
#64
I will be really annoyed if this project is not approved as is.  

The city is growing and developments like this is exactly what is needed this close to the major transit hub and King Street.  The real issue here is not this project but single family homes next to the transit hub.  The city made a mistake by allowing residents next to major roads, transit hubs and downtowns to have a say in what will be developed.  They will always revert to NIMBYism and generally don't want anything intense to be built next to them.  I wouldn't either.  But that's not managing growth.  That's just an investment in keeping everything as it is.  We should be thrilled that someone is willing to build offices that will bring more jobs downtown.   I suppose they could always say, "screw you, we'll build it in Toronto."  

I will be watching how politicians vote on this project.  I will not support those who are opposed.
Reply
#65
I think that the City needs to figure out how to properly message the fact that they're willfully violating PARTS.

I hope they do, and I'm definitely of the opinion that the PARTS decisions for this part of the world were very poorly done, but it smells pretty bad for a planning structure to be put in place and then just a couple of years later have it abandoned. That's pretty straightforward erosion of trust. The Council members are in a bad place: Keep their word and block a high profile development, or break their word and build a development that achieves almost all their stated density goals.

I think the deferral is because they're still squirming. Uh, deciding.
Reply
#66
(04-18-2018, 10:06 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Did anyone attend the council meeting the other night? Council deferred a decision until June- I'm wondering how council members tried to spin that one. From what I heard about the delegations that were planned in opposition, they were pretty intractable problems that were brought up. I'm not sure what changes could be made between now and June that would appease those in opposition. Were there actually many honest questions brought up that could be answered, that haven't?
 
Was there another council meeting? I thought it had already been approved per the Record article posted a bit earlier in this thread.
Reply
#67
(04-18-2018, 12:22 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: I think that the City needs to figure out how to properly message the fact that they're willfully violating PARTS.

I hope they do, and I'm definitely of the opinion that the PARTS decisions for this part of the world were very poorly done, but it smells pretty bad for a planning structure to be put in place and then just a couple of years later have it abandoned. That's pretty straightforward erosion of trust. The Council members are in a bad place: Keep their word and block a high profile development, or break their word and build a development that achieves almost all their stated density goals.

I think the deferral is because they're still squirming. Uh, deciding.

Perhaps what they're going to do so amend PARTS so that it has no bearing on this area. Really, why did it include that area? It's King and Victoria...

Hopefully the right decision will be made. Nothing "Innovation" about having low rise in that area.
Reply
#68
(04-18-2018, 12:42 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 10:06 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Did anyone attend the council meeting the other night? Council deferred a decision until June- I'm wondering how council members tried to spin that one. From what I heard about the delegations that were planned in opposition, they were pretty intractable problems that were brought up. I'm not sure what changes could be made between now and June that would appease those in opposition. Were there actually many honest questions brought up that could be answered, that haven't?
 
Was there another council meeting? I thought it had already been approved per the Record article posted a bit earlier in this thread.

They were in there past midnight Monday night. I was elsewhere at city hall but didn't realize they were talking about the block, but whenever meetings go beyond midnight like that, it's usually contentious.
Reply
#69
This article says it was approved by council, reposting below, or was this deck overturned?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/838...-own-plan/
Reply
#70
(04-18-2018, 05:32 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 12:42 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: Was there another council meeting? I thought it had already been approved per the Record article posted a bit earlier in this thread.

They were in there past midnight Monday night.  I was elsewhere at city hall but didn't realize they were talking about the block, but whenever meetings go beyond midnight like that, it's usually contentious.

I checked the council meeting agendas:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WeblinkExt/Brows...504&dbid=0

This project was not on the agenda for the council meeting on the 16th.

However, there was an in-camera meeting regarding some legal issues. It's quite possible that such a confidential meeting ran late ...
Reply
#71
(04-18-2018, 06:58 PM)rangersfan Wrote: This article says it was approved by council, reposting below, or was this deck overturned?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/838...-own-plan/

To put it nicely, the city sure knows how to screw things up.
Reply
#72
(04-18-2018, 07:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 05:32 PM)jeffster Wrote: They were in there past midnight Monday night.  I was elsewhere at city hall but didn't realize they were talking about the block, but whenever meetings go beyond midnight like that, it's usually contentious.

I checked the council meeting agendas:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WeblinkExt/Brows...504&dbid=0

This project was not on the agenda for the council meeting on the 16th.

However, there was an in-camera meeting regarding some legal issues. It's quite possible that such a confidential meeting ran late ...

It is the agenda, on the very last page. Their only task was to ratify the decision by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee, which was to approve the request (as referenced in that article in the Record).
Reply
#73
(04-18-2018, 07:35 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 06:58 PM)rangersfan Wrote: This article says it was approved by council, reposting below, or was this deck overturned?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/838...-own-plan/

To put it nicely, the city sure knows how to screw things up.

No kidding. It's crazy to delay this and it would be insanity not to ultimately approve it. 

1) High end architectural design 2) replacing a surface level parking lot while being 3) spitting distance from Central Station and 4) creating 200-500 new $100,000+/year tech jobs.
Reply
#74
(04-18-2018, 07:53 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 07:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I checked the council meeting agendas:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WeblinkExt/Brows...504&dbid=0

This project was not on the agenda for the council meeting on the 16th.

However, there was an in-camera meeting regarding some legal issues. It's quite possible that such a confidential meeting ran late ...

It is the agenda, on the very last page. Their only task was to ratify the decision by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee, which was to approve the request (as referenced in that article in the Record).

Ahhh … it was hiding under "reports of committees"! Sorry about the confusion. Sad
Reply
#75
Most cities would be bending over backwards to approve this project, I really think that there was a massive mistake in the PARTS project if this area had to be restricted to a height of 14m.
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 a news reporting service, opportunities for event promotion and other user-driven content complemented 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