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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Growing Together (City of Kitchener)
#1
The city of Kitchener has been working on updating the existing zoning in the MTSAs around the downtown core. This new project is called "Growing Together" it is based off of the work the city has already done through PARTs (Planning Around Rapid Transit) as well as the NPR (Neighborhood Planning Review) that followed. The new Growing Together is based on a combination of PARTs, NPR, ROPA6 (Regional Official Plan Amendment 6) as well as new direction from the province which includes a target of 35000 new units by the end of 2031 as well as other changes to the Planning Act.
 
In March and April the city conducted community workshops in order to get citizen input on the project, these included events at the Market as well as at community centers. Citizens could put different plastic models of buildings down on a map to indicate the type of density they would like for specific areas as well as different heights. The following presentation was shown at these workshops. Presentation 

The city compiled the locations and densities and did basic analysis on all of the individual workshops and all of them collectively, this included a event that was solely made up of city councilors. What was found is that most people are wanting growth to occur in the UGC (urban growth center) which is made up of Central, Victoria Park, City Hall, Queen, and Frederick Stations. Stations outside of the UGC such as Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden and Mill all were not hitting the desired densities that are outline by the province and region for MTSAs. This desired density is 160 residents and jobs per hectare. The document can be found here. Results

This document contains all of the computer models that were developed from the workshops, the computer models also include existing proposals to the city, notably 50 Borden Ave as well as 417 King St W are missing as these were yet to be formally submitted. Models

Staff have now used this data to make a draft update to the current zoning throughout the MTSA core. This draft plan abolishes all existing residential/commercial/industrial zoning (including the restrictive zoning for single family homes) and proposes 4 new levels of zoning. What is common throughout all of these zones is no vehicular parking minimums, no maximum FSR, it will limit built form through set backs, step backs, as well as building length and height.

The first level is SGA-1 (Strategic Growth Area-1) which is where low rise and typical missing middle would be found, this is limited to low rise height, based upon the pictures in the document roughly 4 floors in height.
The second level is SGA-2 which is mid rise, this is limited to mid rise height, based upon the document building such as Barra on Queen, Market Flats and 387 King would fall in this zone.
The third is SGA-3 which would be high rise restricted, based upon the documents about 20 floors would be the cut off as building such as 1 Vic and The Bright Building are within this zone
Finally there is the SGA-4 zone which would be normal high rise where there is no restrictions in the height of buildings, so buildings such as 50 Borden and 417 King St W would fall into it.

These zones are fairly evenly dispersed within the MTSAs as 24% of land is SGA-1, 25% is SGA-2, 22% is SGA-3 and 29% is SGA-4. These seems to mean that there will be a lot less ZBA/OPA applications for height as well as less parking. The document can be found here. Draft Approach

This is the Draft Zoning Map for the MTSAs, it can also be found on page 22 of the draft plan.
   

The next step in the process is to go to council with the final approach where it will either be discussed/changed/approved. It does not say when this is expected to occur.
Reply


#2
Without digging into the details of the map, I really like simplifying the zoning into just four different zones, and with fewer restrictions in each one. They should be doing that for the entire city, though.

Again, at the high level, the density zoning on the above map looks OK. Low-rise on King St in the core, high-rise+ on Charles and Duke, and high-rise on Weber, and then on King St E. There appears to be a high-rise+ cluster in the Charles-Borden-King-Ottawa area, which definitely is on the cusp or redevelopment.
Reply
#3
Your links are busted. You'll want to edit your post and delete everything after .pdf? in the links.

Anyway it seems like the city has the same line of thought I do. Nearly every area I consider suitable for high density development they have also agreed. That's good news. Now they just need to get the ball rolling and work on rezoning things or at least easing the process for developments so they aren't stuck in limbo.
Reply
#4
The links should now all work. If they still don't the documents and progress updates can all be found on the Engage Waterloo Region website.

Growing Together | EngageWR
Reply
#5
I realize its not the mandate of this program to make the calls on spaces to convert to more parks, but it should highlight the fact that there is just nowhere near enough space currently allocated for this density. I think the city and region really need to reconsider any redevelopment scenarios that do no utilize their small remaining amount of downtown on this map for more green space (e.g - Bramm St, disused helipad/OSC, several of the surface parking lots). At current land values and this density plan, no private owner is making a dedication of space that is going to make a difference.
Reply
#6
I think a fundamental problem is still cars...leaving aside the fact that we have huge parking lots that could be parks, I was never really comfortable in spaces like the small parklets on major roads. I couldn't let my little one just play, I had to watch her like a hawk. Larger parks like city centre and victoria were fine, I could stand between her and the road and it was pretty safe feeling. But until our roads are car free, no amount of parklets will help downtown.

That being said, I never really felt that downtown was lacking for parks, there are quite a few but I feel the ones that are there are highly underutilized.

FWIW...the Netherlands definitely does have more playgrounds, there are probably 5 small ones a 5 minute walk from my house, and 4 large ones within 10-15 minutes. But again, they don't really need much space, because you can literally put them in the middle of a cul-de-sac and it's fine.

As for large parks, there are really only two big parks in the city. But downtown, in the centre, there are basically zero parks. The closest thing to a park is the grassy field next to the city hall but it isn't called a park. But you don't really notice it, because streets are so green and treed already, and because they are almost entirely free of cars, the entire city centre basically functions a lot like a park. All the things you'd enjoy a park for (again not a playground) is something you'd just do in the streets.

If King St. was completely pedestrianised, would that solve a lot of the demand for park space (not necessarily playground space).

I'm starting to feel like parks are car infrastructure too.
Reply
#7
Partly agree - on the same page that removing cars from downtown areas would be better than a smattering of new parkettes. The noise levels, air quality, and ability to more aggressively streetscape are all wins there.

I guess that is my point that the only remaining big blocks that are "free land" for the city to repurpose vs. buy from private owners should be seriously considered for park use. Victoria Park is very busy, especially the play and picnic areas. I think that until a longer arc of efforts do (if ever) pay off to make DTK less car choked, we need another large park with amenities near these new developments. Waterloo Park's update has really levelled up its ability to serve more people and we could use some of that in DTK as well.
Reply


#8
That map is also slightly misleading because they've marked the cemetaries as 'other greenspace,' but these are not greenspaces that we can do anything with. We can renovate parks and make them more approachable or useful to more people, but cemetaries are just... there. If we removed those sections of green from the map, the park deficit becomes even more apparent.

I have been telling my ward councilor and making suggestions to the city that Civic Centre Park (between Centre in the Square and the KPL) needs to be expanded by taking over the surface lot at Ahrens, and even partially into the surface lot off Otto. You could nearly double the size of the park pretty easily by expanding all the way to Ahrens St, and it already gets a lot of visitors and lots of beautiful full-grown trees. It could be a 'major' park on the north side of the LRT to balance out Victoria Park on the south side.
Reply
#9
Victoria Park play and picnic areas are busy on (nice) evenings and weekends, but at least the play areas usually still have room for additional kids. Other areas of the park are much, much less busy, though. Expansion next to West Ave would be the best option, really.

Cemeteries can still be used for walking or running--and quite a few people do do that.

The Civic Centre Park suggestion is a good one.
Reply
#10
Yeah, we frequented Civic Centre a lot, and the parking lot always bugged me. It sits empty most of the time, and it's like...come on guys...this is crap.

Victoria park definitely has massive expansion opportunities, Woodside park as well.

But the question is what do we want to do with them, what are the needs? I don't think a lot of space is necessarily needed.
Reply
#11
(08-28-2023, 12:07 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah, we frequented Civic Centre a lot, and the parking lot always bugged me. It sits empty most of the time, and it's like...come on guys...this is crap.

Victoria park definitely has massive expansion opportunities, Woodside park as well.

But the question is what do we want to do with them, what are the needs? I don't think a lot of space is necessarily needed.

I think we need some more active spaces. I live near Weber Park, and the tennis court and basketball court are used nearly non-stop throughout the summer evenings and weekends. Some nicely shaded trails through the trees would also be good for parks that are relatively larger; a place for a leisurely walk that's away from traffic.
Reply
#12
(08-28-2023, 12:13 PM)SF22 Wrote: Some nicely shaded trails through the trees would also be good for parks that are relatively larger; a place for a leisurely walk that's away from traffic.

As Dan pointed out, not everything needs a park. We do have some nice trails through our parks, plus IHT and Spur Line, but we also have a lot of very nice residential neighbourhoods with low traffic, that are quite lovely for those leisurely strolls.
Reply
#13
Maybe the city/region can take some of those absurdly high park fees on new development and maybe provide some parks?
local cambridge weirdo
Reply


#14
(08-28-2023, 01:10 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-28-2023, 12:13 PM)SF22 Wrote: Some nicely shaded trails through the trees would also be good for parks that are relatively larger; a place for a leisurely walk that's away from traffic.

As Dan pointed out, not everything needs a park. We do have some nice trails through our parks, plus IHT and Spur Line, but we also have a lot of very nice residential neighbourhoods with low traffic, that are quite lovely for those leisurely strolls.

I mostly agree with this, but as someone with a toddler, I find that there are very few places where I feel comfortable letting go of his hand and knowing he can't be out in traffic within 3 seconds. Parks are one of the few places where he can run off and it's fine. When we walk along a trail that's off the road, that gives us some space to let him explore safely.
Reply
#15
(08-28-2023, 10:25 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Victoria Park play and picnic areas are busy on (nice) evenings and weekends, but at least the play areas usually still have room for additional kids. Other areas of the park are much, much less busy, though. Expansion next to West Ave would be the best option, really.

Cemeteries can still be used for walking or running--and quite a few people do do that.

The Civic Centre Park suggestion is a good one.

I came to add a few thoughts but they are exactly the same as Tom's! Smile
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



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