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 Block | 5 fl | U/C
#1
The Block
72-80 Balsam Street; 265, 269, 273, 275 Larch Street; 69-77 Hickory Street West; 260-272 Hemlock Street, Waterloo
Developer: Schembri Property Management (The Block inc)
Architect: SRM Architects
The project: New low-rise buildings to be constructed consisting of 324 residential units, primarily 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units.


[Image: wkpoWqI.png]


[Image: b0TFoa4.png]
Location:


[Image: SCHSAZP.png]
Reply
#2
Last time I saw this there was a single holdover house, which from the list above is 271 Larch St. Any one knows if this is still the case?
Reply
#3
(11-22-2014, 11:18 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Last time I saw this there was a single holdover house, which from the list above is 271 Larch St. Any one knows if this is still the case?

Yes, this is still the case.
Reply
#4
This might be a cultural thing, but where I come from this would become a case of eminent domain and the house would be expropriated at full market value. On the one hand I appreciate the respect for private property here, on the other hand I don't like the power of a single person to sabotage and uglify an entire neighbourhood by breaking up this new development. We interfere all the time with private rights through zoning as it is, so why not add one more?
Reply
#5
(11-24-2014, 12:47 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: This might be a cultural thing, but where I come from this would become a case of eminent domain and the house would be expropriated at full market value. On the one hand I appreciate the respect for private property here, on the other hand I don't like the power of a single person to sabotage and uglify an entire neighbourhood by breaking up this new development. We interfere all the time with private rights through zoning as it is, so why not add one more?

I fully appreciate where you are coming from on this.  However, I would never support undermining the rights of ownership.  It seems to me this is a slippery slope - its use is obvious in this instance but the ongoing practice of it could be misused.

Rights of ownership in Canada are some of the strongest in the world.  It is a cornerstone to our wealth and economic stability.

Let the private sector work on land assembly.  
Reply
#6
(11-24-2014, 01:02 PM)REnerd Wrote:
(11-24-2014, 12:47 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: This might be a cultural thing, but where I come from this would become a case of eminent domain and the house would be expropriated at full market value. On the one hand I appreciate the respect for private property here, on the other hand I don't like the power of a single person to sabotage and uglify an entire neighbourhood by breaking up this new development. We interfere all the time with private rights through zoning as it is, so why not add one more?

I fully appreciate where you are coming from on this.  However, I would never support undermining the rights of ownership.  It seems to me this is a slippery slope - its use is obvious in this instance but the ongoing practice of it could be misused.

Rights of ownership in Canada are some of the strongest in the world.  It is a cornerstone to our wealth and economic stability.

Let the private sector work on land assembly.  

More libertarian than the US? From Wikipedia on eminent domain: "The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit."
Reply
#7
I really don't think that the ability to develop the land as a full block (as opposed to, say, two parcels on either side of the objector) is anywhere close to the level of "public benefit" required for expropriation.
Reply
#8
I remember reading articles that plenty of US properties were being expropriated under the guise of 'public benefit' for private developments. It seemed very shady and typically American.
Reply
#9
(11-24-2014, 02:32 PM)Markster Wrote: I really don't think that the ability to develop the land as a full block (as opposed to, say, two parcels on either side of the objector) is anywhere close to the level of "public benefit" required for expropriation.

This. Honestly, I'm much more interested in changing the zoning rules so even one property can be usefully redeveloped than on enforcing consolidation by any means.
Reply
#10
Is there a site plan for this? Such a disappointment... just look at that 'beautiful' mountain of grass between the sidewalk and the building. Wasn't proper relation to the street in the Northdale design guidelines?

At least the design is 20% better than their old developments, oh well.
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