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:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Caroline St Private Residences | 22 fl | U/C
Despite councillors' song and dance, I don't think that there is any real doubt but that the project will go ahead. Apart from anything else, the residents in 144 are desperate and are not without influence at City Hall....
Reply
Ah, the millstone around the neck of the Iron Horse...

The article mentions "less parking". I looked through the reports and found no mention of parking supply apart from the continued provision of 60 parking spaces for Bauer businesses. So I don't know whether the overall supply is lower, or the ratio of parking spaces is lower because of the extra floors' worth of units.

Obviously the developer's interest is to get this built with maximum return. The 144 Park residents' interest is likely to get this built, in order to get the shared facilities and "guest parking" they say is in the planned building (wonder how that plays with the whole less parking point I mentioned above.

And of course then there's the inevitable reroute of the Iron Horse through a concrete canyon. The land swap is done, hard to see how this is not going to happen.

If this project continues to be a thorn in Waterloo city council's side, then I admit to a small satisfaction. They allowed this project to mess with a major trail and institutionalize Bauer's parking mismanagement. I wasn't impressed.

But, we're reaching the point where I'd say just get it built. The area can support density, rapid transit will be coming online, and the long-suffering residents of 144 Park will benefit (except for those with interrupted views).
Reply
I'll never understand this regions fear of allowing height to be build in downtown/uptown. "We want to attract more people to the core" but let's only approve of mediocre projects, which are now starting to not be worth the investment (if the developers are telling the truth). If you want people in the cores, build the homes required to permit that. Don't delegate them to being suburban developments. Toronto didn't become Toronto by limiting density height in the downtown and making people build elsewhere, for example.
Reply
(06-29-2016, 10:11 PM)ac3r Wrote: I'll never understand this regions fear of allowing height to be build in downtown/uptown. "We want to attract more people to the core" but let's only approve of mediocre projects, which are now starting to not be worth the investment (if the developers are telling the truth). If you want people in the cores, build the homes required to permit that. Don't delegate them to being suburban developments. Toronto didn't become Toronto by limiting density height in the downtown and making people build elsewhere, for example.


That's an awfully big "if".  Perhaps if they offered to open their books as part of the claim .....
Personally, I think the proposed tower looks better than 144 and the extra height is fine.
Reply
(06-29-2016, 10:11 PM)ac3r Wrote: I'll never understand this regions fear of allowing height to be build in downtown/uptown. "We want to attract more people to the core" but let's only approve of mediocre projects, which are now starting to not be worth the investment (if the developers are telling the truth). If you want people in the cores, build the homes required to permit that. Don't delegate them to being suburban developments. Toronto didn't become Toronto by limiting density height in the downtown and making people build elsewhere, for example.


That's an awfully big "if".  Perhaps if they offered to open their books as part of the claim .....
Personally, I think the proposed tower looks better than 144 and the extra height is fine.  The height/density has never been the main problem with this development, imho.
Reply
Here's a render better showing the proximity between towers:


[Image: News.155Caroline___Content.jpg]
Reply
Looks like something from simcity 2000
Reply
The website for this project says that it is 50% sold.
Reply
(08-28-2016, 06:43 PM)rangersfan Wrote: The website for this project says that it is 50% sold.

Some ways to go yet, then, before they break ground.  Maybe by the end of next year?
Reply
From that last Record article on this development to add to what others have said :


"The last time this application came to council, I was very concerned about the density of this application and the fit with the neighbourhood," Coun. Diane Freeman said Monday. "And now they want to make it bigger."


This is right beside an Ion stop and where this type of density should be encouraged. It's almost if some councillors are unaware of the official plan/ places to grow act.
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