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
General Suburban Updates and Rumours
Has anyone unearthed any further information on the 2305 University Ave office building project?
Reply
The derelict house at Strasburg and Bleams has finally been demolished! Long time coming on that.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
What's the plan for that corner? I'm thinking strip mall/gas station?
Reply
Looks like a foundation is being poured at Highland/Ira Needles.
Reply
“It’s just wrong. It’s absolutely wrong.”

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/conce...-1.3548841
Reply
(08-17-2017, 07:38 AM)rangersfan Wrote: “It’s just wrong. It’s absolutely wrong.”

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/conce...-1.3548841

This is NIMBYism turned up to 11.  Do these people understand how ridiculous they sound?!
Reply
There are several "green gaps" along Morrison. Which one does this relate to? At the end of the day, if the development conforms and gets built, I don't know that I much care about NIMBY complaints. It's just a bit of venting, no?

I don't understand the comment at the end of the report, however. It seems to suggest that compliance with bylaws is confindential, which makes no sense.
Reply
"It's just a bit of venting, no?"

This is the opinion that I take. To answer the question about whether they know how ridiculous they sound: No, they don’t. And they rarely talk to anyone who would even think it, let alone tell them as much.

To them, their beautiful backyards with pools they worked so hard on and spent so much money on, instead of “backing onto a green space,” will now be “overlooked” by a three storey building. That’s probably a tall building to you if every building in your neighbourhood is a single family home.

I don’t agree with them, but I can sympathize. Change is often not easy. Many people complain about it. In this case, the only beef I have is with the media outlet taking advantage of these residents’ frustration and publishing their rather thoughtless quotes. It’s a non-story when you think about it: new development is approved, some people are less-than-happy about it. Couldn’t all developments be described that way?
Reply
A previous article in The Record (https://www.therecord.com/news-story/725...velopment/) says that it is near King Street East. Kitchener Post says it is a 1.4 hectare property on the corner (https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...townhomes/).
Reply
They're upset at losing the green space, sure, but they must have been aware it was private land with no protection against development. They have nothing to stand on, here.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
(08-17-2017, 08:32 AM)MidTowner Wrote: "It's just a bit of venting, no?"

This is the opinion that I take. To answer the question about whether they know how ridiculous they sound: No, they don’t. And they rarely talk to anyone who would even think it, let alone tell them as much.

To them, their beautiful backyards with pools they worked so hard on and spent so much money on, instead of “backing onto a green space,” will now be “overlooked” by a three storey building. That’s probably a tall building to you if every building in your neighbourhood is a single family home.

I don’t agree with them, but I can sympathize. Change is often not easy. Many people complain about it. In this case, the only beef I have is with the media outlet taking advantage of these residents’ frustration and publishing their rather thoughtless quotes. It’s a non-story when you think about it: new development is approved, some people are less-than-happy about it. Couldn’t all developments be described that way?

Sounds like the zoning to permit townhouses has been in place since 1994 - over 20 years. If these residents bought within the last 20 years, they should have done their research and checked the zoning of the adjacent properties to understand that townhouses were permitted as of right and could some day be built and then made an informed decision on whether to buy their own homes from there. Listening to a real estate agent say the adjacent property "backs onto greenspace" or "protected woodland" might be true for the moment, but they need to dig deeper than that. A good real estate agent will check the adjacent zoning for their clients.

If these residents have lived here prior to 1994, they would have been notified and circulated for input back when the zoning was changed. They should have aired any concerns to the city then when public participation was fair game.

Unfortunately I have little sympathy for these residents and they do sound ridiculous. However, where I do sympathize is in protection of the trees. Back in 1994, local policies to protect natural heritage resources such as trees were much more relaxed than today. Development permissions granted in 1994 would likely still stand as the policies in place at this time would be grandfathered in and still apply today, despite updated environmental policies.
Reply
(08-17-2017, 07:38 AM)rangersfan Wrote: “It’s just wrong. It’s absolutely wrong.”

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/conce...-1.3548841

Won't someone think of the children!
Reply
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but the project taking place at the corner of Highland Rd and Ira Needles will consist of two 16 story apartment buildings and an underground parking structure.

Details below (no render)
https://www.google.ca/url?q=https://www....KdZS47qh_A
Reply
(08-17-2017, 10:02 AM)KevinL Wrote: They're upset at losing the green space, sure, but they must have been aware it was private land with no protection against development. They have nothing to stand on, here.

They do have nothing to stand on, correct.

I was one of those NIMBY's in my old residence.  I backed onto farmland, that was zoned to commercial.  They built a gas station, a Starbucks, a bank, and I never one complained about the loss of my nice view.  What I did complain about was the tire shop immediately behind my home.  They had auto bays on both side of the building, so that I had five auto bay doors 80' from my bedroom window.  I had non-stop impact wrench noises all thru the day.  The city was very ineffective in helping (They did pay for consultants who's report stated the noise level was "uninhabitable" without a highway style noise barrier between the properties), but all we got was a cosmetic wooden fence.  (I get the city was stuck between a rock and a hard place as they couldn't really enforce noise by-laws, as they were the ones who approved the design).  I was on the front page of the paper, spoke to radio hosts, even ran a local campaign urging to boycott the business [Only because he became confrontational, and unwilling to close bay doors and actually started doing frequent "vehicle horn checks" when me or my neighbours were in their backyards]. 

Anyway, my new home backs onto the Grand River and I'm hopeful that it won't be developed! Smile
Reply
(08-21-2017, 08:17 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 10:02 AM)KevinL Wrote: They're upset at losing the green space, sure, but they must have been aware it was private land with no protection against development. They have nothing to stand on, here.

They do have nothing to stand on, correct.

I was one of those NIMBY's in my old residence.  I backed onto farmland, that was zoned to commercial.  They built a gas station, a Starbucks, a bank, and I never one complained about the loss of my nice view.  What I did complain about was the tire shop immediately behind my home.  They had auto bays on both side of the building, so that I had five auto bay doors 80' from my bedroom window.  I had non-stop impact wrench noises all thru the day.  The city was very ineffective in helping (They did pay for consultants who's report stated the noise level was "uninhabitable" without a highway style noise barrier between the properties), but all we got was a cosmetic wooden fence.  (I get the city was stuck between a rock and a hard place as they couldn't really enforce noise by-laws, as they were the ones who approved the design).  I was on the front page of the paper, spoke to radio hosts, even ran a local campaign urging to boycott the business [Only because he became confrontational, and unwilling to close bay doors and actually started doing frequent "vehicle horn checks" when me or my neighbours were in their backyards]. 

Anyway, my new home backs onto the Grand River and I'm hopeful that it won't be developed! Smile

Yet another planning fail. Here we have an actual nuisance that apparently is legalized by the zoning (but, does being zoned for auto shop really authorize what would otherwise be a noise bylaw violation?). Meanwhile, zoning is forbidding all sorts of perfectly harmless uses all over the city.

Seems to me zoning should only allow the auto shop to operate — but the proximity to residential use should require them to keep it quiet. I mean, literally as quiet as a corner store. Not sure what that means for their operations but that’s not my problem. Probably sound-insulated doors kept closed and everybody stops whenever the doors are opened for a vehicle to enter or leave.
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