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
"LRTs displace all the poor people"?
#76
Interesting that Bill Ioannidis doesn't seem to think that density and intensification is a benefit to the community (say, by making every single thing the city provides less expensive to provide). Also that intensification in downtown should be driven to maintain the character and scale of established and heritage neighbourhoods, which is where the fact that 1/3 of downtown is heritage, and I'd hazard a guess that over half is heritage-adjacent, comes into serious play. Makes the 3.0FSR seem less like an accident or point of negotiation than a fixed belief that it would be hard to justify much else. Someone remind me the next time a greenfield cookie-cutter sprawl plan is questioned as to the community benefits it provides. At least Barry might seem to have some sense.
Reply
#77
(05-04-2016, 08:19 AM)mpd618 Wrote:
(05-04-2016, 12:02 AM)CTGal1011 Wrote: Our house was at one time a duplex. We converted it back to a single family dwelling.  Are we part of the gentrification problem? I don't think so.  I don't believe the house as a duplex was at all appropriate for renters. A sketchy side entrance, only one exit for the upper unit? It was unsafe for tenants as it was.

I don't think gentrification is necessarily an evil, and I do think the downsides can be mitigated through constructing enough new housing. But what you're describing most certainly is gentrification. And generally the conversion of houses with two or three apartments to single-family houses is a reduction in housing supply and density, not in itself a great thing. Were the renters of the apartments you considered unsafe able to find comparable housing at a comparable price in a central neigbourhood?

Ideally, Cedar Hill would be able to stay as a mix of housing types and different kinds of people. That should include new developments that can increase the number of people that can live there, so it's not zero sum.

It has been a legal duplex in title only since 2005. At one time there was the main floor, and the basement was used as a second unit. However, it flooded back in the mid 90's. The city closed off the drain in the basement after a massive crack in the foundation that caused the flood was fixed. The basement could no longer be used as a separate unit for that reason. The non-functioning bathroom was then removed from the basement. It was basically left with a kitchen and bare walls, just concrete, since 1995. Not sure what happened to the renters at that time. However, the owners decided to put in a dormer in the upstairs attic to be able to keep it as a duplex. They added a dormer, and a bathroom to make it a "bungaloft". It was rented as a bachelor unit from 1996 until 2005 (no parking available). Then, the owners became instant parents to three little ones through adoption, and required the space (main floor has two bedrooms, and FACS wouldn't allow the 3 children to share one room as there were 2 girls and a boy). The long-term tenant moved to a residence on Allen St in Waterloo (we STILL get War Amps mail for her). The owners put the house up for sale 2 years later and moved out East to NS. When we purchased the house, we were told by the inspector that the front porch AND side stairs (that served the bachelor loft) would have to be replaced in order to use it as a legal duplex again. As the house is only 1100 square feet, and we have three children, we maintain the insurance on it as a duplex in the event we move and someone wants to bring it up to code.
Reply
#78
From that article I posted it indicates that Momentum Developments may reconsider on other Downtown projects due to the low FSR, which would be unfortunate as I believe their projects have contributed nicely to the Local urban fabric over the past couple of years.
Reply
#79
I find it gross that Bill would rather that block (Madison/King/Charles) look as it does than doing something decent with it.

Has he ever come out and said WHAT they envision? They seem to be good at saying what not to do, without any type of "hey, this is sort of what we think".

The "no no no" mentality of city hall is gross.

Like that building on Weber that remains half painted because heritage.
The other one has been fully painted.  But let's just leave the other one looking like an eyesore to prove a point, that we can stop whatever we want to because we are councillors. They are doing more to make Kitchener look like a dump than ever.
Reply
#80
(05-29-2016, 12:04 PM)CTGal1011 Wrote: I find it gross that Bill would rather that block (Madison/King/Charles) look as it does than doing something decent with it.

Has he ever come out and said WHAT they envision? They seem to be good at saying what not to do, without any type of "hey, this is sort of what we think".

The "no no no" mentality of city hall is gross.

Like that building on Weber that remains half painted because heritage.
The other one has been fully painted.  But let's just leave the other one looking like an eyesore to prove a point
, that we can stop whatever we want to because we are councillors. They are doing more to make Kitchener look like a dump than ever.

What is that about the Charles/King/Madison block?  Is that in response to an earlier post?  What is being said "no" to? 

I've been wondering why the City hasn't moved to have the black paint removed or at least have the two building painted a decent colour (black - wtf were they thinking?)?
Reply
#81
(05-29-2016, 12:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(05-29-2016, 12:04 PM)CTGal1011 Wrote: I find it gross that Bill would rather that block (Madison/King/Charles) look as it does than doing something decent with it.

Has he ever come out and said WHAT they envision? They seem to be good at saying what not to do, without any type of "hey, this is sort of what we think".

The "no no no" mentality of city hall is gross.

What is that about the Charles/King/Madison block?  Is that in response to an earlier post?  What is being said "no" to? 

I believe she is referring to the (councilor) Bill Ioannidis comments in the article in the Record, earlier in the thread:

(05-13-2016, 06:15 AM)rangersfan Wrote: This article touches on some of the topics discussed here:
http://m.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/654...up-density

And like Ctgal1011, I'll take anything half-decent for that block.  It was an eyesore in 1977 (when we first arrived in Kitchener), and it still is.
Reply
#82
I'm confused - what is the connection to Ioannidis and his brief comment in the article and the plans that we have not yet seen for the Gascho block?  Colour me slow on the uptake.  I do find it surprising/confusing that the proposed new density plan seems to have appeared out of the blue.   Has there been an ongoing public consultation process?  I haven't seen boo in the Record.
Reply
#83
(05-29-2016, 12:24 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I'm confused - what is the connection to Ioannidis and his brief comment in the article and the plans that we have not yet seen for the Gascho block?  Colour me slow on the uptake.  I do find it surprising/confusing that the proposed new density plan seems to have appeared out of the blue.   Has there been an ongoing public consultation process?  I haven't seen boo in the Record.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was just saying that the article notwithstanding, delving into council minutes, it is clear MANY councillors are ready with the blanket NO, but they aren't exactly forthcoming with what they want the downtown space to look like. It just seems that they'd rather it look like a dump heap than compromise on their mental visions (which they haven't shared) on what the space should look like.
Reply
#84
(05-31-2016, 07:15 AM)CTGal1011 Wrote:
(05-29-2016, 12:24 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I'm confused - what is the connection to Ioannidis and his brief comment in the article and the plans that we have not yet seen for the Gascho block?  Colour me slow on the uptake.  I do find it surprising/confusing that the proposed new density plan seems to have appeared out of the blue.   Has there been an ongoing public consultation process?  I haven't seen boo in the Record.

Sorry I wasn't clear.  I was just saying that the article notwithstanding, delving into council minutes, it is clear MANY councillors are ready with the blanket NO, but they aren't exactly forthcoming with what they want the downtown space to look like. It just seems that they'd rather it look like a dump heap than compromise on their mental visions (which they haven't shared) on what the space should look like.

You are better informed than I (hey, it happens!).  I didn't realize that the block had been subject to that kind of discussion at Council.  Was that as part of the decision to extend development fee waiver?
Reply
#85
Yes, all about the same time, and shortly after the decision to turn the old storefront on King to affordable units (was it Morning Glory Cafe?). Can't remember where it is that they are putting in those units, but it was all around the same time.

Also, any idea if the new townhouse development these are currently "slowly" digging on Courtland/Peter will be affordable units?
Reply
#86
(06-01-2016, 11:16 AM)CTGal1011 Wrote: Also, any idea if the new townhouse development these are currently "slowly" digging on Courtland/Peter will be affordable units?

At this rate, it'll be just an affordable porta-potty. Sad  I haven't seen any perceivable activity there since last summer.

The ones on Madison (between Courtland and St George) do look like they are toward the affordable end of the scale, although no info available yet.
Reply
#87
(06-01-2016, 12:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-01-2016, 11:16 AM)CTGal1011 Wrote: Also, any idea if the new townhouse development these are currently "slowly" digging on Courtland/Peter will be affordable units?

At this rate, it'll be just an affordable porta-potty. Sad  I haven't seen any perceivable activity there since last summer.

The ones on Madison (between Courtland and St George) do look like they are toward the affordable end of the scale, although no info available yet.


Sticking all the hydro meters and associated paraphernalia onto the street-facing side of the structure certainly makes them look like they should be "affordable"!  Another candidate for my future "Kitchener Urban Esthetic Fail" thread!

Re the row on Courtland, they were on site again for a few days a few weeks back and seem to have tidied/partly filled in the sand pit, err foundation.  Nothing has happened since, however.
Reply
#88
(06-01-2016, 03:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Sticking all the hydro meters and associated paraphernalia onto the street-facing side of the structure certainly makes them look like they should be "affordable"!  Another candidate for my future "Kitchener Urban Esthetic Fail" thread!

I think that can go into  a bigger "Cutting corners in Canadian construction" thread ... so little attention to detail, whether affordable or expensive construction.  I can't say that I'm disappointed because I now expect it, but it really is a sad situation.  Very, very few people care enough to build with attention to details.
Reply
#89
Non exactly about people but non profits.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/723410...n-lrt-line
Reply
#90
An interesting article. "Mixed-use" currently is interpreted as a mixture of residential and commercial. At the same time, there are often calls for below-market rent housing units within larger higher-density buildings. This is the first that I have heard of the need to consider below-market rent for non-residential units.

Unless an agency can find a sympathetic landlord, there isn't much incentive for a landlord to ensure that agencies such as ACCKWA can remain accessible rather than at the periphery of a community. Perhaps adjusting a property's property tax rate to account for the lost revenue when space is rented to an agency such as ACCKWA would help.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)