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.
"LRTs displace all the poor people"?
04-10-2017, 12:34 PM
The rents will be substantially lower in areas E of Cedar St or so, but a location on King or Charles would still be very much accessible for transit.
Pity the Hope Campus never panned out. So many of them would be settled in newly built offices with little redevelopment potential in the foreseeable future.
04-10-2017, 02:30 PM
The land is still there. And there are more development opportunities on the Borden-King-Ottawa-Charles block.
Don't forget the large lot on Charles south of Stirling (next to KW Counselling).
04-10-2017, 04:21 PM
Assuming the land value hasn't already gone up too much due to LRT proximity.
04-10-2017, 04:57 PM
(04-10-2017, 04:21 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: Assuming the land value hasn't already gone up too much due to LRT proximity.
1/3 to 1/10 what land cost in the core.
04-17-2017, 10:17 AM
When a social agency's primary mission is to help people in need, we really need to include in that calculation things like the time it takes out of a person's day to have their home be in an apartment in south kitchener, one essential service be out on Victoria St. N, another be at the Boardwalk or beyond, and suddenly you've made it such that these people have no hope of even taking advantage of the services "available" to them. We've even had to create entire bus routes just to get people to existing "cheap" social services facilities, and this is beyond nonsense, a far bigger waste of money than paying for more sensibly located land.
04-17-2017, 10:48 AM
Who was proposing to move social services or NGOs to Victoria N or to the Boardwalk? We were discussing downtown/midtown locations.
04-17-2017, 11:46 AM
Not us, but that ones federal/provincial/municipal governments have control over. In my view, we should be working with agencies to find them spaces that make sense from a transportation perspective, as we as a city benefit or suffer when our residents in need aren't able to get what they need because of changes to the city that push things around. It seems ridiculous to me that we create and pay for a band-aid bus (stub-)route to access some of these services, but don't seem to consider offering support to help them stay in place, or at least in better places.
04-20-2017, 10:28 PM
I guess another thing to consider, transportation wise, is what modes of transportation people are using to get to these services. If it is generally foot/bike/bus, then putting something at the end of a 30 minute bus line can have the same effect as moving a car-centric service two towns over. Is there an ideal travel time to get from one place to another, much the same as there is the ideal travel time between home and workplace before someone moves either work or home to be closer to the other?
And that's how my mother got out of jury duty years ago before she had her licence. She was in the Kitchener jury pool (not sure why it wasn't ours), but living in Cambridge pre-GRT meant the only way to get to the courthouse without taking a cab was walking to Sportsworld and getting the bus.
I suspect that historically that has also played a part in the complaints about services moving to Kitchener from Cambridge. Even with GRT and iXpress, it's still nearly an hour's ride from Ainslie from Charles Street if you don't have a car, and that's in good traffic.
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)