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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General University Area Updates and Rumours
There is no way to track such units. But not many people would want to keep units empty: you still need to pay the mortgage, pay the condo fees, pay the insurance and pay the property taxes.  Definitely not profitable.
Reply


(12-04-2017, 02:52 PM)tomh009 Wrote: There is no way to track such units. But not many people would want to keep units empty: you still need to pay the mortgage, pay the condo fees, pay the insurance and pay the property taxes.  Definitely not profitable.

Certainly this is the case for rental condos (which is what nms mentioned), but I do think there is a potential for a loss of rental units from the market in things like converted basements, or second rooms.  I doubt it's happened yet, because the market and prices are still strong but it could happen eventually.
Reply
Some of those rooms have moved to AirBNB and HomeAway ...
Reply
(11-19-2017, 11:10 PM)rangersfan Wrote: Apparently Spear Capital is in the process of selling 3 former BlackBerry buildings on Phillip St.
Raytheon also looks like it is in negotiations to sell their property and significantly downsize their local foot print.

News from this Whitney Real Estate  report 2017 Q4 :

https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.w...eItRflfwwj

Raytheon has completed their move from 400 Phillip to right next door at 440 Phillip,  into part of the former RIM 14 complex.

It looks like there are a lot of deals going on with properties on this stretch of Phillip. Would be nice to see some new tenants moving in, there is still much empty space post-Blackberry.
Reply
Seen an advertisement online for a development called U-style, at 246 Lester St. Has this project been discussed before?

https://ustylewaterloo.com/
Reply
Must be new. Haven't heard of it before.
This is new too: http://www.waterloo.ca/en/business/86-hi...ert-st.asp
Can't bother to make a separate thread however, it's more of the same.
Reply
(03-13-2018, 09:24 AM)Watdot Wrote: Must be new.  Haven't heard of it before.
This is new too: http://www.waterloo.ca/en/business/86-hi...ert-st.asp
Can't bother to make a separate thread however, it's more of the same.

That new one actually looks nice, but I had to laugh when I quickly looked at the Building Design Package. Every suite comes with what they seem to show as a "dining room"/den which is so clearly intended to be used as a second bedroom. There's even a second washroom with a shower to cater to each tenant wanting their own bathroom.
Reply


Yes ... but is that really so bad. We want to have units with more bedrooms, not just one-bedroom units -- this does (effectively) provide that.
Reply
(03-13-2018, 01:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes ... but is that really so bad. We want to have units with more bedrooms, not just one-bedroom units -- this does (effectively) provide that.

It's not bad at all... but what is funny is that developers have to be sneaky to provide them because of the (wording of) current regulations.
Reply
(03-13-2018, 01:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes ... but is that really so bad. We want to have units with more bedrooms, not just one-bedroom units -- this does (effectively) provide that.

It knowingly does not comply with the fire code requirement for a window in each bedroom and it skirts the parking requirements. I'm not actually sure either of those things is a huge deal, but I do think it's funny how blatantly this development ignores them.
Reply
(03-13-2018, 03:05 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:
(03-13-2018, 01:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes ... but is that really so bad. We want to have units with more bedrooms, not just one-bedroom units -- this does (effectively) provide that.

It knowingly does not comply with the fire code requirement for a window in each bedroom and it skirts the parking requirements. I'm not actually sure either of those things is a huge deal, but I do think it's funny how blatantly this development ignores them.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the unit occupants would be violating fire code and skirting parking requirements? It’s really not the developer’s fault if people do either of those.

To be clear, as to fire code, I actually think there is something to discuss. Fire code assumes that the building designer knows where people will be sleeping, which implies either knowledge they cannot have about how people will use the space, or an implicit intrusion of the state into the bedrooms of the nation to forbid sleeping in certain parts of ones house. On the other hand, the purpose of fire code is to keep people alive rather than dying due to fire. Modern fire codes have been very successful at this and this is clearly a legitimate societal interest, so it’s not appropriate to dismiss fire codes as an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty.

By contrast, as to parking minima, this just illustrates one of many reasons why parking minima should not exist. They assume we know how people are going to use their space, and/or they require people to use it in the prescribed fashion, which is hardly appropriate in a free country. And the result of parking minima isn’t to keep people alive but rather to entrench a car-centric urban form, which is not a legitimate societal interest.
Reply
I think the objective of parking minima is to avoid people using the street for personal parking. I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable.
Reply
(03-13-2018, 04:29 PM)jamincan Wrote: I think the objective of parking minima is to avoid people using the street for personal parking. I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable.

That’s a perfectly reasonable objective, which can be obtained by parking restrictions. It’s not appropriate to distort the entire economy just so a few neighbourhood streets can avoid having people parked on them.
Reply


(03-13-2018, 04:19 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(03-13-2018, 03:05 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: It knowingly does not comply with the fire code requirement for a window in each bedroom and it skirts the parking requirements. I'm not actually sure either of those things is a huge deal, but I do think it's funny how blatantly this development ignores them.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the unit occupants would be violating fire code and skirting parking requirements? It’s really not the developer’s fault if people do either of those.

To be clear, as to fire code, I actually think there is something to discuss. Fire code assumes that the building designer knows where people will be sleeping, which implies either knowledge they cannot have about how people will use the space, or an implicit intrusion of the state into the bedrooms of the nation to forbid sleeping in certain parts of ones house. On the other hand, the purpose of fire code is to keep people alive rather than dying due to fire. Modern fire codes have been very successful at this and this is clearly a legitimate societal interest, so it’s not appropriate to dismiss fire codes as an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty.

By contrast, as to parking minima, this just illustrates one of many reasons why parking minima should not exist. They assume we know how people are going to use their space, and/or they require people to use it in the prescribed fashion, which is hardly appropriate in a free country. And the result of parking minima isn’t to keep people alive but rather to entrench a car-centric urban form, which is not a legitimate societal interest.

Oh yes, I agree it's ultimately on the occupant's shoulders. That being said, I would be incredulous if the developer doesn't expect some (or even many) people to use these bedroom-sized rooms (with doors in many cases) and accompanying full bathrooms to house an extra roommate, especially in a student area like this.

As to the fire code, I was just saying I'm not sure about how important the window-in-bedroom rule is in buildings like this where I assume there are sprinkler systems. Obviously it's less safe, I just don't know much in the general scheme of fire safety. But the rule must be there for a reason.
Reply
I believe this all relates to how Waterloo charged fees. When it was per unit, there was a proliferation of 5 bedroom units (dividing the cost by 5). I think it is now per bedroom, and so the cost is divided by 2 or 3, depending on how many "bedrooms" you can call a den/diining area. Same goes for parking, and indeed the window-per-bedroom rule (which I think relates to mental health and fresh air as much as fire safety) drastically changes the kind of building you can construct. Kaufman Lofts have so little window available per unit, so their bedroom walls don't go all the way up, which is how they get around the natural light/ventilation required to call something a bedroom.
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