The Metz (Schneiders site redevelopment)

[ac3r]

Sorry, I just realized this is the Rockway PARTS plan - which includes the Schneiders site - but also the surrounding area. I was clearly going through this document too early in the morning to notice a lot of these illustrate nearby plots.

Here is the Rockway plan in its entirety: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen...y-Plan.pdf

[Acitta]

Is that Shoemaker Creek in the renders? The section that goes through the Schneiders property is covered over and seems to have the remaining buildings on top of it.

[tomh009]

That LRT renders don't make any sense. Unless their property is larger than I realize, there's nowhere adjacent to the property that has bi-directional LRT tracks. The last render looks like Mill Station, but that's pretty far from their property. And the second-last render says Borden on the station, which means we're looking at the Grand River Rocks property, or across the street from it.

I think that's just "artist's impression".

Overall, that's about 20 buildings in the development. I think it'll probably take about 15 years to develop all of that, maybe 20, as I don't see that they would have much more than two buildings under construction at any given time.

[ijmorlan]

I think that's just "artist's impression".

All too typical. For an illustration of a proposed development, I think they have a responsibility to actually make the drawing match up with what could actually be built. I don’t expect them to measure exactly where every overhead support pole is, but taking note of which roads and rails actually surround the site is well within reasonable expectations.

Are they really proposing to eliminate Charles St. in favour of an LRT-only route? That’s what is depicted in the pictures, with large buildings on the site of GRR.

[Acitta]

The print version of the article in the Record has a site drawing from Auburn that shows where the buildings are proposed to be.

[tomh009]

All too typical. For an illustration of a proposed development, I think they have a responsibility to actually make the drawing match up with what could actually be built. I don’t expect them to measure exactly where every overhead support pole is, but taking note of which roads and rails actually surround the site is well within reasonable expectations.

Are they really proposing to eliminate Charles St. in favour of an LRT-only route? That’s what is depicted in the pictures, with large buildings on the site of GRR.

As ac3r says, these are actually conceptual ideas from the city's PARTS plan, not renders from Auburn.

And, yes, the city's expectation is that in the long run the GRR property will be developed, whether that be 10, 20 or 30 years from now. Obviously the city cannot force any development to happen there, but the property is 20% climbing gym and 80% surface parking: the goal is much greater intensity near the LRT stations.

[KevinL]

I can't see GRR lasting 10 years at that location - land that LRT-adjacent will be too valuable. Hopefully they find new digs at a favourable location.

[tomh009]

This is the render from the Record. I count five towers, five mid-rise buildings plus some townhouse-looking buildings close to Stirling Ave.

   

And the article says 10 years to complete the construction -- presumably from the time that the soil remediation is finished.

[creative]

Here is the proposed site plan.

https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/origi...rtrait.jpg

[ijmorlan]

All too typical. For an illustration of a proposed development, I think they have a responsibility to actually make the drawing match up with what could actually be built. I don’t expect them to measure exactly where every overhead support pole is, but taking note of which roads and rails actually surround the site is well within reasonable expectations.

Are they really proposing to eliminate Charles St. in favour of an LRT-only route? That’s what is depicted in the pictures, with large buildings on the site of GRR.

As ac3r says, these are actually conceptual ideas from the city's PARTS plan, not renders from Auburn.

And, yes, the city's expectation is that in the long run the GRR property will be developed, whether that be 10, 20 or 30 years from now. Obviously the city cannot force any development to happen there, but the property is 20% climbing gym and 80% surface parking: the goal is much greater intensity near the LRT stations.

Thanks, that does make more sense. However, my question about Charles St. stands: the illustration shows the tracks crossing something blue that looks like a water feature near the station. Charles St. itself is nowhere to be seen. Although on looking again I see there is a greyed-out car outline apparently driving on the blue. So who knows what is going on. They wouldn’t just put a big blue area to look more inviting even though there is no intention at all of removing the road, would they?

[taylortbb]

Here is the proposed site plan.

https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/origi...rtrait.jpg

About as disappointing as I expect from Auburn, another Barrel Yards but without having the redeeming factor of being close to uptown.

Mill station is just a little over 300m from the Borden/rail corner of the property, but absolutely no provision for someone to walk a direct route from the towers to the station (or putting the towers close to that part of the property). The towers may add lots of density, but everyone will be driving.

[panamaniac]

Here is the proposed site plan.

https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/origi...rtrait.jpg

About as disappointing as I expect from Auburn, another Barrel Yards but without having the redeeming factor of being close to uptown.

Mill station is just a little over 300m from the Borden/rail corner of the property, but absolutely no provision for someone to walk a direct route from the towers to the station (or putting the towers close to that part of the property). The towers may add lots of density, but everyone will be driving.

Wouldn't the walking route be from the bottom of Borden along the path that runs parallel to the tracks?

[jeffster]

That LRT renders don't make any sense. Unless their property is larger than I realize, there's nowhere adjacent to the property that has bi-directional LRT tracks. The last render looks like Mill Station, but that's pretty far from their property. And the second-last render says Borden on the station, which means we're looking at the Grand River Rocks property, or across the street from it.

I think that's just "artist's impression".

Overall, that's about 20 buildings in the development. I think it'll probably take about 15 years to develop all of that, maybe 20, as I don't see that they would have much more than two buildings under construction at any given time.

I think 15 years would be accurate. Could be quicker, but how long have Barrel Yards been going on for? It must be close to 10 years and it ain't complete yet.

[taylortbb]

About as disappointing as I expect from Auburn, another Barrel Yards but without having the redeeming factor of being close to uptown.

Mill station is just a little over 300m from the Borden/rail corner of the property, but absolutely no provision for someone to walk a direct route from the towers to the station (or putting the towers close to that part of the property). The towers may add lots of density, but everyone will be driving.

Wouldn't the walking route be from the bottom of Borden along the path that runs parallel to the tracks?

The expectation seems to be that from the towers someone would walk up (using directions from linked layout) towards the central road, then right to Borden, then back down to the trail alongside the LRT tracks from Grenville. The up and back down will add a few minutes IMO needlessly.

If I was leaving the buildings as-is but trying to improve connectivity I'd have a trail from Building I/the parking garage through the public park and over the river to the lower-right corner of the property. Building I would have a nice direct route, and the other buildings would have a route through the parking garage that's covered for them to get to the trail (and ideally there'd be a well defined interior walkway for this). I think the savings would be 2-3 mins on a 7-8 minute walk, which is a decent difference. It's also just annoying as a pedestrian to have to double back.

If I was waving my magic wand I might put a trail all the way along the back of the property, which could be extended by the city up to the Iron Horse, giving the site a good cycling route to downtown/uptown and helping with the ION connectivity. Or I'd move the buildings to create an actual street wall somewhere that might be a good pedestrian retail experience, and reduce the tower-in-the-park feeling I get from looking at that layout.

[ac3r]

Here is the proposed site plan.

https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/origi...rtrait.jpg

About as disappointing as I expect from Auburn, another Barrel Yards but without having the redeeming factor of being close to uptown.

Even the buildings are Auburn quality and disappointing. They are essentially the exact same thing, but at different heights. It runs the risk of looking like mammoth developments in Toronto, such as Cresent Town. Of course, what Auburn has is nicer than that, but it's the lack of architectural diversity that makes the entire thing look very boring. I would not want to stare at that all day if I lived in the area.