The evolution of KW

[jamincan]

The situation is understandable, but it is unfortunate. I think certain kinds of stores could work as ground level tenants at some point down the road. For some reason a bridal store sticks out in my mind as something that would be particularly well suited for it.

[MidTowner]

I would be curious to actually measure the sidewalk width to see if it actually is narrower than standard, or if it's just human perception because of the flatness of the frontage. Something city planners think about, I'm sure.

It's almost certainly wide than the standard (which is 1500mm, after all...), but it's downtown and there are a lot of people on foot, so wider is justified, and wider might not seem wide enough (I generally have this perception near King and Victoria, too).

I think 1 Victoria will be a better experience to walk along. It's taller, but there's a setback after a few floors. And it will be a more transparent frontage so it will feel less enclosing.

Re: the parking. A deal could be struck by a developer for the condo to sell the land but retain ownership in a future parking structure part of a new development. Or who knows. There are options. I wonder how much the land has to be worth before creative solutions would be explored.

[Viewfromthe42]

It's the same with 1 Victoria then, it's even taller and just as close to the road. But yes I agree it's unpleasant to walk along the King st. Side... Again, 100 year old building. It is what it is.

I would be curious to actually measure the sidewalk width to see if it actually is narrower than standard, or if it's just human perception because of the flatness of the frontage. Something city planners think about, I'm sure.

The perceived frontage is equal-ish with Kaufman. Kaufman has 6 storeys at the street front, with the top two slightly stepped back, while 1Vic has five storeys plus podium wind barrier stepped back. But 1Vic will likely win because the first floor (minus main entrance) will be commercial/retail, and the walkable area (after construction materials are gone) will be much larger and more pleasant.

[tomh009]

I'm not sure how you think the parking lot could be changed. The condo fees would go up astronomically if you expect the residents to fund a parking garage. And to what avail? They own the property, the only way that could fly (I think) is if they built a garage and then sold the little bit of land that could be recovered.

A second building on the same property, with substantial underground/podium parking to be shared by the two buildings.  The property is certainly big enough for that.

[Viewfromthe42]

I'm not sure how you think the parking lot could be changed. The condo fees would go up astronomically if you expect the residents to fund a parking garage. And to what avail? They own the property, the only way that could fly (I think) is if they built a garage and then sold the little bit of land that could be recovered.

A second building on the same property, with substantial underground/podium parking to be shared by the two buildings.  The property is certainly big enough for that.

It's not just the parking, of which only one floor could likely be underground (mirroring the financials that 1Vic deemed acceptable), but also how you handle things in the interim, as those spots are well used, and how you make a final product, because 60-70%+ of the balconies and windows open onto parking. You can't turn that into a podium, lest owners suddenly decide en masse that they're ok living in an enclosed box. That leaves having to have at least a decent gap between Kaufman and any adjacent building, with virtually every owner now having a farther walk to their vehicle (whether protected parking makes up for this, who knows). You would likely also need to acquire the entire property at Victoria and Duke, which is likely heritage protected in some way.

While I agree that it's an incredibly valuable piece of real estate to leave as surface parking, we've also seen the property developed in such a way as to make any alternative nearly impossible, or else so expensive as to make it impossible.

[BuildingScout]

It's not just the parking, of which only one floor could likely be underground (mirroring the financials that 1Vic deemed acceptable), but also how you handle things in the interim, as those spots are well used, and how you make a final product, because 60-70%+ of the balconies and windows open onto parking. You can't turn that into a podium, lest owners suddenly decide en masse that they're ok living in an enclosed box.

While I agree that it's an incredibly valuable piece of real estate to leave as surface parking, we've also seen the property developed in such a way as to make any alternative nearly impossible, or else so expensive as to make it impossible.

That piece is so valuable that the development will eventually happen. The easiest way is to buy out the owners. Some development company can start purchasing units and renting them out, until it owns sufficiently many units to win every vote in the condo corp.

[Memph]

And then there's just the big bulk of the building. IMO height is not so important as width for these kinds of things. Most of the time people are looking forward or sideways, not up, so there isn't really that much of a difference between a 4 storey building or a 40 storey building. However, when you have a big building that's almost 100m wide, that's a rather long walk next to a building where what's in your field of view isn't changing. Especially due to the lack of setbacks and narrow sidewalks, if you're on the north side of King, the Kaufman building is going to take up the entire half of your field of view, with the asphalt of King taking up much of the other half (and up until 1-2 years ago some low slung buildings). If it was possible to walk further from Kaufman lofts, you might be better able to appreciate the building in full, like with K-W collegiate which is another big building further up on King, but with much more of a setback. With Kaufman lofts you need to be on the other side of the street and even then it would be better to be further back.

Setbacks aren't always a good thing, but having buildings close to the sidewalk is mostly good under certain conditions:

-architectural details and activity that's meant to be appreciated from up close. However, there isn't really any small scale detail on the building, no shop windows, no balconies or porches. The windows generally have their blinds drawn for privacy since they're residential, but even if they weren't, they're not really at eye level, the basement windows are below eye level and the 1st floor's window's are above eye level so even without blinds you would probably not be able to see too far in.

-narrow buildings so that there is a varied view. Kaufman Lofts is one of the widest buildings in K-W, or at least urban K-W.

-the UW campus has some sections with neither of these characteristics, however the campus is pedestrianized. That means you don't feel like you're squeezed onto a narrow strip between a massive impenetrable building and a relatively dangerous big busy road. Also the walkways at UW are wider than the King St sidewalks by Kaufman lofts.

[Memph]

And it's not just about the width of the sidewalk itself, which is not too bad, since despite being downtown this particular stretch is not as busy. But most places with sidewalks this width will be either along a less busy street, or if they are along a busy street, they will have a landscaped boulevard strip to distance pedestrians from traffic, sometimes quite wide like on some suburban arterials. They'll also have buildings with bigger setbacks so that if a vehicle loses control and starts going onto the sidewalk, pedestrians have more room to escape onto the grass.

[tomh009]

A second building on the same property, with substantial underground/podium parking to be shared by the two buildings.  The property is certainly big enough for that.

It's not just the parking, of which only one floor could likely be underground (mirroring the financials that 1Vic deemed acceptable), but also how you handle things in the interim, as those spots are well used, and how you make a final product, because 60-70%+ of the balconies and windows open onto parking. You can't turn that into a podium, lest owners suddenly decide en masse that they're ok living in an enclosed box. That leaves having to have at least a decent gap between Kaufman and any adjacent building, with virtually every owner now having a farther walk to their vehicle (whether protected parking makes up for this, who knows). You would likely also need to acquire the entire property at Victoria and Duke, which is likely heritage protected in some way.

While I agree that it's an incredibly valuable piece of real estate to leave as surface parking, we've also seen the property developed in such a way as to make any alternative nearly impossible, or else so expensive as to make it impossible.  

The Kaufman parking lot is substantially bigger than the entire 1 Victoria property, even without the Bergen Electric property.  Regardless of how many levels underground (my building has two, my office has three), there is room for parking and still a significant building.  Even while leaving a nice courtyard in the middle, not blocking Kaufman owners' balconies.  A longer walk, but as long as it's an indoor walk, I suspect most owners would accept that in exchange for covered parking and a nice courtyard.

I don't think it's impossible.  That said, I also don't think anything will happen there very soon.

[Lens]

It's the same with 1 Victoria then, it's even taller and just as close to the road. But yes I agree it's unpleasant to walk along the King st. Side... Again, 100 year old building. It is what it is.

I would be curious to actually measure the sidewalk width to see if it actually is narrower than standard, or if it's just human perception because of the flatness of the frontage. Something city planners think about, I'm sure.

The perceived frontage is equal-ish with Kaufman. Kaufman has 6 storeys at the street front, with the top two slightly stepped back, while 1Vic has five storeys plus podium wind barrier stepped back. But 1Vic will likely win because the first floor (minus main entrance) will be commercial/retail, and the walkable area (after construction materials are gone) will be much larger and more pleasant.

It will be interesting to see what the experience will be like because of the overhang of the second floor. This isn't something we've seen in the region yet, as far as I know

[Canard]

...as those spots are well used...

That's an understatement. When we lived there, the 14 Visitors Spots were always full. I always just had to tell my friends to park across in the lot beside McCabes since it was free after 6. Closer to the Phase 1 entrance, too.

The easiest way is to buy out the owners. Some development company can start purchasing units and renting them out, until it owns sufficiently many units to win every vote in the condo corp.

Just... wow.

This forum, sometimes.

[MidTowner]

He's right that that does happen sometimes. He's hardly the one who invented the practice.

[tomh009]

Much easier than trying to build up a contiguous property by buying up individual houses! You don't care which units you buy, you just need 50% + 1 of them.

[ijmorlan]

Much easier than trying to build up a contiguous property by buying up individual houses!  You don't care which units you buy, you just need 50% + 1 of them.

Depends what you want to do. Amending the declaration takes 80% for most matters and 90% for a few. Buying out the condo requires owners of 80% of the units to agree in writing. Those who did not agree can challenge the valuation and if they win those who agreed are on the hook for the difference. Having said that I wouldn’t want to be in a condo where half the units were owned by somebody as they would have complete control over the board.

[Viewfromthe42]

Definitely doesn't make my thoughts about buying into the building any easier.