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.

Dear WRConnected Users: Three whole years! We've grown so much over the past three years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. To this point it has been funded out of my own pocket. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover all of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontario Die Company (119 Roger St.)
#16
I'm astonished that MPAC could/would give that kind of "pre-project" property valuation opinion.
Reply
#17
What's interesting about this is how progressive the post author, Juanita Metzger, is, and yet how quickly she reverts to opposition to nearly the gentlest of densities. I'm curious if she misstated things to MPAC to get a more negative response. Based on the proposal, the 6-storey buildings would be created behind the three-storey townhomes, and it would not be surprising if they were separated enough that onlookers from across the street couldn't see the 6-storey buildings, much as the frontage of Huether Hotel/Cafe1842 makes the surprisingly tall Princess Condos very well hidden from those on the east side of King. But back to the point, her 5% decrease in property value was based on having a 6-storey building built next to her property, but based on this proposal, construction of this would largely yield trading a light industrial property across the street into a 3-storey building across the street (I'd be surprised if MPAC saw any negative value prediction for this), and with 6-storey buildings being built behind that, with parking/green space separation between the two. Then we add this to the concept that Waterloo region has seen a year over year house price increase of ~30%, completely undeserved, and a 5% reduction is the most unacceptable thing to have happened to anyone.  Dodgy
Reply
#18
(04-20-2017, 07:19 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I'm astonished that MPAC could/would give that kind of "pre-project" property valuation opinion.

To be fair, we don't know what response they gave.

I'm not inclined to believe MPAC anyway.  5% is well within their margin of error on my house.
Reply
#19
Just to clarify, Juanita posted that for a resident, she didn't write it herself. The person who wrote it lives on Roger, and submitted it to Juanita to publish.

I was pretty surprised that MPAC would give any kind of information to a query like that. I think that Viewfromthe42's point is a good one: homeowners on paper have made huge gains on their properties recently, so it's hard to understand why their equity should be protected from possible impact by sound intensification.
Reply
#20
The conceptual drawings at the open house this afternoon looked pretty good. I was pretty impressed with the zoning changes they are requesting:

-Up to around 300 units
-10 meter height to a setback of 55 meters from Roger Street, and 20 meters beyond that- so Roger Street residents won't have any chance of being adjacent to a building of any height
-1.05 parking spaces per unit
-Up to 930 square meters of commercial

That last bit is exciting. No commercial is shown in the conceptual render, but leaving it open as a possibility for a buyer is great.
Reply
#21
When I lived on Roger St, I distinctly remember an apartment tower in my backyard.

Sounds like the type of neighbourhood is one with a mix of density.
Reply
#22
Can the commercial space include office/studio, or would it strictly be retail/service? This is currently an employment property that is being taken offline at a time when there is pressure to create neighbourhoods that include live/work/play. It would be interesting if something like this could include a variety of commercial/light industrial uses as options for the space. I'm not sure what that would be, but principally something that produced a tangible product rather simply selling something that was made elsewhere.
Reply
#23
(04-20-2017, 10:06 PM)nms Wrote: Can the commercial space include office/studio, or would it strictly be retail/service?  This is currently an employment property that is being taken offline at a time when there is pressure to create neighbourhoods that include live/work/play.  It would be interesting if something like this could include a variety of commercial/light industrial uses as options for the space.  I'm not sure what that would be, but principally something that produced a tangible product rather simply selling something that was made elsewhere.

I think proposing continued industrial use is 1) interesting and worth considering, and 2) is an excellent strategy to provide an alternative that neighbours will hate even more.
Reply
#24
Planning documents have been posted on the city's website, and the informal public meeting is scheduled for May 8. A project in a location like this is always going to get pushback from the neighbours, so if you want to see family-friendly infill happen please speak up for it!
Reply
#25
The proposal looks almost ideal for the location, imho. Perhaps with a tweak to change out the six storey building fronting Moore to a three storey walk-up or more stacked towns. I'm struck by the fact that what is being sought is well below what would be permitted under the revised zoning. What is not clear to me is where any commercial component would be located - there doesn't seem to be any place for it in the diagram of the site, although I suppose that's just conceptual at this stage.
Reply
#26
Yes, you're right that it's just conceptual. That proposal is not actually a proposal. It's just to demonstrate one possible development that would be permitted under the new zoning.

The application being made, and the meeting in May, is just to amend the zoning. We really have no idea what a proposal under the new zoning by a potential new owner might look like. I thought it was interesting that the concept did not include commercial, when that is in the zoning amendment application.

Really, the zoning being requested seems pretty modest, and the huge setback from Roger will guarantee that those residents on Roger who might be concerned about it, will not have to experience any height. If they don't want a high rise across the street from them, strategically it might make sense to support this.
Reply
#27
"Commercial" could perhaps take the form of work/live units, like at Seagram or the Barrelyards' townhomes (though their townhomes take a different visual feel, thanks to being podium-integrated), or the ones on Laurelwood west of Erbsville.
Reply
#28
Article about the proposal and how according to nearby residents, there would be far too many people living in such a small area.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/729420...n-waterloo
Reply
#29
Well at least her neighbours know what she thinks of their home!

"Caroline Armstrong, a senior citizen who lives at 155 Moore Ave. S., across from the ODC plant... "As much as I would dislike the construction, it would get rid of some unsightly homes across the street."

How does this project get rid "unsightly homes" across the street from it?
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#30
Great point, could it be that because the project is so massive in scale that it would block her view?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)