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.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontario Die Company (119 Roger St.)
#46
So nearly 5 months have elapsed from the initial public meeting. What sort of time frame would be normal for the next step in this proposed development?
Reply
#47
(10-04-2017, 08:01 PM)Masala Wrote: So nearly 5 months have elapsed from the initial public meeting. What sort of time frame would be normal for the next step in this proposed development?

From what I remember there's no actual plan for development yet, this is just a zone change to permit for future development. Can someone confirm? (as in, there's no developer yet?)
Reply
#48
That's right, from my understanding. The site has not been sold (or even marketed, I don't think).

I'm not sure what the timeline for the zone change is, but a neighbourhood "working group" has been formed to share their "concerns and ideas" with the municipal government. They're concerns are about the density, and their ideas are mostly less density...
Reply
#49
(10-05-2017, 06:49 AM)MidTowner Wrote: That's right, from my understanding. The site has not been sold (or even marketed, I don't think).

I'm not sure what the timeline for the zone change is, but a neighbourhood "working group" has been formed to share their "concerns and ideas" with the municipal government. They're concerns are about the density, and their ideas are mostly less density...

A group of nimbys to share their nimby concerns with their nimby-pleasing councillors.
Reply
#50
I really hate how people love to throw around the term NIMBY at anyone who even hints at concern about a development project. I often wonder if these people have ever owned property or a property for any significant time. I am pro development but it is also important to listen to the concerns of potentially affected property owners. The most important thing to consider when purchasing a house is location. If a development is going to happen close to your home, shouldn't you be allowed to express your concerns? I'm not talking about the fringe people that will complain about anything but those homeowners who have invested in a property, possibly raised a family there and also want to live there as long as physically possible. I do not live in that neighborhood but have owned my current home for over 20 years with no plans of wanting to move anywhere.
Reply
#51
Part of the beautiful thing about development is nobody gets kicked out of their place, nobody has to leave. The problem is how many rights we deem appropriate to give to current people living in places. In Toronto, at an OMB case, a woman argued against a development because it would shade her eggplants for an hour each day. So she argued that homes for dozens of families were less important than an extra hour of sun for her eggplants. That's an extreme example.

In this case, there is exactly one property that is adjacent to the development which, at its rear yard, could see a building higher than the current neighbourhood roof lines. Not from anyone else's sidewalk across the street would you see a roof line any different than current norms. That's a heck of a lot of bending backwards, and how rare is it to get a site where you can actually propose missing middle housing without subjecting people to the horror of something different than they currently see, let alone within a few minutes' walk from an LRT station? When I first saw this proposal, I thought that it was too UNambitious of all things.

But no, I don't believe that in the hearts of our cities anyone has a right to stop things that they can see for little other reason. In the suburbs, buried away from main corridors, that's different, but I don't believe that someone should be able to move to the core, the densest part of our region, the part that should be changing the most and hosting the most of everything, and tell it to stop. Less so do I believe that it is a good idea to shape development which won't be finished for 5-10 years based on the wants of people who have lived in the area for a long time; the longer your memory, the farther it is from what today is about, and the longer your memory, the fewer years you have left to shape the world. I remember some of the most vehement opponents of LRT actually passing away before the first hole had been dug; should we shape our cities to conform to the memories of those who have passed away? Or to those, like me, who have 50-70 years left to give back to, live in, and help these communities thrive?
Reply
#52
Did you even read my post? I suspect that you don't own property or never have. You just immediately starting shxtting all over my post. I was making a general statement about what basically amounts to name calling by labelling anyone who has any concerns about a development without even listening to their concerns. "I disagree with them so therefore they are wrong".
Reply
#53
From your post I took your final sentence as an odd outlier, as no development ever forces you or any other owner to move. At most, a development can affect the enjoyment of a property that an owner has, but that is subjective, and I am very cautious about giving blanket control over large swaths of area for subjective things to any one person. I also distrust anyone who has spoken about owners vs non-owners. I've lived here for over a dozen years now, investing in the region with my work, my play, my volunteering. I don't think that purchasing a property should give you more of a say that someone who hasn't. Whether you are trying to make that argument or not, it harkens in my head back to the point another poster made about a reaction to the Schneider's development, that their concern was whether their home's value would go up or down. I don't believe that we should have insured my family against the losses their retirements took due to the fall of Nortel, nor do I think we should shield the value of an investment someone has made in a home to any great extent. I am open to hearing concerns, but I have yet to hear ones that befit the actual proposal, location, and context of this development.
Reply
#54
My comment about owning property or not had nothing to do with entitlement. Maybe one day you will own property and possibly raise a family in that property. At that time you may understand the attachment someone may have to their home and their neighbours. I totally get the passion that people have about opinions on this site. My statement is don't immediately name call someone if you don't totally understand their opinions. I don't use public transit so I can't personally relate to issues that people may have with that. I could crap all over peoples comments that I don't agree with but that would not be fair as I can't relate to their issues.
Reply
#55
I often take umbrage at the term “NIMBY,” too, as someone who is interested in development, interested in my neighbourhood, and therefore sometimes interested (and sometimes critical…) in developments in my neighbourhood. But, sometimes people really do just resist change, any change.

Renters can absolutely be attached to their communities and neighbours. It’s not reasonable to suggest that someone necessarily has more attachment to a neighbourhood- or right to an opinion about how it changes- just because he rents instead of owns his house.

I live in this neighbourhood- on the Kitchener side, not in Waterloo. I have to say, the complaints about this development really do seem reactionary and driven by a desire to maintain the status quo.

Their comments are that “This represents a undeniable densification of our neighbourhood, increased traffic, and a big change to our skyline. Because our neighbourhood is currently dominated by older single-family detached homes, this proposed development also represents a significant change to the type of neighborhood we are.”

I think densification is called for in our neighbourhood; I think the increased traffic should be mitigated by the public transit nearby (and, I would hope, the incumbent residents’ increased use of it; I think it’s hard to make a case that a six-storey building can be a “big” change to our skyline, or that we even really have a “skyline.” I just can’t see any of it. It does seem like selfishness to me: the woman who wrote that also called MPAC to reach a guess that the apartment building “will cause the value of my property to drop by at least 5%.”

I also think these concerns are myopic. My selfish hope is that more residents in the neighbourhood might mean more amenities I can enjoy.
Reply
#56
I have indeed raised a family in the neighbourhoods here, contributed to neighbourhood organizations and festivals with my time and money. Again, attachment to your home and your neighbours is legitimate, but concern about a development affecting that is less so: a development doesn't take from you your home, nor any neighbours who aren't desiring to sell their property to be a part of it. If there's one thing I've learned from neighbourhood organizations and festivals, it's that people make a neighbourhood great, and more of those same neighbours is great; I've enjoyed both the friendship of long-term neighbours who have resided in single family homes for decades, as well as new neighbours who only got into the area because of the missing middle being added to the area.

I would say that MidTowner takes my points and explains them in a more locally-tailored and eloquent way.
Reply
#57
(10-05-2017, 01:23 PM)MidTowner Wrote: I often take umbrage at the term “NIMBY,” too, as someone who is interested in development, interested in my neighbourhood, and therefore sometimes interested (and sometimes critical…) in developments in my neighbourhood. But, sometimes people really do just resist change, any change.

Renters can absolutely be attached to their communities and neighbours. It’s not reasonable to suggest that someone necessarily has more attachment to a neighbourhood- or right to an opinion about how it changes- just because he rents instead of owns his house.

I live in this neighbourhood- on the Kitchener side, not in Waterloo. I have to say, the complaints about this development really do seem reactionary and driven by a desire to maintain the status quo.

Their comments are that “This represents a undeniable densification of our neighbourhood, increased traffic, and a big change to our skyline. Because our neighbourhood is currently dominated by older single-family detached homes, this proposed development also represents a significant change to the type of neighborhood we are.”

I think densification is called for in our neighbourhood; I think the increased traffic should be mitigated by the public transit nearby (and, I would hope, the incumbent residents’ increased use of it; I think it’s hard to make a case that a six-storey building can be a “big” change to our skyline, or that we even really have a “skyline.” I just can’t see any of it. It does seem like selfishness to me: the woman who wrote that also called MPAC to reach a guess that the apartment building “will cause the value of my property to drop by at least 5%.”

I also think these concerns are myopic. My selfish hope is that more residents in the neighbourhood might mean more amenities I can enjoy.

Well said !!
Reply
#58
(10-05-2017, 01:23 PM)MidTowner Wrote: I often take umbrage at the term “NIMBY,” too, as someone who is interested in development, interested in my neighbourhood, and therefore sometimes interested (and sometimes critical…) in developments in my neighbourhood. But, sometimes people really do just resist change, any change.

Renters can absolutely be attached to their communities and neighbours. It’s not reasonable to suggest that someone necessarily has more attachment to a neighbourhood- or right to an opinion about how it changes- just because he rents instead of owns his house.

I live in this neighbourhood- on the Kitchener side, not in Waterloo. I have to say, the complaints about this development really do seem reactionary and driven by a desire to maintain the status quo.

Their comments are that “This represents a undeniable densification of our neighbourhood, increased traffic, and a big change to our skyline. Because our neighbourhood is currently dominated by older single-family detached homes, this proposed development also represents a significant change to the type of neighborhood we are.”

I think densification is called for in our neighbourhood; I think the increased traffic should be mitigated by the public transit nearby (and, I would hope, the incumbent residents’ increased use of it; I think it’s hard to make a case that a six-storey building can be a “big” change to our skyline, or that we even really have a “skyline.” I just can’t see any of it. It does seem like selfishness to me: the woman who wrote that also called MPAC to reach a guess that the apartment building “will cause the value of my property to drop by at least 5%.”

I also think these concerns are myopic. My selfish hope is that more residents in the neighbourhood might mean more amenities I can enjoy.

You should be on the "neighbourhood working group" that was mentioned above.
Reply
#59
I considered it, and I might still see about it (I have spoken with some of the people involved). I can say from experience that it's kind of unpleasant to be on a group like that when it's set up to pursue goals you disagree with.

I appreciate the suggestion.
Reply
#60
I'd also appreciate your voice on that group. The only thing more unpleasant than being the lone dissenting voice in the room is having a group like that go forward with nothing but a single track mind.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)