Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


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: WOW! Our fourth "birthday"! We've grown so much over the past four 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. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover some 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:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 3.6 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours
(08-08-2018, 09:52 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 09:33 AM)panamaniac Wrote: "Soils not compatible with development" - does that mean contaminated soil or something else?

I think that might have been a gas station a long time ago ...


Nope, never developed before. It was a woodlot until 6 years ago, that got clear-cut, and it's sat empty since.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
There is a render flyer the Vive Development project on Queen St at the article linked below :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-...-1.4780683
Reply
If I were One Roof, I'd be holding out for a number of low rent studio apartments in the new building itself, along with financial assistance for the creation of a new One Roof facility in another central location.   Seems to me that they are in the driver's seat wrt this proposal, at least in its present form.
Reply
I like how Litt said he is willing to look at providing units for homelss teens if the city allows more floors. Very smart negotiations on his part.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:18 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I like how Litt said he is willing to look at providing units for homelss teens if the city allows more floors. Very smart negotiations on his part.

Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:18 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I like how Litt said he is willing to look at providing units for homelss teens if the city allows more floors. Very smart negotiations on his part.

Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.
Reply
Yeah, that's not a good look.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

A non-issue, imho.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 09:41 AM)panamaniac Wrote: If I were One Roof, I'd be holding out for a number of low rent studio apartments in the new building itself, along with financial assistance for the creation of a new One Roof facility in another central location.   Seems to me that they are in the driver's seat wrt this proposal, at least in its present form.

They definitely have all of the control.  Unless Vive was going to redesign the project, but my guess is they've explored that option and it doesn't make sense.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

I remember NYC going through a huge issue with poor doors a number of years ago.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

In general, I would be opposed to segregated entrances for affordable units. However … if these would essentially be shelter units managed by One Roof, then the separate entrance would probably be the right solution.

It definitely appears that it's a collaborative discussion between Vive and One Roof, even if the meeting might have been a surprise. Hopefully they will work out a solution.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:18 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I like how Litt said he is willing to look at providing units for homelss teens if the city allows more floors. Very smart negotiations on his part.

Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Absolutely! I live across the street from this development, and anyone who brings up the neighbourhood argument here, well they're full of crap. The neighbourhood is a number of multi-unit dwellings, some of which are actually quite old. It is, in fact, these houses which don't match the character of the neighbourhood.

I'll also point out, we've had no negative experiences living next to One Roof, there is a reasonable chance they may get opposition from where they want to move too, but it's entirely unwarranted.
Reply
Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.
Reply
(08-12-2018, 10:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 10:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

I was going to say this. Same in NYC and I think they are now banned.
Reply
(08-13-2018, 08:08 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.

That's so frustrating...what right does anyone in the city have to say that they have a right to try to get rid of other people they don't like the looks of.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 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

              Advertise