General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[ac3r]

Some would see them as the most prominent among a number of developments and demolitions over the years that have left the neighbourhood's heritage status hanging by a thread.  What is gone from that part of town was more impressive than most of what remains.  I have no objection to the new proposal, but we'll see how it plays out.  This is a strong community group so we may see the developer knock a few storeys off it.

But that is the point.

Knocking a few stories off this development does NOTHING for heritage (and why would it, heritage is a bullshit argument, especially here).

But what it will do is represent a few dozen families in the margins who are now unable to find housing.

I hate that fake compromise so much....

I disagree with this. Preserving the heritage of areas of cities is an important thing to do. New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood. I don't think most people would disagree that if Venice suddenly started building massive condos and skyscrapers, it would be very detrimental to the city. Or for a more relatable comparison, all the new construction you see in China or Japan only happened by destroying the historic fabric of those cities.

It's all subjective of course and one can argue that heritage can coexist with the contemporary (and I believe it can), but suggesting the preservation of cultural, neighbourhood and architectural heritage is bullshit in terms of blocking new developments is wrong and can have negative impacts on an area. Of course, in this case I don't believe for one second that this proposed project will do any harm, but due to the subjective experience each person has in their cities, their voices are worth hearing out.

Heritage is a very important thing. As an Indigenous person, I could argue that all the settlers who came here destroyed our cultural heritage (both the intangible and tangible). Waterloo Region - Canada - only exists because you guys came here and decided that our heritage was not worth preservation and much of who we are has been destroyed. I know that's an odd argument to use but it helps illustrate why certain groups of people get wary when history is destroyed for something new. It's possible to have both, you just need compromises.

That said, given that downtown has always had tall buildings, their argument against this project is junk. More so because they are wanting to protect an actual parking lot. But at the same time, it's possible to develop cities without the need for highrises and skyscrapers everywhere. European cities are a great example. Many of them have high density, but many also prevent the construction of tall buildings in order to preserve the historic fabric of the area. Our cities would need to reconsider zoning rules, but you can achieve high density without the need for towering buildings everywhere.