+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=1537)
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 11-29-2021
(11-29-2021, 11:04 AM)jwilliamson Wrote:(11-28-2021, 11:18 PM)tomh009 Wrote: There is no arguing with (the lack of) taste!
More seriously, I think the architecture is not the top priority for the Kitchener, at least; it's well behind housing affordability, for example.
Considering how low a priority housing affordability is, that really says something.
If you look at what the city staff negotiate in exchange for (significant) zoning variances, affordable units (or funding for same) are typically part of that discussion.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 11-29-2021
(11-29-2021, 12:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(11-29-2021, 11:04 AM)jwilliamson Wrote: Considering how low a priority housing affordability is, that really says something.
If you look at what the city staff negotiate in exchange for (significant) zoning variances, affordable units (or funding for same) are typically part of that discussion.
I think that's the problem. The fact that most developments need to negotiate with city bureaucrats to get appropriate zoning hurts housing affordability. The fact that we expect home buyers to pay for below-market housing by increasing the cost of market rate housing hurts affordability. The fact that we need large developers to provide housing leads to increased market power for developers and hurts affordability.
The entire housing development system in the region is built around an assumption that we need to limit housing availability, and that is never going to lead to housing that everyone can afford.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 11-29-2021
(11-29-2021, 12:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(11-29-2021, 11:04 AM)jwilliamson Wrote: Considering how low a priority housing affordability is, that really says something.
If you look at what the city staff negotiate in exchange for (significant) zoning variances, affordable units (or funding for same) are typically part of that discussion.
It doesn't help that "affordable units" are sold to investors and insiders who flip them for unaffordable prices. 1 Vic for example.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 11-29-2021
(11-29-2021, 02:36 PM)jwilliamson Wrote:(11-29-2021, 12:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If you look at what the city staff negotiate in exchange for (significant) zoning variances, affordable units (or funding for same) are typically part of that discussion.
I think that's the problem. The fact that most developments need to negotiate with city bureaucrats to get appropriate zoning hurts housing affordability. The fact that we expect home buyers to pay for below-market housing by increasing the cost of market rate housing hurts affordability. The fact that we need large developers to provide housing leads to increased market power for developers and hurts affordability.
The entire housing development system in the region is built around an assumption that we need to limit housing availability, and that is never going to lead to housing that everyone can afford.
I think we are getting a bit off topic here. I think there are serious issues with the zoning approach used by most western countries, and that certainly prevents increases in density and improvements in affordability. Imagine, for example, that all zoning we have today (including single-family housing neighbourhoods) were to be instantly changed to allow 2x the height and 2x the number of housing units -- there would be plenty of land available to increase density.
However, we are not there. So, the approach that the city has taken is to apply somewhat more restrictive zoning for areas where high density is expected, with the expectation that most developers will request variances, and the city can in turn negotiate other improvements to the projects (such as affordable units).
I don't think that negotiation as such hurts affordability. And I don't think it requires large developers. And I don't believe that including some affordable units in a large project would have a significant impact on the cost of the market-priced units.
I would be happy to discuss further, though, if you would like to open a thread in the Urban Issues forum.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 11-29-2021
Second neighbourhood meeting scheduled for Dec 14th 7PM
https://kitchener-ca.zoom.us/j/84046841475
Webinar ID: 840 4684 1475
You can email Craig.dumart@kitchener.ca for your comments
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 11-29-2021
[attachment=8079]
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 11-30-2021
I expect to hear the usual complaints: It's too tall, it will add more traffic to the roads, we don't need to become the next Toronto, what happened to ye ole days, why no affordable housing in it and so on.
I think it'll likely be approved, though, as it's in a decent area for such height.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 12-01-2021
Logical location for such height.
Anyone know what the parking situation is for this one?
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 12-01-2021
The meeting notice says 241 parking spaces.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 12-08-2021
It’s official - TEK Tower Kitchener is the new name… Coming early 2022 based on this IN8 preregistration email I received.
If DTK wasn’t creative enough at least now we have TEK…
Edit : I don’t know how it’s pronounced. T-E-K? TEK? (like tech?) or The Evolution Kitchener?
Someone help
[attachment=8087]
[attachment=8088]
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - CP42 - 12-08-2021
Guessing the pricing will be way above market and targeted at Toronto investors just like DTK...
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 12-08-2021
An architect that I know of who worked on this said it's to be pronounced as "tech" because we're supposedly known for technology in this region.
I was also told to not be surprised by the final design or more specifically the materials. The developer has already planned to cheap out on materials and possibly the design just like DTK, so expect to see an even taller eyesore when this is done.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 12-08-2021
Maybe it is time we show up for the neighbor hood meetings. Tell them we are good with the height and zoning amendments. However, we demand that the finish and materials remain as it is being held out to be. No bait and switch...
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 12-08-2021
(12-08-2021, 03:56 PM)ac3r Wrote: An architect that I know of who worked on this said it's to be pronounced as "tech" because we're supposedly known for technology in this region.
I was also told to not be surprised by the final design or more specifically the materials. The developer has already planned to cheap out on materials and possibly the design just like DTK, so expect to see an even taller eyesore when this is done.
No real surprise there, although the sq ft prices will probably justify higher quality finishes. As long as they keep building investor apartments, Kitchener is going to get mediocre quality towers, at best.
RE: 30 Francis | 44 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 12-08-2021
(12-08-2021, 03:56 PM)ac3r Wrote: An architect that I know of who worked on this said it's to be pronounced as "tech" because we're supposedly known for technology in this region.
I was also told to not be surprised by the final design or more specifically the materials. The developer has already planned to cheap out on materials and possibly the design just like DTK, so expect to see an even taller eyesore when this is done.
Classic! The city ought to start finding a way to curtail the ability of developers to pull this game. I understand there are some considerations from design to reality but there is nothing about the proposed architecture here that can't be achieved for a reasonable cost.
If its too much of a mushy game to have some body determining architectural standards, there are always zoning amendments that can become much more difficult your second time around to make "tallest tower" hard to achieve
