+- 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: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1626)
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-07-2022
Thankfully it's not all opposition. There are some letters in there in support of the project as is, as well as many who are just raising issues about traffic etc but otherwise have no opposition to it. Though yeah there's a lot of letters from people living in nearby single family homes who are vehemently opposed. Or...are totally, absolutely for density and nice condo towers - just not in their backyard. :^)
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 06-07-2022
I feel kinda bad for the couple who bought a Garment St. condo because of the views, only to have their view eaten by a bigger new tower next door. I suspect we'll see more and more condo-dwelling NIMBYs as these projects continue to push forward. Eventually, Charlie West will be surrounded by larger towers and CW'ers will only have a million-dollar view of their neighbors' balconies. I don't feel that bad though.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-07-2022
The scale and location of this proposal pretty much guarantee at least some controversy, istm. I think DTK could benefit from a broader discussion of the overall vision, but project-by-project may be the best we can hope for.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-07-2022
(06-07-2022, 01:34 PM)westwardloo Wrote: I also Emailed Debbie Chapman. I encourage all on this forum to do the same. Do not let NIMBY's determine the cities housing policy.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/councillor-debbie-chapman.aspx
Her track record on highrise projects tends to the NIMBY side rather than the construction of additional housing. If you want to have an impact, you need to contact other people as well.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 06-07-2022
Nice to see as much pro-input (or at least constructive criticism if not blanket support) in there as there is. Especially considering 1/3 of the emails are just copy and pasting the arguments from Livable Victoria Park or whoever in the VPNA did everyone's homework for them.
The arguments of "ok with change/development, but not this" are wholly unconvincing, proven by literally every other mid-rise proposed in the city that gets opposed and dragged out for ages. It would be nice if efforts to comment were better spent on realistic improvements to the design and streetscape, for instance, that hyperbole about how they will be doomed to live in shadows and traffic congestion.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-14-2022
Vote deferred until June 20th for this
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecord.com%2Fnews%2Fwaterloo-region%2F2022%2F06%2F13%2Fconcerns-prompt-deferral-of-vote-on-three-tower-development-in-kitchener.html
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 06-20-2022
Motion ends up not passing with only Clrs Ioannidis, Schnider and Davey in support (Marsh and Singh abstention on conflict).
Maybe the developer should have come asking for less but I am baffled the city decides to shaft considered proposals like this one while approving the garbage IN8 builds downtown. It won’t be the presence of towers that kills downtown but the lack of quality and policies to make anything in between viable.
Great to see our tax dollars going to the inevitable OLT hearings instead of to staff time to improve our city planning and policies.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - CP42 - 06-20-2022
This makes me lose hope for Kitchener…
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - westwardloo - 06-21-2022
I am severely disappointed that this did not pass council. I hope the developer is willing to fight for a land tribunal, but with the coming economical slow down I am not so sure.
Please get out and vote in the municipal elections this year. Unfortunately our city council has become less progressive and are bending to NIMBY pressure recently.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 06-21-2022
Pretty disappointing.
And some of the rhetoric around it was pretty horrifying too...I wish council would call delegates on this. It doesn't qualify as hate speech but saying that people in condos aren't part of a community is a pretty evil thing to say.
But leaving that aside, I'm quite frustrated with council. I participated in the PARTS plan for this area, why are they pretending there isn't a plan. This type of development was exactly what was supposed to be built here.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 06-21-2022
It's interesting to me that Mayor Berry voted against this project. He's normally pro-development.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 06-21-2022
(06-21-2022, 09:29 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: It's interesting to me that Mayor Berry voted against this project. He's normally pro-development.
Is he up for re-election?
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Joedelay Highhoe - 06-21-2022
(06-21-2022, 09:36 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-21-2022, 09:29 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: It's interesting to me that Mayor Berry voted against this project. He's normally pro-development.
Is he up for re-election?
Indeed... The muni election is in October of this year.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Kodra24 - 06-21-2022
So disappointing - a beautiful proposal gets shot down due to NIMBYism
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-21-2022
The meeting was a shit show. Nimby after nimby coming in to present their slide shows. The concerns from the last meeting were addressed by the developer so I don’t see any true valid reason why this was rejected. If this is appealed to the OLT it will definitely be approved,,being that staff recommended it and it’s literally in the PARTS plan.