+- 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 - cherrypark - 11-10-2021
CPNA leaders have been circulating the feedback call with a lot of "concern" and appear to be hoping to form an active group "like the Friends of Belmont Village are doing about the 660 Belmont Ave proposal", so we have that to look forward to.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 11:37 AM)cherrypark Wrote: CPNA leaders have been circulating the feedback call with a lot of "concern" and appear to be hoping to form an active group "like the Friends of Belmont Village are doing about the 660 Belmont Ave proposal", so we have that to look forward to.
:| <- my surprised face
I had the displeasure of meeting one of my neighbours the other day. These folks are the worst.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 11-10-2021
Not surprised but granted there are detached homes literally beside this site and right across the street in both directions lol
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 02:07 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Not surprised but granted there are detached homes literally beside this site and right across the street in both directions lol
Fair enough, but I don't think these are the folks who are objecting.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 02:07 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Not surprised but granted there are detached homes literally beside this site and right across the street in both directions lol
The two-story detached homes beside and across the street are the things that need to change, not a decrease in urban density within 500-600m of the central transit hub.
Not saying this is you specifically saying so, but the idea that single-family homes or even converted multiplex homes are worth a permanent impact on new development in an area where the SDHs are the outlier to city plans drives me nuts. Nothing in that block around Victoria/Park should be shorter than 3-stories and its an enormous waste of valuable space now with a bunch of converted offices that could all fit into 1-2 properties and free the rest up for more housing units near urban amenities.
No doubt we'll hear some "decreasing my land value" and "forcing a change in my lifestyle" complaints for people who don't realize they've appreciated into a lottery ticket and are living in an city plan from decades ago. Going to be yelling as loudly as possible in opposition to that viewpoint as I can.
Lots in this development that that could improve and just about none of it has to do with massing/buffer zones/height which will be far and away the primary complaint of the loudest in the area.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 11-10-2021
WRC folks get too worked up over “nimby” stuff, imo. Most times it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. On occasion, projects are improved by community input. And, yes, sometimes the developers response to nimby advocacy results in an inferior project. It all seems a normal part of the process to me. There’s also nothing to stop those interested from organizing to advocate in favour of development proposals.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 06:51 PM)cherrypark Wrote: No doubt we'll hear some "decreasing my land value" and "forcing a change in my lifestyle" complaints for people who don't realize they've appreciated into a lottery ticket and are living in an city plan from decades ago. Going to be yelling as loudly as possible in opposition to that viewpoint as I can.
Do people really say this? Because that’s just absurd. As you say, they are living in a winning lottery ticket.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 07:28 PM)panamaniac Wrote: WRC folks get too worked up over “nimby” stuff, imo. Most times it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. On occasion, projects are improved by community input. And, yes, sometimes the developers response to nimby advocacy results in an inferior project. It all seems a normal part of the process to me. There’s also nothing to stop those interested from organizing to advocate in favour of development proposals.
I agree. I don't think NIMBYs will have any success stalling or scaling down this project, it's too important. If you think about it, they have rarely had any success in Waterloo Region with a few exceptions (Belmont, that Mill Street development, Westmount Place, Google phase 2 for a couple examples). They're certainly annoying, but letting people air their grievances with projects in their community is a fundamental part of a municipal democratic process. The cities and region have recognized we're a pretty big ass region by Canadian standards and a handful of NIMBYs are unlikely to get in the way of most projects going forward.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - jeffster - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 07:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(11-10-2021, 06:51 PM)cherrypark Wrote: No doubt we'll hear some "decreasing my land value" and "forcing a change in my lifestyle" complaints for people who don't realize they've appreciated into a lottery ticket and are living in an city plan from decades ago. Going to be yelling as loudly as possible in opposition to that viewpoint as I can.
Do people really say this? Because that’s just absurd. As you say, they are living in a winning lottery ticket.
I think some literally say such things. Basically, the market for an SDH surrounded by other SDH or 2 story buildings is larger than a market for a SDH that is a 90 feet away from a 400 foot high rise/sky scrapper. As for lifestyle change, I am sure there are some that believe BBQ'ing in the backyard will be impossible now that 300 people will be peering out of their balconies during the warm months to watch said BBQ'er.
I personally don't think either is true. As the downtown core gets more lively, it will only increase prices for SDH's that might still exist. And doubtful that there would be many people watchers in these condos. No need for 'lifestyle' changes.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 07:28 PM)panamaniac Wrote: WRC folks get too worked up over “nimby” stuff, imo. Most times it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. On occasion, projects are improved by community input. And, yes, sometimes the developers response to nimby advocacy results in an inferior project. It all seems a normal part of the process to me. There’s also nothing to stop those interested from organizing to advocate in favour of development proposals.
I don't think this is remotely borne out by the evidence.
I can think of exactly one development in the past 5 years that was improved by community input (Barra Castle). Every single other project I have seen has been harmed, either by a reduction in units, or an increase in parking, and often both. The list is quite extensive, but off the top of my head Mill St., Belmont St., and Queen St., have all been significantly harmed by NIMBYism in our community.
The "rhetoric" is that Kitchener just allows whatever development, and always caters to developers, but ultimately this isn't really true. It is only true from the perspective that the NIMBY goal is to kill ALL development, they want NOTHING to change EVER. So when a development gets cut down 30% fewer units, they see that as the city giving in to developers.
This is one of those "fake middle ground" things, where the "middle" between a reasonable development, and an extremist NIMBY position is considered "the right choice"...because it's between two positions...but that simply isn't true.
And yes, those who are in favour of developments do organize, but those in "favour" of developments are not those who BENEFIT from more housing. Those who actually benefit are NEVER heard in council. NOBODY speaks for those who cannot find housing. Those same NIMBY assholes decry the lack of affordable housing, then proceed to demand that housing be made less affordable. And they are a significant force in council.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 11-10-2021
(11-10-2021, 07:28 PM)panamaniac Wrote: WRC folks get too worked up over “nimby” stuff, imo. Most times it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. On occasion, projects are improved by community input. And, yes, sometimes the developers response to nimby advocacy results in an inferior project. It all seems a normal part of the process to me. There’s also nothing to stop those interested from organizing to advocate in favour of development proposals.
I don't mean to say that this project will be majorly changed by that input. My bigger issue is the noise and attention from public input focuses on trivialities that aren't going to change (as others have said here; its too important and aligned with the city plan for it to not get approved), when I wish that the small amount of public change that can be affected was directed to more productive ends like:
- Engagement with the public realm/streetscape.
- Not having value engineering supplant reasonable architecture with concrete podium bricks in our downtown.
- Having more family oriented units (even if that is more a mid-density that needs policy incentive).
- Extracting some manner of support for affordable housing in the area (including where those NIMBYs would also oppose it).
It just makes the public process slow development for no particular upside. That's that part that is more frustrating to me than it necessarily having an outsized impact on what proceeds anyways. Maybe others have priorities in addition to the ones above that come to mind, though few end up noted atop a pile of "too tall" and "ownership feel/character".
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 11-11-2021
(11-10-2021, 11:52 PM)cherrypark Wrote:(11-10-2021, 07:28 PM)panamaniac Wrote: WRC folks get too worked up over “nimby” stuff, imo. Most times it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. On occasion, projects are improved by community input. And, yes, sometimes the developers response to nimby advocacy results in an inferior project. It all seems a normal part of the process to me. There’s also nothing to stop those interested from organizing to advocate in favour of development proposals.
I don't mean to say that this project will be majorly changed by that input. My bigger issue is the noise and attention from public input focuses on trivialities that aren't going to change (as others have said here; its too important and aligned with the city plan for it to not get approved), when I wish that the small amount of public change that can be affected was directed to more productive ends like:
- Engagement with the public realm/streetscape.
- Not having value engineering supplant reasonable architecture with concrete podium bricks in our downtown.
- Having more family oriented units (even if that is more a mid-density that needs policy incentive).
- Extracting some manner of support for affordable housing in the area (including where those NIMBYs would also oppose it).
It just makes the public process slow development for no particular upside. That's that part that is more frustrating to me than it necessarily having an outsized impact on what proceeds anyways. Maybe others have priorities in addition to the ones above that come to mind, though few end up noted atop a pile of "too tall" and "ownership feel/character".
In the processes I've participated in (Ottawa), the too tall and neighbourhood character stuff is not absent, but communities and developers have also been productively engaged on the incorporation of commericial space in residential towers, family-oriented (three bdrm street level) units, and design elements that improve the pedestrian experience. For the "too tall" brigade, it can be an education process - in several cases, developers have provided renders of the hulking, flush to the sidewalk buildings they can build as of right in order to show the benefits of the taller, slimmer towers they've proposed.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - danbrotherston - 11-11-2021
(11-11-2021, 12:19 AM)panamaniac Wrote:(11-10-2021, 11:52 PM)cherrypark Wrote: I don't mean to say that this project will be majorly changed by that input. My bigger issue is the noise and attention from public input focuses on trivialities that aren't going to change (as others have said here; its too important and aligned with the city plan for it to not get approved), when I wish that the small amount of public change that can be affected was directed to more productive ends like:
- Engagement with the public realm/streetscape.
- Not having value engineering supplant reasonable architecture with concrete podium bricks in our downtown.
- Having more family oriented units (even if that is more a mid-density that needs policy incentive).
- Extracting some manner of support for affordable housing in the area (including where those NIMBYs would also oppose it).
It just makes the public process slow development for no particular upside. That's that part that is more frustrating to me than it necessarily having an outsized impact on what proceeds anyways. Maybe others have priorities in addition to the ones above that come to mind, though few end up noted atop a pile of "too tall" and "ownership feel/character".
In the processes I've participated in (Ottawa), the too tall and neighbourhood character stuff is not absent, but communities and developers have also been productively engaged on the incorporation of commericial space in residential towers, family-oriented (three bdrm street level) units, and design elements that improve the pedestrian experience. For the "too tall" brigade, it can be an education process - in several cases, developers have provided renders of the hulking, flush to the sidewalk buildings they can build as of right in order to show the benefits of the taller, slimmer towers they've proposed.
In my experience this has never happened in KW, the only example of improving a development is Barra Castle where the neighbours correctly pointed out that homes on their street had porches not garages in front, and so the design the townhomes in the back were changed to put the garages in the rear and porches in front.
But in all other examples, the focus has been on killing a project, and has resulted in a significant reduction in units and an increase in parking.
I'm glad but also surprised that Ottawa might be different.
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 11-11-2021
The NIMBYs are posting a petition on Reddit asking people to sign, with a list of their grievances about the project. Suffice to say, they don't have much of an argument besides "there will be shadows and they are tall": https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/qrmwu8/proposed_victoria_and_park_tower_development/
RE: Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 11-11-2021
(11-11-2021, 12:21 PM)ac3r Wrote: The NIMBYs are posting a petition on Reddit asking people to sign, with a list of their grievances about the project. Suffice to say, they don't have much of an argument besides "there will be shadows and they are tall": https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/qrmwu8/proposed_victoria_and_park_tower_development/
The 4 comments so far are pretty pro-housing, with a variety of differing but compatible perspectives expressed in a variety of styles. Let’s hope the comments continue to follow that trend.