+- 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: Urban parks (/showthread.php?tid=1137)
Urban parks - rangersfan - 01-29-2018
But I do think that the question of park space in our urban cores is valid. As the population increases in these areas, there will be increased demand for sports fields, natural areas etc. I don't think that this was the appropriate forum (the public meeting on a private property development) however to level the question.
RE: 120 Victoria South - KevinL - 01-29-2018
Indeed, the sort of density we're seeing here would certainly indicate that some additional green space would be of use.
RE: Urban parks - tomh009 - 01-29-2018
I concur -- I should hope some additional urban parkland should be planned. Victoria Park and Waterloo Park are great, but next to them most urban parks are tiny.
Do either of the cities have any sort of strategic plan for creating additional urban parks?
RE: Urban parks - Viewfromthe42 - 01-29-2018
There will be opportunities to do things like the Iron Horse Trail at Glasgow, Gildner Green, but there are opportunity costs there as well - that space seems like it could have easily been a dozen or more of the neighbouring single family homes, had those streets extended and Edna run adjacent to the Trail. It's not surprising that the city doesn't leap at the thought of taking what is millions in land value and buying it to make a tiny park. This is where as-of-right zoning, to be able to build mid-rise anywhere in heritage zones (1/3 of Kitchener's core), would make everyone's property equally valuable, and thus less pricey, making it easier for both the city to buy land to turn into parks, as well as for SFH-owners to sell their property, without having to first go through all sorts of hoops, to someone who might redevelop it into a 4- or 6-storey medium density neighbourhood apartment or condo.
RE: Urban parks - danbrotherston - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 12:18 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: There will be opportunities to do things like the Iron Horse Trail at Glasgow, Gildner Green, but there are opportunity costs there as well - that space seems like it could have easily been a dozen or more of the neighbouring single family homes, had those streets extended and Edna run adjacent to the Trail. It's not surprising that the city doesn't leap at the thought of taking what is millions in land value and buying it to make a tiny park. This is where as-of-right zoning, to be able to build mid-rise anywhere in heritage zones (1/3 of Kitchener's core), would make everyone's property equally valuable, and thus less pricey, making it easier for both the city to buy land to turn into parks, as well as for SFH-owners to sell their property, without having to first go through all sorts of hoops, to someone who might redevelop it into a 4- or 6-storey medium density neighbourhood apartment or condo.
I believe you mean "Eden Ave.", and you're right, I've never noticed that before. There are only two homes on that street. How many millions of dollars of property are being maintained effectively for the use of two properties.
I'll say it again; real, actual, and, dare I say, 'woke' fiscal conservatives would be flipping out at the way we build our roads.
RE: Urban parks - ijmorlan - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 12:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-29-2018, 12:18 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: There will be opportunities to do things like the Iron Horse Trail at Glasgow, Gildner Green, but there are opportunity costs there as well - that space seems like it could have easily been a dozen or more of the neighbouring single family homes, had those streets extended and Edna run adjacent to the Trail. It's not surprising that the city doesn't leap at the thought of taking what is millions in land value and buying it to make a tiny park. This is where as-of-right zoning, to be able to build mid-rise anywhere in heritage zones (1/3 of Kitchener's core), would make everyone's property equally valuable, and thus less pricey, making it easier for both the city to buy land to turn into parks, as well as for SFH-owners to sell their property, without having to first go through all sorts of hoops, to someone who might redevelop it into a 4- or 6-storey medium density neighbourhood apartment or condo.
I believe you mean "Eden Ave.", and you're right, I've never noticed that before. There are only two homes on that street. How many millions of dollars of property are being maintained effectively for the use of two properties.
It also means the other streets in the neighbourhood aren’t dead ends. The value of that is debatable, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that Eden Ave. exists for two properties.
Quote:I'll say it again; real, actual, and, dare I say, 'woke' fiscal conservatives would be flipping out at the way we build our roads.
No disagreement here. Just earlier today I saw some comment (on a different board) about how if we charged full cost recovery on public transit we’d find out that users of it don’t value it as much as the cost of running it. True enough, but even more true for roads, where the usual cost recovery ratio is 0% or a close approximation thereof.
RE: Urban parks - nms - 01-29-2018
Opportunities exist to create public space while allowing larger, denser developments. What comes to mind is the Barrelyards that is essentially several tall buildings, plazas, roads and pathways built on top of a large, underground parking garage. Kitchener City Hall, or Toronto City Hall also have spaces that support taller developments and public spaces that are on top of parking garages. I believe what the residents were suggesting was the need for outdoor space near these developments (or within their boundaries) that would allow future users of the space opportunities to be outside without the need to walk (or drive or bike) greater distances to find the space. Think of walking with children or animals, play space for anyone, squares where picnics or events could be held. It doesn't need to be spectacular, but it provides a space to foster a community.
RE: Urban parks - tomh009 - 01-29-2018
Gentlemen! You can't fight here, this is the War Room!
So the road funding discussion has been moved to a separate thread, to keep this one for urban parks:
http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/showthread.php?tid=1139
RE: Urban parks - mpd618 - 01-29-2018
The cities have to an unfortunate extent followed a model in which they collect parkland dedication fees from urban development, and use it to fund parks at the edge of town. As the cores become more dense, there's a desperate need to infill parks - small and large ones. And the only example I can think of in KW from the last decade is the tiny park expansion being done on William Street in Waterloo.
RE: Urban parks - Pheidippides - 01-30-2018
Mary Allen park is getting bigger too.
RE: Urban parks - MidTowner - 01-30-2018
(01-29-2018, 12:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I believe you mean "Eden Ave.", and you're right, I've never noticed that before. There are only two homes on that street. How many millions of dollars of property are being maintained effectively for the use of two properties.
I'll say it again; real, actual, and, dare I say, 'woke' fiscal conservatives would be flipping out at the way we build our roads.
I think I know what 'woke' is supposed to mean. This speaks to the fact that many people who disagree with the socialization of road costs really don't care about efficiency or proper signals, but just don't like cars. I guess those people are 'woke.'
There are some people- yes, 'real' fiscal conservatives- who really think that there has to be very good reasons for a cost to be born by the public at large, and lament all of the inefficiencies that are created when costs are hidden from the users of a good or service. That's not really 'woke.'
RE: Urban parks - ijmorlan - 01-30-2018
(01-30-2018, 08:44 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Mary Allen park is getting bigger too.
Albeit at a glacial pace. At the rate they’re going, the city will be overrun by glaciers before they’re done.
RE: Urban parks - panamaniac - 01-30-2018
So if we all whip out our magic urban development wands (surely I'm not the only one!), where would we see new/expanded parks in DTK? I could see an expansion of Civic Centre Park (parking below?). How about a small plaza at Weber and Young or at Duke and Ontario, replacing the current surface lots?
RE: Urban parks - MidTowner - 01-30-2018
If it’s magic, then a park at Duke and Francis (Kaufman Loft parking surface), and a larger one at the transit hub. Weber and Young would be a great spot, too. And, further afield, a park at Wellington and Moore (the proposal for the latest phase of Breithaupt Block includes a “private park,” but I have no idea what that means.
I can’t think of a playground in the strictly-defined downtown core. I would like to see more parks on the scale of Hibner Park (Young and Ahrens) with just some basic play equipment. We want more people living downtown, and the absence of that amenity seems like a barrier to that.
RE: Urban parks - KevinL - 01-30-2018
(01-30-2018, 12:55 PM)MidTowner Wrote: the proposal for the latest phase of Breithaupt Block includes a “private park,” but I have no idea what that means.
Ah, that's a POPS (Privately Operated Public Space). The landowner maintains and controls the area, but the general public is invited to use it.