Waterloo Region Connected
King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - Printable Version

+- 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: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1596)

Pages: 1 2

King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 07-22-2021

King 926 was recently approved by the City of Kitchener. It is a 10 floor residential building located between King/Borden/Dane. It has been developed by Vive Developments, planned by MHBC and designed by Neo Architecture. It will have 10 floors containing 91 rental apartments on the upper 9, retail on the first floor and rooftop amenities on the top. Featuring diachronic glass on the upper level windows and balconies as well as grey and black sandblasted concrete, Neo Architecture aims to create a building-as-art that will create a "memorable entrance to the city" (similar to the proposed 32 floor condo also being developed by Vive Developments).

[Image: HldWXvE.jpg]

A preliminary urban design brief is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kcXr-0L8OD7r_6R49yZyI3gqzxmy1kq7/view

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 07-22-2021

Thanks for creating the thread! I did change it to "Proposed" since there are no shovels in the ground yet! (We haven't been using any intermediate statuses between "Proposed" and "U/C".)

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - GtwoK - 07-22-2021

I thought I'd read this got rejected? Did something change?

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - taylortbb - 07-22-2021

(07-22-2021, 11:23 AM)GtwoK Wrote: I thought I'd read this got rejected? Did something change?

City staff recommended rejection, but the committee overruled them and approved it. Pretty unprecedented I think, normally it's the other way.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - jamincan - 07-22-2021

Does anyone know why staff recommended rejection?

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 07-22-2021

(07-22-2021, 11:50 AM)taylortbb Wrote:
(07-22-2021, 11:23 AM)GtwoK Wrote: I thought I'd read this got rejected? Did something change?

City staff recommended rejection, but the committee overruled them and approved it. Pretty unprecedented I think, normally it's the other way.

I have not paid attention to the meeting, but it might be because the architects designed the building in a way that the structure itself will be closest to King Street, so that the backyards of the existing homes neighbouring it won't suffer from shadows or blatantly seeing the structure from their windows (existing trees will help obscure it too). A quote in the article elaborates, saying the building will be "as close to the street as possible while the single loaded corridor design respects the stable low rise community in our rear yard". That is a common trick to use when you want to build higher, but wish to respect the neighbouring properties (using setbacks is also effective). It can help overrule any complaints about building height, as some residents were seemingly complaining about.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - welltoldtales - 07-22-2021

I believe the issue was the process. Staff were recommending it go to a bylaw amendment which meant the community would have input. This process means they get to bypass community intervention as a variance change.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 07-22-2021

The community is still involved in the process for Committee of Adjustments. Just a smaller segment of neighbors are made aware by the city as apposed to the Bylaw amendment procedure.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - StephieS468 - 08-04-2021

(07-22-2021, 12:13 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(07-22-2021, 11:50 AM)taylortbb Wrote: City staff recommended rejection, but the committee overruled them and approved it. Pretty unprecedented I think, normally it's the other way.

I have not paid attention to the meeting, but it might be because the architects designed the building in a way that the structure itself will be closest to King Street, so that the backyards of the existing homes neighbouring it won't suffer from shadows or blatantly seeing the structure from their windows (existing trees will help obscure it too). A quote in the article elaborates, saying the building will be "as close to the street as possible while the single loaded corridor design respects the stable low rise community in our rear yard". That is a common trick to use when you want to build higher, but wish to respect the neighbouring properties (using setbacks is also effective). It can help overrule any complaints about building height, as some residents were seemingly complaining about.
The footprint of the lot is so small, it doesn't matter how close it is to King. In no way does this 11 story structure "respect the stable low rise community in our rear yard." It is zoned for a maximum of 19 metres high; the "minor variance" they have been approved for is for 32 - 35 metres high! We will all see it from our windows and the shadows it creates as it blocks the afternoon sun.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - StephieS468 - 08-04-2021

(07-22-2021, 01:08 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: The community is still involved in the process for Committee of Adjustments.  Just a smaller segment of neighbors are made aware by the city as apposed to the Bylaw amendment procedure.
Yes - only neighbours living within 30 metres were invited (last minute). If it went through a request for a zone change, neighbours within 120 metres would be invited.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 08-09-2021

(08-04-2021, 05:03 PM)StephieS468 Wrote: The footprint of the lot is so small, it doesn't matter how close it is to King. In no way does this 11 story structure "respect the stable low rise community in our rear yard." It is zoned for a maximum of 19 metres high; the "minor variance" they have been approved for is for 32 - 35 metres high! We will all see it from our windows and the shadows it creates as it blocks the afternoon sun.

The lot is 36m (120') deep so it surely does make some difference as to whether the new building is set against the front sidewalk or the back fence.

It will certainly block the late-afternoon sun for several houses behind it (it backs onto two properties, as the houses face either Dane St or Borden St) -- but even a 19m building would do that, as the sun is relatively low for most of the year, starting in the mid-afternoon. And I will note that neither of the two houses has many side windows facing the new construction, as single-family houses are typically built with most of the windows facing either the street or the back yard.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - DK519 - 12-21-2021

A little update on this development. I'm not exactly sure how all this works but can someone in favour of it submit a statement too or is it only for those against?

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 12-21-2021

(12-21-2021, 09:00 PM)DK519 Wrote: A little update on this development. I'm not exactly sure how all this works but can someone in favour of it submit a statement too or is it only for those against?

Absolutely. All you need to do is fill in a web form!
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Participant-Status-Request-Form.html

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 12-22-2021

I suspect that the chances that the appellant will succeed are slim to nil, with nil being the more likely.

RE: King 926 (926 King St E) | 10 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 12-22-2021

Likely. They're not going to worry that much about such a small height difference. People need to finally accept that the city is densifying. Maybe it's time each city just reviews its zoning laws and amend them for the 21st century already. City of Kitchener, for example, spent tens of thousands of dollars researching their PARTS Plan which should streamline the way for densification of urban areas, but each project is still stuck going through this nonsense due to often archaic zoning laws.