130-142 Victoria Street South | 25 fl | Proposed

[ac3r]

I couldn't find floor plans for units in the linked documents. Could you show me where they are? When are sales anticipated?

I've got some of the floorplans and orthographic drawings (aka section drawings) through someone affiliated with the project and the units look alright, but what I have is not final. They're much less shoebox-in-the-sky style units when compared to a project like TEK, for example. The only publicly available floorplans right now are what are included here but they don't give the layouts of the units, so you'd have to use your imagination to guess how they'd be arranged (which, if you understand basic architectural design practices, should be easy to envision). At the very least, that document gives you an idea of how much square footage each unit may be.

No idea when sales are expected...probably not for a while. This project started months ago, but only recently became public so there will be a lot of wiggle room for changes depending on how the process goes.

[Spokes]

I missed this thread this week. Anyways, really nice addition to Victoria Street. I like the use of what looks like brick at street level. Nice touch.

[mastermind]

Looks good. I first thought "too bad the garage door is onto Victoria, there should be shops there" but now I'm thinking maybe not. Maybe the extension of Garment St gets the shops and Victoria St becomes the 'back' of the project, from most users point of view?

[Lens]

Looks good.  I first thought "too bad the garage door is onto Victoria, there should be shops there" but now I'm thinking maybe not.  Maybe the extension of Garment St gets the shops and Victoria St becomes the 'back' of the project, from most users point of view?

Seems like it would be smarter to have access off Bramm or at least one way for each street

[CP42]

Another highrise — 25 storeys — proposed for Victoria Street in Kitchener

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...hener.html

https://archive.ph/ACSL8

[tomh009]

Chapman is clearly not supportive, all her comments are negative.

[CP42]

Chapman is clearly not supportive, all her comments are negative.

I’m guessing she’s not planning on staying on council long… all these new residents who she doesn’t want in her neighbourhood likely won’t be supporting her.

[cherrypark]

“It’s the same old problem,” she said. “Do we want families in these buildings? Do we want people who are on full-time minimum wage in these buildings?”

Chapman said the city is reworking its downtown plan and she would like to see a moratorium on development in the core until the plan is finalized. The city is within its density goals so it can wait, she said.

The current zoning exemption/amendment is already its own form of moratorium. The idea that "we're meeting density targets" is lunacy given the current state of real estate, let alone the assumption that there can't be opportunity created by densifying the 1-2 bed home units into this area.

In the same article she talks about how there is not enough park land, while this property abuts the largest vacant area in downtown the city owns. How about instead masterplanning that land to build the 3-bed and affordable units and take all the space those units could have required in mid-rise and make a park? Doesn't take a lot of imagination.

[Acitta]

Chapman is clearly not supportive, all her comments are negative.

I regret voting for her.

[ac3r]

Chapman said the city is reworking its downtown plan and she would like to see a moratorium on development in the core until the plan is finalized. The city is within its density goals so it can wait, she said.

Can she just piss off already? This country is in perhaps the worst housing crisis in its history and people like her are like "Oh, you want to build more homes? No."

[cherrypark]

Same cold take and non-solution proposed by our Kitchener Centre liberal candidate as well...

Excited to hear how they will reduce land values and enable more affordable prices with a supply side constraint on a market with a historically low supply. But hey, we're meeting our 2016 era density targets, so the rest of the data and indicators are non-factors!

[ac3r]

Liberals gonna neo-liberal. If we keep letting NIMBYs stall projects we'll just get more tent cities like the one on Victoria Street. I wonder how Debbie feels about those people...eh? Surely she wants to see more houses built to increase inventory to decrease costs? As opposed to having citizens one of the provinces most important cities which she represents living in tents, shitting and pissing all over downtown and trying to bathe and brush their teeth in what few public washrooms they are able to get access to? Who am I kidding, she doesn't lose any sleep over this catastrophe, she's a politician lol. If I was in her shoes I'd be losing sleep trying to fight for affordable housing and then cooking food for these people because I would feel obligated and ashamed at that. Meanwhile she sits in a fuckin' office and complains about how tall buildings are.

[nms]

My impression of the comments that were published was that, now that the City is getting close to the density targets, perhaps there should be a reevaluation to make sure that things are still going the direction that they should be. Packing more tall towers into the small space in downtown without giving some thought to other things that would make the downtown more of a complete community, might not be the best option. For instance, what zoning restrictions are currently in place that limit what could be in the base of a tower? If the City were looking for dedicated community space (perhaps a community pool, a library, a seniors centre, a day care, or I don't know what), could it happen under the current downtown zoning? If Downtown Kitchener is clearly becoming an attractive development location, is the planned level of green space actually going to match the level of current project development? Most of these towers are going to be part of the urban fabric well past our lifetimes, so we've only got one chance to get it right.

[dtkmelissa]

My impression of the comments that were published was that, now that the City is getting close to the density targets, perhaps there should be a reevaluation to make sure that things are still going the direction that they should be.  Packing more tall towers into the small space in downtown without giving some thought to other things that would make the downtown more of a complete community, might not be the best option.  For instance, what zoning restrictions are currently in place that limit what could be in the base of a tower?  If the City were looking for dedicated community space (perhaps a community pool, a library, a seniors centre, a day care, or I don't know what), could it happen under the current downtown zoning?  If Downtown Kitchener is clearly becoming an attractive development location, is the planned level of green space actually going to match the level of current project development?  Most of these towers are going to be part of the urban fabric well past our lifetimes, so we've only got one chance to get it right.

They aren't targets per se, though, are they? I thought they were 'minimums'. And is a moratorium on downtown development required in order to evaluate the questions you outline? Or could it not happen as part as continued development?

[cherrypark]

My impression of the comments that were published was that, now that the City is getting close to the density targets, perhaps there should be a reevaluation to make sure that things are still going the direction that they should be.  Packing more tall towers into the small space in downtown without giving some thought to other things that would make the downtown more of a complete community, might not be the best option.  For instance, what zoning restrictions are currently in place that limit what could be in the base of a tower?  If the City were looking for dedicated community space (perhaps a community pool, a library, a seniors centre, a day care, or I don't know what), could it happen under the current downtown zoning?  If Downtown Kitchener is clearly becoming an attractive development location, is the planned level of green space actually going to match the level of current project development?  Most of these towers are going to be part of the urban fabric well past our lifetimes, so we've only got one chance to get it right.

Counterpoint: when your city is in boom time and piling up stacks of development fees, maybe its time to put a piece of that towards a stronger, larger planning department that can get that done in a reasonable time frame without (a) having to artificially block up an already supply constrained market indefinitely, and (b) having to spend hours upon hours of staff time on whining on about 1-2 stories of height on high quality midrises like 660 Belmont when there are bigger issues at hand.