Posts: 2,008
Threads: 18
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
47
(03-26-2018, 10:18 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I can't recall what was proposed that set things off, but i actually have some sympathy for the large lot owners in that bit of Colonial Acres. Re the other opposition to towers, I wonder what alternative there is for Waterloo but to grow upwards/more dense? Isn't the City almost out of development lands?
Yes, that's what Regional staff were saying at one of the recent consultations, I think the one on the Regional Transportation Master Plan.
Posts: 1,195
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
34
(03-26-2018, 10:18 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I can't recall what was proposed that set things off, but i actually have some sympathy for the large lot owners in that bit of Colonial Acres. Re the other opposition to towers, I wonder what alternative there is for Waterloo but to grow upwards/more dense? Isn't the City almost out of development lands?
It may be related to the changes that were proposed and rejected at Bridge and Lexington. Building townhouses at an intersection of two arterial roads was too much, apparently.
Yes, I believe that all available greenfield land in Waterloo has been spoken for, and the last bits in the northwest corner are being developed.
Posts: 304
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
5
Is there a map on here that show the city boundaries and what build out is left. Kitchener still seems to keep growing. Stantec seems to have signs all the way out Fischer Hallam and at Ottawa and Trussler
Posts: 2,879
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
98
(03-26-2018, 09:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (03-26-2018, 09:26 PM)tomh009 Wrote: "Approximately 20 residents from the Colonial Acres / Lexington neighbourhood have submitted comments to staff working on the comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Resident views are closely aligned, and focussing on the following:
• Keep the area unchanged.
• Carry forward the existing 1976 site specific by-law (applies to a portion of the area).
• Extend the above restriction to the west to include Whitmore, Normandy and Castlefield and also to the east to include Hillside - do not support R1 zoning for these streets.
• Do not permit further lot creation, secondary apartments and only permit single detached units. "
BANANA!
*sigh*
There's also an article interviewing people who are opposing developments all over the city (including multiple developments directly beside much larger buildings).
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/835...p-not-out/
There really is no alternative for Waterloo right now. They're pretty much out of land.
Though technically they can start building outside of Waterloo, it just won't be IN Waterloo (like out towards St. Jacobs).
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(03-27-2018, 05:20 PM)jeffster Wrote: There really is no alternative for Waterloo right now. They're pretty much out of land.
Though technically they can start building outside of Waterloo, it just won't be IN Waterloo (like out towards St. Jacobs).
There is very little vacant land in the townships that's zoned for residential. And it's very, very difficult to rezone agricultural land to residential.
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(03-26-2018, 09:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: There's also an article interviewing people who are opposing developments all over the city (including multiple developments directly beside much larger buildings).
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/835...p-not-out/
One of the esteemed councilors is quoted in the article:
"I think overall we've struck the right balance over the last 20 years," Coun. Jeff Henry said.
I think what he means is that the endless extension of suburbs is the right balance, as long as there is a handful of (non-student) residential towers built every 20 years.
Posts: 2,004
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
125
Regarding developable land in Waterloo, there is still a fair bit of undeveloped land that I'm aware of. The first is the land between Fischer-Hallman, Westmount and Columbia (possibly University land?). I have no idea what's planned there.
There is also quite a bit of undeveloped land around Erbsville and Conservation. I know that a development is supposed to be starting soon on the land to the east. I suspect some of the land in that area is protected from development as well.
The only other significant block I'm aware of is the small one just north of RIM Park. It's relatively small, though, compared to the other two.
Posts: 4,467
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
132
(03-28-2018, 08:07 AM)jamincan Wrote: Regarding developable land in Waterloo, there is still a fair bit of undeveloped land that I'm aware of. The first is the land between Fischer-Hallman, Westmount and Columbia (possibly University land?). I have no idea what's planned there.
Not sure myself, but you're correct that it's owned by the university and they have full authority.
Quote:There is also quite a bit of undeveloped land around Erbsville and Conservation. I know that a development is supposed to be starting soon on the land to the east. I suspect some of the land in that area is protected from development as well.
There is indeed a full subdivision plan for this; I imagine plans can be found on the City website or possibly even here somewhere (not sure about specifics).
Posts: 226
Threads: 16
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
6
(03-28-2018, 08:07 AM)jamincan Wrote: The only other significant block I'm aware of is the small one just north of RIM Park. It's relatively small, though, compared to the other two.
If you are referring to the one parcel that's currently agriculture, that farmer is holding out for now (as per builders in the area). Activa has bought land (sugar bush) around him so it is sort of land locked. I'm guessing we might see a couple streets of single-detached homes in the future. The other large parcel out there is industrial employment lands and is currently for sale at $9.225 million.
Posts: 4,467
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
132
The long, slow saga of 599 Strasburg adds another page. What had been a deep hole over most of the southwest side of the site (with a large long mound to the northeast) is now a shallow hole across the entire site.
![[Image: 2yux.jpg]](http://i.thinimg.com/img/2yux.jpg)
Still no word on when some actual construction might start. (It's now a good 5 years since the woodlot here was clear-cut, for the record.)
Posts: 838
Threads: 10
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
43
Maybe they're making a park. Did anyone fall in and break their leg recently?
Posts: 4,467
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
132
(03-28-2018, 04:04 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: Maybe they're making a park. Did anyone fall in and break their leg recently?
Not that I've heard of. The plan was supposed to be for an affordable-housing complex.
Posts: 395
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
9
(03-28-2018, 05:49 PM)KevinL Wrote: (03-28-2018, 04:04 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: Maybe they're making a park. Did anyone fall in and break their leg recently?
Not that I've heard of. The plan was supposed to be for an affordable-housing complex.
A1 location for that sort of development with the Forest Glen transit node across the street!
Posts: 68
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
4
Posts: 2,879
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
98
(04-11-2018, 11:31 PM)razzie13 Wrote: I'm surprised nobody has said a peep about the Pioneer Park Plaza redevelopment. It's getting harder to miss
Nice, thanks for sharing! That plaza was seriously outdated. Built in the 70's and hasn't changed since. Lots of housing out that way, but really no decent place to shop nearby other than that cramped Zehrs. Will be nice to have a LCBO there as well...
|
