TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C

[taylortbb]

Nothing wrong with not wanting to be Toronto.

But I think there is something wrong with opposing new housing construction when we have a significant shortage and resulting affordability crisis. Canada has the fewest dwelling units per capita of any G7 country, it's no wonder our housing is expensive. Simple supply and demand.

Theoretically one could be for more housing, but believe we should do it differently. I however have yet to see a single opponent of development that has a credible plan for how else to solve our housing crisis. Just lots of handwaving and denial of the problem.

[Bytor]

Nothing wrong with not wanting to be Toronto.

Simply having high-rises doesn't make us Toronto, though.

[dtkvictim]

Nothing wrong with not wanting to be Toronto.

But I think there is something wrong with opposing new housing construction when we have a significant shortage and resulting affordability crisis. Canada has the fewest dwelling units per capita of any G7 country, it's no wonder our housing is expensive. Simple supply and demand.

Theoretically one could be for more housing, but believe we should do it differently. I however have yet to see a single opponent of development that has a credible plan for how else to solve our housing crisis. Just lots of handwaving and denial of the problem.

There is of course a chance that you're right, and "Trucker Joe" is simply opposed to building new housing, but you're absolutely reading more out of that tweet than what is actually there. I would agree it's highly unlikely that he has a credible plan for solving our housing crisis though...

I fall into the category you're describing of believing we should be building more housing, and doing it differently, AND addressing the factors that are driving up demand so high. Though, I also won't object to this building, or any like it, because I know it's extremely unlikely for any of my opinions on policy to come to fruition in Canada's political climate. And this is still better than nothing even if I think it carries a lot of negatives with it.

Nothing wrong with not wanting to be Toronto.

Simply having high-rises doesn't make us Toronto, though.

1) I think concentrated high-rise development is a symptom of the same problems that made Toronto. So in that regard, you're correct, the problem starts elsewhere. But
2) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that buildings primarily occupied by an undiverse (young, single or childless couples) can be a catalyst for redefining an urban culture into something that resembles many other cities.

For the record, I don't think Toronto is some irredeemable hellhole. It's just not a place I would choose to live.

[Lebronj23]

Zoom link for the community meeting tonight at 7pm

https://kitchener-ca.zoom.us/j/85022645682

Edit : 7pm

[ac3r]

Thanks! I'm tempted to join but I attend so many of these things in Ontario cities it gets annoying. It's usually just NIMBYs, counselors and maybe 1 or 2 people supporting it.

[tomh009]

I fall into the category you're describing of believing we should be building more housing, and doing it differently, AND addressing the factors that are driving up demand so high. Though, I also won't object to this building, or any like it, because I know it's extremely unlikely for any of my opinions on policy to come to fruition in Canada's political climate. And this is still better than nothing even if I think it carries a lot of negatives with it.

(...)

2) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that buildings primarily occupied by an undiverse (young, single or childless couples) can be a catalyst for redefining an urban culture into something that resembles many other cities.

So, how about "tiny homes"/granny flats built on SFH properties? Do you support those?

[adjlar]

Please let this be built! I want to see even more height develop into the Kitchener skyline. It's incredible driving 7/8 westbound near Homer Watson and seeing the emerging skyline to the north.

[ac3r]

99.9% chance it'll get built. There's no reason for it not to be and they've poured a lot of effort into researching the impact of the building and residents living there. Currently, it's a derliect parking lot behind a U-haul rental place. There's not much else you could use this land that makes sense. A couple hundred residential units is the most ideal thing you can use it for.

[ac3r]

Here's some bullshit drivel from The Record, as expected. Unsurprisingly, Debbie the Boomer Chapman is against it, stating that the city needs more parks...does she really expect them to build a park where this parking lot is? There does not seem to be any real argument in this op-ed piece, other than building tall, building bad, need more grass.

Edit: here is a digital version of the article: https://outline.com/mA3PST

Credit for the image goes to /u/KitchissipiIONer on Reddit.

[jwilliamson]

"a decent amount of space between the building and the sidewalk"

What does this even mean? Most buildings downtown don't have any space between the building and the sidewalk and are better for it. Even if you think having some dirt there would be an improvement, FAR wouldn't have much effect on it.

[Votemac]

Here's some bullshit drivel from The Record, as expected. Unsurprisingly, Debbie the Boomer Chapman is against it, stating that the city needs more parks...does she really expect them to build a park where this parking lot is? There does not seem to be any real argument in this op-ed piece, other than building tall, building bad, need more grass.

Edit: here is a digital version of the article: https://outline.com/mA3PST

Credit for the image goes to /u/KitchissipiIONer on Reddit.

Lu*sa D'Am*to articles are literal toilet paper

[neonjoe]

"a decent amount of space between the building and the sidewalk"

What does this even mean? Most buildings downtown don't have any space between the building and the sidewalk and are better for it. Even if you think having some dirt there would be an improvement, FAR wouldn't have much effect on it.

Sounds like she prefers the Tower in the Park concept.

[dtkvictim]

I fall into the category you're describing of believing we should be building more housing, and doing it differently, AND addressing the factors that are driving up demand so high. Though, I also won't object to this building, or any like it, because I know it's extremely unlikely for any of my opinions on policy to come to fruition in Canada's political climate. And this is still better than nothing even if I think it carries a lot of negatives with it.

(...)

2) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that buildings primarily occupied by an undiverse (young, single or childless couples) can be a catalyst for redefining an urban culture into something that resembles many other cities.

So, how about "tiny homes"/granny flats built on SFH properties? Do you support those?

Based on the sections of my post you quoted, I'm not sure I follow why you ask, so I'd be interested if you could elaborate. But to answer your question: Yes. I think they are unlikely to make any meaningful difference in the housing market, but I strongly support liberalizing zoning in a way that would allow such structures to exist.

[jeffster]

Here's some bullshit drivel from The Record, as expected. Unsurprisingly, Debbie the Boomer Chapman is against it, stating that the city needs more parks...does she really expect them to build a park where this parking lot is? There does not seem to be any real argument in this op-ed piece, other than building tall, building bad, need more grass.

Edit: here is a digital version of the article: https://outline.com/mA3PST

Credit for the image goes to /u/KitchissipiIONer on Reddit.

Lu*sa D'Am*to articles are literal toilet paper

I kind of stopped reading when she was saying something about mid-town Manhattan being dropping in DTK. Obviously, she's never been to Manhattan. This little building would be dwarfed by everything around it. Bottom line, DKT is growing. This - is - good. It's why we spent $1B for an LRT. We're getting rid of a parking lot, hardly used, and building a nice looking condo. Victoria Park is busy? This is a GOOD problem. It wasn't that long ago that people avoided that place. We WANT a busy park. We want a busy DTK. This is what we want. We don't get there by stopping/slowing progress.

We can either do this, or we can accelerate growth in the outskirts. Start merging the smaller communities just outside the city. Perhaps that's a better option. We can build a ring highway around the outskirts to accommodate traffic. That's the alternative.

[Bytor]

So, how about "tiny homes"/granny flats built on SFH properties? Do you support those?

I don't think coach houses will make any significant difference at all. Few people are going to want to build them and lose the backyard space, and even fewer will actually be renting them out to something other than relatives adult single children or widowed senior parents.