(04-17-2016, 05:32 PM)darts Wrote:(04-17-2016, 12:17 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: I'm all for mixed usage, but this doesn't mean every place has to be that way. This development has a hotel and two office towers. Does it really need to have a restaurant at the bottom of each apartment tower to classify as ok? Will we demand that every house from now on should have a room dedicated for nonresident attraction? Or do we hold it to the more reasonable "something interesting not too far away"?I agree, every location in waterloo doesn't need to be a destination, some palces will just be where people live and the only people who happen to go there will be people who live there. Otherwise we will run into the problem of if you really wanted to get to 2 particular destinations you will need a car because they are fairly far apart or would need 2 bus transfers to get there.
Because this development certainly more than meets this criterion with their commercial development in site and literally dozens of points of interest (rec complex, PI, CCGG, CIGI, Proof, Sole, Church, Waterloo town shoppes, the atrium, uptown, waterloo park, the westmount mall, the button factory) all within a block and a half distance.
Every street doesn't need to be a destination but it should animate the streetscape in some way. The issue people are taking with the development is that the interior of the site is not likely to encourage people to stroll and feel engaged in their surroundings doing so, as it should in an urban setting. It will be transient and encourage people to drive through it rather than walk / bike and experience it (never mind the incredibly high parking spot count enforcing just that).
Below are two sets of images, both very similar, high density, fairly urban streets; the first in each case has doors to people's homes fronting onto the sidewalk every few feet, the other does not. One set is from Toronto, the other from Vancouver and none of these blocks have any retail on them. The question you need to ask yourself is which image in which set would you be more likely to walk... after dark... with a kid... as a senior... woman? And even if you aren't all those things, research shows the same influencing factors will play out (perhaps to a lesser degree) if you are a 6 foot 3, 220 pound male.
Set 1, Toronto:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6606398,...56!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.635922,-7...312!8i6656
Set 2, Vancouver:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.290146,-1...56!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2625942,...56!6m1!1e1
The differences are subtle but even something as small as doors into people's homes makes a huge difference. There are many other things they can do without that like install lots of benches, greenery, things of visual interest, play areas, narrow the streets, etc. so I'll hold back opinion for now on how this will actually turn out as they have done some good and some bad here.
Good:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4649749,...56!6m1!1e1
Bad:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4643134,...56!6m1!1e1