210 Heritage Dr, Kitchener | Stacked townhomes, 26 units

[Bjays93]

Yup it is very much suburban. 

On the note of the green space, personally I would've preferred to see an extension of Georgian park as opposed to knocking down a bunch of trees and putting in a huge surface parking lot.

Doesn't meet the "suburban areas" definition we came up with last year when this forum was renamed.

Isn't Georgian Park on the other side of the street? In any case, the city would need to be proactive in shopping for park extension properties, by the time a developer has purchased it and is proposing a project is really too late.

I thought urban was inside the expressway and suburban outside (with the exception of the Fairview park mall area) this is very much outside the expressway. 

As for this site. Yea its definitely too late for the park extension, which would have been nice. I'm not a huge fan of cutting mature trees down, though at least they aren't clear cutting and building a retaining wall in peoples backyards like they were going to with the first proposal. 

Having 33 surface parking spaces here and no apparent green space is what gets me though. I know it's not an overly large lot but transit around here is quite good and 33 spaces for 26 units feels like a lot to me. And ideally I think youd want to see the parking tucked under the houses and a nice garden area out front, though of course that would be more expensive and I'm sure maximizing profit here is the only consideration. 

On a side note, apparently the development changes were not based on community feedback as the article suggested but rather a study was done and it was determined that the hill wasnt stable enough for houses to be built on, hence the scaled back proposal. Not that that really matter too much.

[tomh009]

Doesn't meet the "suburban areas" definition we came up with last year when this forum was renamed.

I thought urban was inside the expressway and suburban outside (with the exception of the Fairview park mall area) this is very much outside the expressway. 

We really based it on the character of the neighbourhood: meandering, non-direct streets and dead ends (as invented in the 60s). This area is kind of transitional. Anyway, it's hard to have 100% clear rules for this.

[dtkvictim]

Doesn't meet the "suburban areas" definition we came up with last year when this forum was renamed.

Isn't Georgian Park on the other side of the street? In any case, the city would need to be proactive in shopping for park extension properties, by the time a developer has purchased it and is proposing a project is really too late.

I thought urban was inside the expressway and suburban outside (with the exception of the Fairview park mall area) this is very much outside the expressway. 

As for this site. Yea its definitely too late for the park extension, which would have been nice. I'm not a huge fan of cutting mature trees down, though at least they aren't clear cutting and building a retaining wall in peoples backyards like they were going to with the first proposal. 

Having 33 surface parking spaces here and no apparent green space is what gets me though. I know it's not an overly large lot but transit around here is quite good and 33 spaces for 26 units feels like a lot to me. And ideally I think youd want to see the parking tucked under the houses and a nice garden area out front, though of course that would be more expensive and I'm sure maximizing profit here is the only consideration. 

On a side note, apparently the development changes were not based on community feedback as the article suggested but rather a study was done and it was determined that the hill wasnt stable enough for houses to be built on, hence the scaled back proposal. Not that that really matter too much.

If I was a neighbour, especially one used to the trees, this would definitely be upsetting to me. Modern (stacked) townhouse developments all seem to have the most depressing environments.

[Bjays93]

I thought urban was inside the expressway and suburban outside (with the exception of the Fairview park mall area) this is very much outside the expressway. 

As for this site. Yea its definitely too late for the park extension, which would have been nice. I'm not a huge fan of cutting mature trees down, though at least they aren't clear cutting and building a retaining wall in peoples backyards like they were going to with the first proposal. 

Having 33 surface parking spaces here and no apparent green space is what gets me though. I know it's not an overly large lot but transit around here is quite good and 33 spaces for 26 units feels like a lot to me. And ideally I think youd want to see the parking tucked under the houses and a nice garden area out front, though of course that would be more expensive and I'm sure maximizing profit here is the only consideration. 

On a side note, apparently the development changes were not based on community feedback as the article suggested but rather a study was done and it was determined that the hill wasnt stable enough for houses to be built on, hence the scaled back proposal. Not that that really matter too much.

If I was a neighbour, especially one used to the trees, this would definitely be upsetting to me. Modern (stacked) townhouse developments all seem to have the most depressing environments.

Yes my Aunt and Uncle are the ones featured heavily in the article. The record makes it seem as though they are just being NIMBYs but they are not by any means opposed to redevelopment. 

As I mentioned the site has already be altered for the better which is good but I do get not wanting mature trees to be cut down. They're also concerned for the health of the trees they arent cutting down if they pave over the area they're suggesting with. I actually had a conversation with my uncle the other day and he made a pretty valid point, about how there are large million dollar homes being built nearby just off of lackner in a brand new subdivision, where they could be building with much more density, and are choosing to sandwich a ton of homes on to a one acre lot in an older subdivision here.

As I said before. I dont think the density here is the issue, but the way it's being proposed in a mature neighborhood like this isnt that great.

[jamincan]

Looking at the satellite photo and then looking at the site plan, I have a hard time understanding why 44 trees would need to be removed.

   

[ac3r]

What an absurdly ugly design (both the buildings and parking lots) when compared to something like Victoria Commons: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4624671,...384!8i8192

[ijmorlan]

What an absurdly ugly design (both the buildings and parking lots) when compared to something like Victoria Commons: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4624671,...384!8i8192

I’m pretty sure that is a sample picture of stacked townhouses, not a rendering of this project — according to the site plan above, there are only 2 blocks of townhouses in this development.

That being said, I’m not arguing with your aesthetic assessment of the picture!

[Bytor]

I actually had a conversation with my uncle the other day and he made a pretty valid point, about how there are large million dollar homes being built nearby just off of lackner in a brand new subdivision, where they could be building with much more density, and are choosing to sandwich a ton of homes on to a one acre lot in an older subdivision here.

As I said before. I dont think the density here is the issue, but the way it's being proposed in a mature neighborhood like this isnt that great.

Isn't that quintessential NIMBY, though? "Build it somewhere else, just not where I can see it"?

Mature neighbourhoods are exactly where we should be building these sort of things, in order to increase the density of those neighbourhoods. Otherwise we just perpetuate the "sprawl or shoeboxes in the sky" trap we are currently in by not building any missing middle housing.

Instead of Kitchener current exclusionary zoning regime or the not-better-at-all CRoZBy scheme, we need to make the lowest, least dense tier of residential zone allow triplex, fourplexes, townhomes, three-storey walk-ups, stacked townhomes, and low-rise apartments in addition to single family homes.

"Mature neighbourhood" just seems like a euphemism for "neighbourhood character", which was already fraught with problems if you know the historical context.

[robdrimmie]

Broadly speaking, wouldn't the urban core typically be the most mature neighbourhood in a city? If that is in fact the case, then it seems to me that age of a neighbourhood has no relevance as an argument against change as our urban cores are constantly changing.

[Bjays93]

I actually had a conversation with my uncle the other day and he made a pretty valid point, about how there are large million dollar homes being built nearby just off of lackner in a brand new subdivision, where they could be building with much more density, and are choosing to sandwich a ton of homes on to a one acre lot in an older subdivision here.

As I said before. I dont think the density here is the issue, but the way it's being proposed in a mature neighborhood like this isnt that great.

Isn't that quintessential NIMBY, though? "Build it somewhere else, just not where I can see it"?

Mature neighbourhoods are exactly where we should be building these sort of things, in order to increase the density of those neighbourhoods. Otherwise we just perpetuate the "sprawl or shoeboxes in the sky" trap we are currently in by not building any missing middle housing.

Instead of Kitchener current exclusionary zoning regime or the not-better-at-all CRoZBy scheme, we need to make the lowest, least dense tier of residential zone allow triplex, fourplexes, townhomes, three-storey walk-ups, stacked townhomes, and low-rise apartments in addition to single family homes.

"Mature neighbourhood" just seems like a euphemism for "neighbourhood character", which was already fraught with problems if you know the historical context.

My mature neighbourhood comment was not meant to suggest they can't build density here, there' an apartment (albeit an ugly one) right across the street from this development. I'm more talking about the context of stacked townhouses, and the ugly parking lot that comes with this one. I wouldn't read too much into what I was trying to say. 

Ideally you'd see something get built that doesnt involve paving over an acre of forest in an area that's been able to flourish and grow for years. My mature comment to that extent had more to do with the state of the nature around here, as opposed the age of the buildings themselves. Trees and wildlife take time to foster and grow. I love kitcheners old subdivisions because they are like urban forests. Eventually newer ones will be like that too but it's not something that should be taken for granted. 

As for the other comment about why they would need to cut down more trees. The lot extends well past what you see as green space on satellite view, and into the forest. There are a significant portion of trees they'll be taking out on the one end of the lot. 

On an note unrelated to this development. Obviously it depends on the context and who's saying it but theres nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to keep "neighbourhood character" and one should be able to separate character aesthetically to that of demographic makeup. I think it's totally valid to want something to fit in aesthetically to the context of what's around it without bringing demographics into it. 

People may use aesthetics as an excuse to say only single family detached houses can go on a site, but that's not a valid argument. There are many ways to increase density while keeping with the surrounding context. Material selection is the main factor.

[dtkvictim]

What an absurdly ugly design (both the buildings and parking lots) when compared to something like Victoria Commons: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4624671,...384!8i8192

I’m pretty sure that is a sample picture of stacked townhouses, not a rendering of this project — according to the site plan above, there are only 2 blocks of townhouses in this development.

That being said, I’m not arguing with your aesthetic assessment of the picture!

Yes, I hope this photograph wasn't mistaken as a render! Just using it as an example for the disgusting environment that "dense" developments can be capable of. I grabbed this photo from a real estate listing in Kitchener (the townhouses at Huron Rd & Fischer-Hallman Rd).

[Acitta]

Kitchener residents worry a 26-unit stacked townhouse development in their Stanley Park neighbourhood will increase traffic and remove 45 trees

This thread has the wrong address. It is 210 Heritage Dr. not 201.

[Bjays93]

Kitchener residents worry a 26-unit stacked townhouse development in their Stanley Park neighbourhood will increase traffic and remove 45 trees

This thread has the wrong address. It is 210 Heritage Dr. not 201.

Interesting note on this development from talking to my aunt and uncle. The development was originally submitted wrongly as 201 and corrected. Additionally the application was made to the city nearly 6 months before the developer purchased the property. 

I cant imagine that's something very typical

[jamincan]

Kitchener residents worry a 26-unit stacked townhouse development in their Stanley Park neighbourhood will increase traffic and remove 45 trees

This thread has the wrong address. It is 210 Heritage Dr. not 201.

Interesting note on this development from talking to my aunt and uncle. The development was originally submitted wrongly as 201 and corrected. Additionally the application was made to the city nearly 6 months before the developer purchased the property. 

I cant imagine that's something very typical

I don't think it's that uncommon for a purchase to be contingent on development approvals.

[Bjays93]

Interesting note on this development from talking to my aunt and uncle. The development was originally submitted wrongly as 201 and corrected. Additionally the application was made to the city nearly 6 months before the developer purchased the property. 

I cant imagine that's something very typical

I don't think it's that uncommon for a purchase to be contingent on development approvals.

Interesting til. Seems a little weird but good to know.