Regional Official Plan

[Acitta]

Regional Official Plan

[Acitta]

Updating The Regional Official Plan

New Short Survey on Regional Environmental Policy

[Bytor]

I was looking at that today, and my OCD really wants to respond some of the map comments. Some have added "this area is ripe for redevelopment!" type comments along ION Stage 1 and Stage 2 corridors which are already intensification targets whereas this is about potential new corridors, not the existing ones. :-P

[ac3r]

FYI there are some updates to the EngageWR Regional Official Plan page: https://www.engagewr.ca/regional-official-plan

[ac3r]

FYI there are some updates to the EngageWR Regional Official Plan page: https://www.engagewr.ca/regional-official-plan

A quick addition but it's interesting to note that they're now projecting 923,000 people living here by 2051. So long as the economics hold up and housing doesn't crash, it will surely surpass that well before, in my opinion, just based on how fast people are moving here and how much housing has been built/approved/proposed. The 2017 regional population projections predicted 699,435 by 2041. It's only 2022 and we're currently at over 630'000 in 2022 - so we're already nearing that 2017 projection already. There were officially 623,930 here in 2020, so that's +6000 people by 2022, meaning by 2041 it may be a lot higher (note, I'm going by the signs on the highways for that, so we may have hit 630'000 before 2022). I have no idea if these numbers even take into account the thousands upon thousands of students studying at our 3 post-secondary education facilities.

I think by 2051 we'll easily have 1'000'000 people living in Waterloo Region so long as real estate doesn't crash and the supply chain doesn't completely continue to collapse due to the pandemic, rising global inflation and the potential for more war in Europe and elsewhere. I hope the region and the cities are taking this potential into account, rather than just relying on mathematical projections which are often always wrong. We're going to need a hell of a lot more investment in housing (especially social/affordable housing) as well as expansion of our rapid transit systems if we're going to keep up with this. I know the region will certainly base their plans based on what statisticians calculate, but they ought to leave room for error. If we max out our housing and transit before they project we hit our population projections, we'll be trying to catch up. That won't be a good thing and we may be again running around figuring out how we can house and move hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) of people around this region.

[bravado]

FYI there are some updates to the EngageWR Regional Official Plan page: https://www.engagewr.ca/regional-official-plan

A quick addition but it's interesting to note that they're now projecting 923,000 people living here by 2051. So long as the economics hold up and housing doesn't crash, it will surely surpass that well before, in my opinion, just based on how fast people are moving here and how much housing has been built/approved/proposed. The 2017 regional population projections predicted 699,435 by 2041. It's only 2022 and we're currently at over 630'000 in 2022 - so we're already nearing that 2017 projection already. There were officially 623,930 here in 2020, so that's +6000 people by 2022, meaning by 2041 it may be a lot higher (note, I'm going by the signs on the highways for that, so we may have hit 630'000 before 2022). I have no idea if these numbers even take into account the thousands upon thousands of students studying at our 3 post-secondary education facilities.

I think by 2051 we'll easily have 1'000'000 people living in Waterloo Region so long as real estate doesn't crash and the supply chain doesn't completely continue to collapse due to the pandemic, rising global inflation and the potential for more war in Europe and elsewhere. I hope the region and the cities are taking this potential into account, rather than just relying on mathematical projections which are often always wrong. We're going to need a hell of a lot more investment in housing (especially social/affordable housing) as well as expansion of our rapid transit systems if we're going to keep up with this. I know the region will certainly base their plans based on what statisticians calculate, but they ought to leave room for error. If we max out our housing and transit before they project we hit our population projections, we'll be trying to catch up. That won't be a good thing and we may be again running around figuring out how we can house and move hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) of people around this region.

There seems to be no reason whatsoever to not plan for the most ambitious option available. How often does Government make something that never gets used? Surely it's always the other way around. Caution is a disaster in this specific issue.

We get to preserve local countryside, reduce emissions, increase the tax base and keep the same total surface area? They are all wins. The cons seem to be: Some people might not get to have a backyard.

[Bytor]

I think by 2051 we'll easily have 1'000'000 people living in Waterloo Region so long as real estate doesn't crash

If the real estate bubble doesn't pop and give people relief, the only ones moving here by then will be billionaires and everybody with less than a quarter-million family income will be moving away because even renting is too expensive.

[ijmorlan]

I think by 2051 we'll easily have 1'000'000 people living in Waterloo Region so long as real estate doesn't crash

If the real estate bubble doesn't pop and give people relief, the only ones moving here by then will be billionaires and everybody with less than a quarter-million family income will be moving away because even renting is too expensive.

Except that there aren’t that many billionaires so you can count on house prices topping out at some point well below that level.

But unless we build many more places to live, still at a level way too high for a significant fraction of the population.

[nms]

I don't know if I first came across it here, but apparently Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, France, is the 9th densest place in the world for population, yet it also appears very human-scaled with no large towers. (so says this Twitter thread).  It's not even 2-square kilometers (less than half the size of the University of Waterloo campus), and has a population of 49,700 people. I would like to see a proposal for more density that does not include incredibly tall towers that will only beget more tall towers while ignoring what makes a community great at the street level.

[plam]

I don't know if I first came across it here, but apparently Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, France, is the 9th densest place in the world for population, yet it also appears very human-scaled with no large towers. (so says this Twitter thread).  It's not even 2-square kilometers (less than half the size of the University of Waterloo campus), and has a population of 49,700 people.  I would like to see a proposal for more density that does not include incredibly tall towers that will only beget more tall towers while ignoring what makes a community great at the street level.

I'm never going to say that we shouldn't have tall towers but I do think that having lots of 4-6 storey buildings is perhaps actually more effective in getting lots of density.

[danbrotherston]

I don't know if I first came across it here, but apparently Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, France, is the 9th densest place in the world for population, yet it also appears very human-scaled with no large towers. (so says this Twitter thread).  It's not even 2-square kilometers (less than half the size of the University of Waterloo campus), and has a population of 49,700 people.  I would like to see a proposal for more density that does not include incredibly tall towers that will only beget more tall towers while ignoring what makes a community great at the street level.

I'm never going to say that we shouldn't have tall towers but I do think that having lots of 4-6 storey buildings is perhaps actually more effective in getting lots of density.

You have to define "more effective".

We're looking at political feasibility, and right now building so much as a duplex in an existing neighbourhood is completely impossible.

Towers are the ONLY way I see to build density at least until our pols get the stones to tell NIMBYs where to shove it.

Hell, we can't even build reasonable density in greenfield developments (partly because we have no plan for developing or servicing dense developments). It's pretty amazing to see here in NL, forget the city centre, look at the brand new suburb built in the last 10 years. While I'm sure it's less dense than Paris (and other places here), it's still relatively extremely dense, but has huge green spaces, services, transportation, good architecture etc. It's not about age, it's about policy and design, and we just don't have it.

[jamincan]

I think part of the problem with the 4-6 story range is accessibility requirements for elevators. Once developers are installing elevators, they might as well build even higher.

[westwardloo]

I think part of the problem with the 4-6 story range is accessibility requirements for elevators. Once developers are installing elevators, they might as well build even higher.

Ding Ding Ding. This is the big this answer to why we don't have 3-4 story walkups in new developments like we do in the older neighbourhoods. The way developers get around this now is to build stacked townhouses, which are more complex to build (Increased cost = more expensive units)  and I rarely see them as rental units. My neighbourhood is from the 40's, it is full of single detached homes but also has a decent amount of 3-4 storey walkups or triplexes mixed in. As soon as elevator is required it does not make economic sense to build a 3-6 story building. I think accessibility is an important issues, but sweeping requirements for every new build to be accessible has increased cost and deterred builders from building what some consider a more human scaled building. Looking at google streetview of Vincennes, I would hazard a guess that maybe 25% of those buildings have an elevator? I wish we could build dense neighbourhoods like paris, but that built form was probably built in the 1700/1800's, I think we should look more to Copenhagen's new suburbs for inspiration. 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vestam...6005?hl=en

If the region was truly forward think we would be planning a new phase of the LRT into Bridgeport or Breslau with a master planned dense development at the end of the line. People can't complain about 10 storey building if the whole neighbourhood has been planned with 10 storey buildings. 

[ac3r]

I don't know if I first came across it here, but apparently Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, France, is the 9th densest place in the world for population, yet it also appears very human-scaled with no large towers. (so says this Twitter thread).  It's not even 2-square kilometers (less than half the size of the University of Waterloo campus), and has a population of 49,700 people.  I would like to see a proposal for more density that does not include incredibly tall towers that will only beget more tall towers while ignoring what makes a community great at the street level.

God I wish we could replicate the sort of density we see in European cities. You don't need towers, you just need 6 floor buildings, no setbacks, parking on the street, in car parks or alternatively in a courtyard behind the residential buildings facing the streets, slower streets overall for more safety etc. I don't think we could completely replicate that here because we just don't have the public transit options. Vincennes has two Paris Metro lines running under it and bus lines. A good number of people living in these cities utilize public transit, which is why they can get away with narrow streets that even include car parking. Maybe one day...

[danbrotherston]

Contrary to popular opinion, European cities (at least the ones I've been to) do have towers, 10-16 stories is totally common. Yes, there is also a lot of midrise, but there aren't zero towers.

Also, it isn't just about elevators...I've been in a half dozen (4-6 stories) buildings in the past month, most of them have elevators. Yes, there are also lots of 3 story walkups, but it is totally feasible to put elevators in smaller buildings (we do this in Canada as well).

FWIW...there are ways to make elevators more economical, for example, some buildings I've seen are connected by walkways to a central staircase with a single elevator bank shared between buildings.