Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed

[bravado]

This is an outrageous disappointment. At this point, I can only hope that nobody is remaining in the city to care for these old assholes when they retire. Unconscionable selfishness and incompetence.

[tomh009]

I will note, however, that not all old people are opposed. Not even close. The people in the photos may be old, but they really represent only a tiny fraction of older people. Generalizing to all old people is just as unreasonable as generalizations about visible minorities, or about university students, or about catholics, or about homeless people, or ...

[dtkvictim]

It occurs to me they probably contribute more, on average, to the community. Somebody who lives in an apartment of that size probably wants to get out once in a while. If somebody lives in a 6 bedroom McMansion, there is really no need to go elsewhere.

So true. I mean...who is more likely to go out and enjoy and even contribute to a growing, vibrant downtown? Geriatric old white people that probably don't even go outside now because "we're becoming like Toronto! Crime, traffic, homelessness!"...or progressive, young people looking to make the Region of Waterloo a cool place to be now that they've made it their home? Spoilers: certainly not the angry old people who are going to be in a retirement home in the suburbs in 5 years.

Both demographics and types of built environments are capable of having a strong community, I don't think it's a competition. I think it's also true that the form community takes between the two can be drastically different and incompatible, so it's no surprised that the established community views this as the beginning of the end for their community. I spent most of my life suburban or rural, and always had a strong sense of community in my neighbourhood, which is completely non-existent for me living downtown, not because community doesn't exist here, but because it takes a completely different form than what I'm compatible with.

Though, while acknowledging the potential for community in high density environments, I still believe highrise buildings have additional challenges in community building. You yourself even replied to my comments, with additional sources backing up my position. What happened to that position of yours? Is pride in your work here (which despite my distaste for highrises, is an attractive design) colouring your judgement, or have your arguments changed for other reasons?

Regardless of my above thoughts, I don't believe this project should have been rejected. It's made even more insulting by the IN8 projects going ahead.

[urbd]

Urban planner in recovery here. After having worked for almost 10 years in these types of projects, I know that this outcome was expected and obviously already built into the developer's pro forma. It was so extreme to begin with so that they can come back with HALF the height (which honestly makes more sense at this location) and get an instant approval. Mark my words.

[danbrotherston]

Urban planner in recovery here. After having worked for almost 10 years in these types of projects, I know that this outcome was expected and obviously already built into the developer's pro forma. It was so extreme to begin with so that they can come back with HALF the height (which honestly makes more sense at this location) and get an instant approval. Mark my words.

What exactly makes it "extreme"...and why would half the height make more sense?

Half the height is half the housing, and this corner is intended for high density.

The proposed buildings are large, but in no way exceptional for the region today. The tallest building in this development wouldn't even be the tallest building in the region today, let alone in 5 years when it's finished. The shorter two wouldn't even break the top 10 list.

The city is growing up a 20-30 storey building isn't 'extreme' in my opinion and this location is exactly where dense development was planned for.

[ac3r]

This needs to happen. The encampment could continue so the homeless wouldn't inevitably lose their place to live and it would be the biggest FU to the NIMBYS. If residential towers cause too many shadows, too much traffic and would destroy the character of the gravel parking lot they wish to preserve, surely they'd have no problem with a modest little collection of tents, right?

[Chris]

This needs to happen. The encampment could continue so the homeless wouldn't inevitably lose their place to live and it would be the biggest FU to the NIMBYS. If residential towers cause too many shadows, too much traffic and would destroy the character of the gravel parking lot they wish to preserve, surely they'd have no problem with a modest little collection of tents, right?

I would love to see this happen. Careful what you wish for comes to mind...

[tomh009]

The city is growing up a 20-30 storey building isn't 'extreme' in my opinion and this location is exactly where dense development was planned for.

I suspect a 20-30 storey complex (similar height to Garment St) might have passed. However, the proposal was closer to 40 storeys with two towers of 38 and 36 storeys.

[CP42]

I think more of us in favour need to voice our opinions here. I shared mine with all members of council and received responses from an in-favour voting councillor who raised some good points… they will likely bring this to OLT which will raise costs and the city will lose out on all the additional benefits provided as part of the bonusing program.

[cherrypark]

Wish I had been able the last two weeks to prepare to delegate. But agreed the split of pro/anti in the letters was definitely present in fair numbers either way, though the delegations were predictably mostly anti folks with lots of time on their hands.

From Councillor Davey on Reddit:

Hey... just taking a second to thank everyone for the comments here. Reddit is a trusted sounding-board.

I voted in favour of the development and am still reeling a bit that it failed tbh. It wasn't a perfect proposal, few are, but within the context of a housing supply crisis, I thought ~1200 new homes within a ~5 min walk of the Multimodal Transit Hub was a no-brainer. There was also a donation securing 48 new affordable homes tied to this that is now in jeopardy... and everyone knows how much we need those.

We have a good council, and even when I lose a vote, I typically understand the rationale and relative-weight of the counter-argument, but with this one... I'm struggling.

Sounds like the number of question and comment free no votes was as much a surprise to him.

[ac3r]

From Councillor Davey on Reddit:

Hey... just taking a second to thank everyone for the comments here. Reddit is a trusted sounding-board.

I voted in favour of the development and am still reeling a bit that it failed tbh. It wasn't a perfect proposal, few are, but within the context of a housing supply crisis, I thought ~1200 new homes within a ~5 min walk of the Multimodal Transit Hub was a no-brainer. There was also a donation securing 48 new affordable homes tied to this that is now in jeopardy... and everyone knows how much we need those.

We have a good council, and even when I lose a vote, I typically understand the rationale and relative-weight of the counter-argument, but with this one... I'm struggling.

I wish I noticed this post before I sent off an email to council. I would have mentioned that even some of their members think they f'd up hard (written, of course, in the most professional passive-aggressive way... ).

[clasher]

I just fired off a rambling letter to council and the mayor. I ended it with "I hope the developer takes this to the land tribunal and wins" Fuck these goofs that voted against this, they're just talking out both sides of their mouths.

[ijmorlan]

This needs to happen. The encampment could continue so the homeless wouldn't inevitably lose their place to live and it would be the biggest FU to the NIMBYS. If residential towers cause too many shadows, too much traffic and would destroy the character of the gravel parking lot they wish to preserve, surely they'd have no problem with a modest little collection of tents, right?

Awesome!

On even the most optimistic timeline it will be over a year until construction can begin, either on the rejected proposal after an appeal or on an alternate project. I think that’s long enough to be worth moving tents in.

[danbrotherston]

This needs to happen. The encampment could continue so the homeless wouldn't inevitably lose their place to live and it would be the biggest FU to the NIMBYS. If residential towers cause too many shadows, too much traffic and would destroy the character of the gravel parking lot they wish to preserve, surely they'd have no problem with a modest little collection of tents, right?

I would love to see this happen. Careful what you wish for comes to mind...

I want it to happen because I think it will reduce the harm these people will face.

The fact that it would stick it to the NIMBYs is merely a delicious cherry on top of an otherwise really unfortunate and mediocre situation.

[danbrotherston]

The city is growing up a 20-30 storey building isn't 'extreme' in my opinion and this location is exactly where dense development was planned for.

I suspect a 20-30 storey complex (similar height to Garment St) might have passed. However, the proposal was closer to 40 storeys with two towers of 38 and 36 storeys.

Maybe...or maybe not. I'm not really sure. But I still take exception to it being called "extreme"...like I said, it's on par for other developments in the region.