General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

people would be less likely to oppose mid density building projects than they would 40-50+ floor skyscrapers.

I agree with your general point on mid-rises and European-style density, but this line stuck out. As far as I can tell, any development of single-detached residential into denser forms faces fierce opposition regardless of density. Even projects to replace two detached houses on large lots with several townhomes get neighbourhoods up in arms, despite no increase in height. I think anything denser than a semi-detached will face fierce opposition unless it's on a major road or in the downtown core, which is a small enough subset of properties that we're left with towers.

Lol...you're right about this...they don't call them BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) for nothing. Folks on Dumfries Ave. successfully killed a plan to tear down a large bungalow and replace it with a duplex. These nutjobs when to council and argued that such a change would destroy the character of their neighbourhood (a neighbourhood containing many small apartment buildings and duplexes). Council agreed with them (I'm sure for totally reasonable and not at all for reasons of political power) and the project died. The developer could have appealed the ruling but for a duplex, the cost would not have been worth it.

Is is in fact the political power people wield to oppose developments which CAUSE us to build large skyscrapers instead of smaller midrise.

[tomh009]

people would be less likely to oppose mid density building projects than they would 40-50+ floor skyscrapers.

I agree with your general point on mid-rises and European-style density, but this line stuck out. As far as I can tell, any development of single-detached residential into denser forms faces fierce opposition regardless of density. Even projects to replace two detached houses on large lots with several townhomes get neighbourhoods up in arms, despite no increase in height. I think anything denser than a semi-detached will face fierce opposition unless it's on a major road or in the downtown core, which is a small enough subset of properties that we're left with towers.

Yes, it's the zoning, and the expectations that it has given people. We're too late to get to a Paris or Montreal-like mid-rise concentration, but hopefully we can enable more mid-rise construction yet.

We have to deal with the constraints of zoning and heritage districts, but there are still infill mid-rise (up to six floors) projects in the urban areas both recently completed (Midtown Lofts, Walter, RED, Courtland Ave townhouses) and ones in the works (Alexandra apartments, Vive on Borden Ave, Woodside Terraces, townhouses on Brick St, Benton/Courtland project etc). And more in the suburbs where zoning is less of a constraint. But we do need more ...

[dtkmelissa]

people would be less likely to oppose mid density building projects than they would 40-50+ floor skyscrapers.

I agree with your general point on mid-rises and European-style density, but this line stuck out. As far as I can tell, any development of single-detached residential into denser forms faces fierce opposition regardless of density. Even projects to replace two detached houses on large lots with several townhomes get neighbourhoods up in arms, despite no increase in height. I think anything denser than a semi-detached will face fierce opposition unless it's on a major road or in the downtown core, which is a small enough subset of properties that we're left with towers.

I mean, 660 Belmont is a great example of this. The original proposal was 13 storeys, then 12, and the city offered several council meetings dedicated to discussing this proposal (with a result of a 10 storey building). That was a whole lot of pushback and outrage on what is not a very tall building in my mind.

[ac3r]

I agree with your general point on mid-rises and European-style density, but this line stuck out. As far as I can tell, any development of single-detached residential into denser forms faces fierce opposition regardless of density. Even projects to replace two detached houses on large lots with several townhomes get neighbourhoods up in arms, despite no increase in height. I think anything denser than a semi-detached will face fierce opposition unless it's on a major road or in the downtown core, which is a small enough subset of properties that we're left with towers.

I mean, 660 Belmont is a great example of this. The original proposal was 13 storeys, then 12, and the city offered several council meetings dedicated to discussing this proposal (with a result of a 10 storey building). That was a whole lot of pushback and outrage on what is not a very tall building in my mind.

The opposition to the Belmont project was frustrating. The city and residents of the neighbourhood all market and act like it's this vibrant, diverse, culturally unique area...as if it's a Kensington Market in Toronto or Mile End Montréal. They've branded it "Belmont Village" even. Yet what is it? A stroad, strip malls and an ocean of parking lots. It's a terrible area with nothing there to even draw people in. This project could have been a catalyst for a revival and evolution of the area - allowing it to actually become something you could dub Belmont Village.

I can't recall if it was approved yet or not. If it was, I hope it can at least help evolve this area even if the building has to be smaller (which I'm not even opposed to in this area). New residents and retail spaces are great. And most of all, a new building does wonders in terms of impacting people in non-tangible ways - by introducing changes to the space(s) they exist in on a day to day basis. It changes attitudes of people in positive ways. In fact, earlier today I was reading a great research paper on this subject titled A Review of Neuroaesthetics Researches Related to Urban Experience which explores how aesthetic and spatial changes to an urban area have drastic impacts on how individual people perceive an area. In other words, I don't think the NIMBYs really understand how complex things like simple architectural and urban changes impact their neighbourhoods and personal experiences in positive ways. They just oppose things but lack the intellect to really make a case as to why, which is why it tends to always boil down to "blah blah blah traffic, shadows, heritage".

[panamaniac]

It has been known as Belmont Village since forever. Could it evolve into something bigger and better? No doubt, although no chance of that with the current development industry in K-W.

[cherrypark]

660 Belmont was approved, thankfully, and the "village" will be better for it. One can only hope that more is done to make it actually a neighbourhood centre for more than cars. The pandemic showing that the parking driveway lanes are better off patios was a start, yet I doubt any person opposing 660 Belmont could have possibly had the imagination for that otherwise.

[plam]

But we need more. More missing middle developments. Sadly...it's election time and not only do people rarely bother to vote at municipal level elections, this time around they'll be more focused on things like economics (as a result of the pandemic as well as a recession that's slowly snowballing) and issues like homelessness as so many people are tired of the bums trashing our downtown. I can't think of any candidates that have attempted to address the issues of housing (in detail) with the exception of trusted politicians like Morrice and newcomers like Dorothy McCabe whose platform does touch on this, but doesn't really go into any details.

I don't really watch videos, but yes, more missing middle. Though as tomh says, we get opposition to everything. But opposition to a 4-storey building looks more out of touch with reality, if that helps. NZ's central government is trying to say "you must build at least 4 storeys" though municipal governments are trying to say "character neighbourhoods"; we'll see how that works out. (It is also municipal election season in NZ right now; Wellington seems to have lots of well qualified candidates with 3 candidates per ward, but this is not true everywhere).

[ac3r]

It's worth watching as it's short and at the very least shows how good the neighbourhoods in that city are.

[Acitta]

Kitchener's Strategic Plan 2023-2026

[dtkvictim]

83-93 Ontario St was recently painted (not entirely done yet it seems) and has a new facade on the storefronts. I'm not generally a fan of painting over brick, but this one seems better than just about any other examples in our city. It's also nice to see something painted brighter, instead of Kitchener's staple black/grey.



Here is how it looked before:

[panamaniac]

I'm not generally a fan of painted brick. The storefronts look better (they need to do something about the doors). The rest looks cleaner, I guess.

[tomh009]

It's certainly better than the pink doors and faux shutters on red brick. I'm certain those doors are getting painted yet.

[danbrotherston]

Losing the canopies is a real shame, such a change could significantly increase the energy costs for the building by increasing the cooling load in the summer. Also Queen Street Shawarma's sign is gone? Are they gone? I would hope not!

FWIW...my biggest dislike of painted brick is the issue with maintenance...brick is nearly maintenance free (like once every 100 years or so)...paint has to be refreshed every 3-5 years depending on the facing or it begins to look like shit.

[KevinL]

Also Queen Street Shawarma's sign is gone? Are they gone? 

The comic store's sign is also gone (they have a temporary one in the window) so I imagine it's similar there.

[kidgibnick]

I like these new storefront facades, reminds me of England. But why oh why paint over the Brick…a strong power-wash would have cleaned up the old red brick nicely.