UW Indigenous Residence

[nms]

The University of Waterloo is building a new residence starting July 2024 with completion targeted for July 2026. Moderators, feel free to add the renders and appropriate building details.  The planned location is the other end of the pedestrian bridge that spans University Ave with another connecting bridge over to Claudette Millar Hall.

The University of Waterloo will build a new, 500-bed residence building on its main campus with a targeted opening of fall 2026.

In collaboration with Indigenous-owned architecture firm Two Row, and alongside the Office of Indigenous Relations at the University of Waterloo, the building team is taking a design approach that prioritizes Indigenous engagement and principles.

The building will feature a community healing garden to allow for the cultivation of sacred and traditional medicine plants. It will also be home to gathering spaces equipped for smudging, a cleansing ceremony, and will offer spaces to allow for live-in Elders to meet with students.

"I'm very proud that the university is incorporating our commitment to reconciliation in the design of this new space. It's vital to actively seek out opportunities to move forward together with Indigenous communities in every step we take as a university, and the spaces where our students will live is a good and important example of how we can do that," said Vivek Goel, President, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waterloo. "This investment is also a key contribution to continuing to grow the Region's housing capacity, which is especially significant in light of the ongoing challenge of availability in our community and across the country."

The building will also include improved accessibility with multiple accessible room options and increased connectivity to main campus buildings through bridges and ground-level access. There will be dedicated counselling, wellness and sensory spaces, and washrooms will be available to all genders – reflecting the university's commitment to inclusiveness and well-being.

Sustainability will also be top-of-mind, with the use of recycled building materials and air source heat pumps – a low-carbon heating system. The building is being designed to be net-neutral, and the recommended location for the building on the northeast side of parking lot A creates opportunities to explore alternative energy sources, further supporting the university's net zero carbon targets.

"We know that students who live in residence, particularly during their first year of study, achieve higher rates of retention and graduation, high GPAs and a strong sense of belonging, community engagement and personal wellness," said Chris Read, Associate Provost, Students. "This is why we want to ensure that as many students as possible who want to live on campus can, and that when they do, they have thoughtful, sustainable options which prioritize their well-being."

The new residence will be purpose-built for mixed-year accommodation. This approach to campus housing, already popular in the United States, features traditional dorm-style accommodations for first-year students but also incorporates more private and independent living options for upper-year students.

"The mixed-year model is beneficial for both first-year and upper-year students," said Read. "First-year students gain access to mentors in upper-years who can help them integrate into campus communities, and upper-year students gain access to a desirable, on-campus housing experience and leadership opportunities."

The new build is one piece of the university's Campus Housing Facilities Strategy - a long-term plan to inform the revitalization of Campus Housing facilities. It includes new beds, but also calls for the revitalization of current buildings, which are aging, not environmentally sustainable and present barriers to accessibility.

The plan was developed by the teams in Campus Housing and Plant Operations and is based on multiple assessments of the condition and performance of existing buildings, stakeholder workshops, financial development, extensive engagement with student leaders, Campus Housing staff, Plant Operations staff and a wide range of other university stakeholders.

"We've been working to lay out a comprehensive plan which will ensure that housing on campus provides our students with a supportive environment that fosters community and academic success," said Glen Weppler, Director of Housing at Waterloo. "We have that plan now, and I'm thrilled that our leaders are prioritizing this work by supporting the construction of this new building, part of the first phase of this multi-year project."

Waterloo is working with Diamond Schmitt architects and will break ground on the new building in July 2024, pending the approval of the final stages of the project plan by the University of Waterloo's Board of Governors and Regional and Municipal partners.

[ijmorlan]

The University of Waterloo is building a new residence starting July 2024 with completion targeted for July 2026. Moderators, feel free to add the renders and appropriate building details.  The planned location is the other end of the pedestrian bridge that spans University Ave with another connecting bridge over to Claudette Millar Hall.

Where do you get the information about a link to Claudette Millar Hall? I don’t see anything specific in the article. That would be the University’s second bridge across the railway track. I would hope that the bridge if built would be open to the public.

[ZEBuilder]

The University of Waterloo is building a new residence starting July 2024 with completion targeted for July 2026. Moderators, feel free to add the renders and appropriate building details.  The planned location is the other end of the pedestrian bridge that spans University Ave with another connecting bridge over to Claudette Millar Hall.

Where do you get the information about a link to Claudette Millar Hall? I don’t see anything specific in the article. That would be the University’s second bridge across the railway track. I would hope that the bridge if built would be open to the public.

This is an article from May on the new building which states the connections to CMH and CPH.

UW Housing to open new residence building | Imprint (uwimprint.ca)

[KevinL]

That will make trips to campus much easier for residents of that entire block of dorms - no need to cross University in bad weather or heavy traffic, just take the bridge to this new building then the existing bridge into the Engineering block.

[plam]

That will make trips to campus much easier for residents of that entire block of dorms - no need to cross University in bad weather or heavy traffic, just take the bridge to this new building then the existing bridge into the Engineering block.

Problem with bridges is that sometimes it's much longer to take the bridge than to cross at ground level. I guess the current bridge also has a nonsensical termination point so the new infrastructure might help.

[ijmorlan]

That will make trips to campus much easier for residents of that entire block of dorms - no need to cross University in bad weather or heavy traffic, just take the bridge to this new building then the existing bridge into the Engineering block.

Problem with bridges is that sometimes it's much longer to take the bridge than to cross at ground level. I guess the current bridge also has a nonsensical termination point so the new infrastructure might help.

If you’re already in a building at one end, and going to a building at the other end, it’s very different from the situation with a standalone bridge. This is especially true if the whole system of bridges (or tunnels) and buildings is properly designed: you can walk around all over on one level, sometimes in a building and sometimes in a bridge (or tunnel).

I’m interested to see if they modify the Carl Pollock Hall (North) end of the bridge to be accessible. The bridge connects to essentially a landing between two floors, requiring a flight of stairs up or down to access. I cannot imagine that the new building will have that problem and I hope they will install an elevator to fix the problem at the north end.

UW’s system varies; some parts are well designed, where they pick a level to be the interconnection level, and other parts are garbage. Some parts have been improved. For example, the entire Arts system connecting Modern Languages, Environment 1, Arts Lecture Hall, Tatham Centre, and South Campus Hall, used to be completely useless for anybody in a wheelchair except for the ML-EV1 part. When TC was built, it of course had an accessible connection, and more recently an elevator has been installed in AL, so the only useless (for people in wheelchairs) bit is the SCH connection. What is needed there is to add a bit of tunnel to the side to connect to the SCH basement near the existing elevator.

I’ll be interested to see if the bridge to CMH actually happens. If it does, I hope people who don’t live in CMH or the new residence will be able to use it. I can see it being useful for people in UW Place, and for others arriving from the south.

[danbrotherston]

That will make trips to campus much easier for residents of that entire block of dorms - no need to cross University in bad weather or heavy traffic, just take the bridge to this new building then the existing bridge into the Engineering block.

Problem with bridges is that sometimes it's much longer to take the bridge than to cross at ground level. I guess the current bridge also has a nonsensical termination point so the new infrastructure might help.

The existing bridge is a master class in bad UX design.

Probably the designers had good intentions...they wanted to make the road safer and more convenient for pedestrians (although it's also possible the goal was to make it more convenient for drivers...but ultimately this doesn't matter).

But they had zero understanding of the needs or experiences of those walking. As a result the bridge is basically pointless, I've hardly ever seen anyone use it. I think I crossed it once just to check it out. But 99.9999% of users use one of the level crossings. I can't really think of another example of such an expensive crossing that has failed quite so spectacularly.

I'm not really sure whether the bridge could be fixed. Certainly if it was connected to CMH and the new residence, there would be a small number of people who it is ideal for, maybe it would get some use. But I really don't see how you redirect the trail in a meaningful way to redirect most of the traffic. If there was direct access up the trail, maybe it would divert some of the pedestrians, but really the region should just fix the at grade crossing--but that would require that they be aware of the fact that the crossing is problematic.

[dtkvictim]

I'm not really sure whether the bridge could be fixed. Certainly if it was connected to CMH and the new residence, there would be a small number of people who it is ideal for, maybe it would get some use. But I really don't see how you redirect the trail in a meaningful way to redirect most of the traffic. If there was direct access up the trail, maybe it would divert some of the pedestrians, but really the region should just fix the at grade crossing--but that would require that they be aware of the fact that the crossing is problematic.

Assuming you are talking about the Laurel Trail crossing and not Seagram Dr (I'm not very familiar with the UW campus other than taking the trail through it, but the MUT on Seagram seems like it has potential to be a useful alternative to the Laurel Trail for campus users). The trail crossing was widened quite significantly a couple of months ago, and I think has paint markings separating pedestrians and cyclists. I'll try to take a picture next time, but I haven't been through there since they were constructing it. As far as I know though, the trail crossing lights still stay red when a train is passing through which is just completely absurd.

[ijmorlan]

I'm not really sure whether the bridge could be fixed. Certainly if it was connected to CMH and the new residence, there would be a small number of people who it is ideal for, maybe it would get some use. But I really don't see how you redirect the trail in a meaningful way to redirect most of the traffic. If there was direct access up the trail, maybe it would divert some of the pedestrians, but really the region should just fix the at grade crossing--but that would require that they be aware of the fact that the crossing is problematic.

Assuming you are talking about the Laurel Trail crossing and not Seagram Dr (I'm not very familiar with the UW campus other than taking the trail through it, but the MUT on Seagram seems like it has potential to be a useful alternative to the Laurel Trail for campus users). The trail crossing was widened quite significantly a couple of months ago, and I think has paint markings separating pedestrians and cyclists. I'll try to take a picture next time, but I haven't been through there since they were constructing it. As far as I know though, the trail crossing lights still stay red when a train is passing through which is just completely absurd.

The recent widening is a significant improvement, and does indeed include a crossride. Somehow they didn’t realize that the paths need to widen as they approach the crossing, but the crossing itself is much improved.

There should be bicycle pushbuttons well back from the intersection, or better still, make the lights green for the path except when vehicles on University trigger a green for the road (sensors at the crossing and also well back, carefully timed). This would mean that at low traffic condition everybody would always get a green (in the limiting case), and nobody would ever have to manually press a button.

It is silly that the light doesn’t go green automatically when the train goes through, but you actually can press the button and the lights for the path immediately go green, or at least that’s how it worked before the recent renovations.

[dtkvictim]

The recent widening is a significant improvement, and does indeed include a crossride. Somehow they didn’t realize that the paths need to widen as they approach the crossing, but the crossing itself is much improved.

There should be bicycle pushbuttons well back from the intersection, or better still, make the lights green for the path except when vehicles on University trigger a green for the road (sensors at the crossing and also well back, carefully timed). This would mean that at low traffic condition everybody would always get a green (in the limiting case), and nobody would ever have to manually press a button.

It is silly that the light doesn’t go green automatically when the train goes through, but you actually can press the button and the lights for the path immediately go green, or at least that’s how it worked before the recent renovations.

Yeah that section of trail from where the cyclist and pedestrian traffic merge in the park, and up to University is annoying while biking. Merging with pedestrians (if they weren't already walking on the cycling half...), the really tight bend as you go over the tracks, and the narrow and crowded section of trail in poor condition between Seagram and University.

I forgot about the push button too... Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm almost 100% certain I've pushed the button immediately after the train lights came on and never got a green. Everyone just crosses anyways.

[danbrotherston]

Awesome to hear it was expanded...I'll have to check it out. But if they haven't improved the paths, it's probably still a bit of a problem.

Of course, the Netherlands isn't immune to this problem either: https://types.pl/@danbrotherston/111011595521191434

This is the main ring rd, which is about as big as University Ave., and the delay to cross it can be...pretty long. So you do get quite a lineup here. But somehow traffic flows much smoother still.

*looks at streetview* Oh yes, I remember now...the North side is like...idiotically misaligned...despite the whole thing being rebuilt, they couldn't be bothered to actually do a good job.

[ijmorlan]

*looks at streetview* Oh yes, I remember now...the North side is like...idiotically misaligned...despite the whole thing being rebuilt, they couldn't be bothered to actually do a good job.

I have a vague recollection of seeing an LRT-related plan that seemed to show the path being slightly re-routed on the north so that it approached the crossing straight on, and I was expecting to see that but it never appeared. I think there is buried infrastructure, probably electricity related, in the way. But of course a road re-routing would probably not be cancelled due to some inconvenient obstruction.

I have another beef further south: the double-path system through the park should have been extended all the way to Seagram, and the access road from the parking lot eliminated. Now you may object that there is a storm pond in the way, but that was created as part of LRT construction so it could just as well have been placed east rather than west of the path, indeed where the parking lot road is.

Next on my list is to build the double-path system on the east side of the tracks from Seagram north to the crossing just north of University, then across the tracks and terminating at Ring Road. I think that would finally deal with the situation. Well, at least until induced demand kicks in. But I think induced bicycle/pedestrian demand is much more manageable than the same for motor vehicles owing to the enormously lower cost and space requirements to satisfy it.

[danbrotherston]

*looks at streetview* Oh yes, I remember now...the North side is like...idiotically misaligned...despite the whole thing being rebuilt, they couldn't be bothered to actually do a good job.

I have a vague recollection of seeing an LRT-related plan that seemed to show the path being slightly re-routed on the north so that it approached the crossing straight on, and I was expecting to see that but it never appeared. I think there is buried infrastructure, probably electricity related, in the way. But of course a road re-routing would probably not be cancelled due to some inconvenient obstruction.

I have another beef further south: the double-path system through the park should have been extended all the way to Seagram, and the access road from the parking lot eliminated. Now you may object that there is a storm pond in the way, but that was created as part of LRT construction so it could just as well have been placed east rather than west of the path, indeed where the parking lot road is.

Next on my list is to build the double-path system on the east side of the tracks from Seagram north to the crossing just north of University, then across the tracks and terminating at Ring Road. I think that would finally deal with the situation. Well, at least until induced demand kicks in. But I think induced bicycle/pedestrian demand is much more manageable than the same for motor vehicles owing to the enormously lower cost and space requirements to satisfy it.

While I agree in principle....the double path system existed specifically because of the petting zoo....because peds were expected to stop and look and meander.

Unfortunately, our engineers, even the most progressive ones, see pedestrians and cyclists mixing as fine...and to their defence, it is fine in most of the city...because most of the city is a car infested hellhole where there are few peds and fewer cyclists to be found, so they can mix fine...but in a few places, like the trails, they should be separated, but widely and broadly engineers refuse to do it in all but the most extreme examples (next to a petting zoo for example).

[ijmorlan]

Unfortunately, our engineers, even the most progressive ones, see pedestrians and cyclists mixing as fine...and to their defence, it is fine in most of the city...because most of the city is a car infested hellhole where there are few peds and fewer cyclists to be found, so they can mix fine...but in a few places, like the trails, they should be separated, but widely and broadly engineers refuse to do it in all but the most extreme examples (next to a petting zoo for example).

I hadn’t heard that the petting zoo related to that, but it makes sense that that would be the one place where they would separate the uses. I’m just grateful they doubled the bridge. Given that the split ends just south of the bridge, an obvious “economy” would have been to skip doubling the bridge. While we’re on this, I think the double-path system should have been continued just a little further to the south as well — essentially until the point where continuing it would have required digging out a lot of the slope next to the Perimeter Institute. Longer term it should continue past the Perimeter all the way to the Clay & Glass.

[danbrotherston]

Unfortunately, our engineers, even the most progressive ones, see pedestrians and cyclists mixing as fine...and to their defence, it is fine in most of the city...because most of the city is a car infested hellhole where there are few peds and fewer cyclists to be found, so they can mix fine...but in a few places, like the trails, they should be separated, but widely and broadly engineers refuse to do it in all but the most extreme examples (next to a petting zoo for example).

I hadn’t heard that the petting zoo related to that, but it makes sense that that would be the one place where they would separate the uses. I’m just grateful they doubled the bridge. Given that the split ends just south of the bridge, an obvious “economy” would have been to skip doubling the bridge. While we’re on this, I think the double-path system should have been continued just a little further to the south as well — essentially until the point where continuing it would have required digging out a lot of the slope next to the Perimeter Institute. Longer term it should continue past the Perimeter all the way to the Clay & Glass.

I mean, I generally agree. The bridge is also a meandering opportunity for pedestrians, people like to look out, or take photos, of course, the existence of the pedestrian bridges hasn't stopped the photo shoots in the bike path...which I remember not feeling even a little bad about riding through the middle of.