General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

I mean, this person has a legitimate issue, unlike the vast VAST majority of NIMBYs.

But at the same time, this just the trolley problem...we're driving the trolley, do we drive over 32 families or just 4....

Of course, since this the real world and not a stupid contrived and non-contextualized philosophy issue, we also have to face the fact that we drove the trolley into a position where we are forced to make this choice, knowing that we would be in this position, and still not choosing to do something different.

[tomh009]

Cambridge senior worries she'll have nowhere to go if council approves new housing project

They could easily fit another 8-12 unit building at the back of the property if they use the "amenity space" and/or some of the parking, and make that affordable rentals. They could fit even more if they lifted the buildings up by one floor and put the parking underneath.

[nms]

Or staged the construction in such a way that those displaced get an opportunity to move into the first building in the project. I don't think that any municipality in the Region requires a right to return, and even in Toronto where that right exists, residents still have to wait years before the new development is ready.

[tomh009]

Or staged the construction in such a way that those displaced get an opportunity to move into the first building in the project.  I don't think that any municipality in the Region requires a right to return, and even in Toronto where that right exists, residents still have to wait years before the new development is ready.

It's a condominium project, that's why I suggested an additional building for affordable rental units.

[Acitta]

Cambridge subdivision approval slowed by councillor’s opposition to affordable housing contributions
Cambridge city council’s discussion about a draft plan for a subdivision on Limerick Road took a turn as they ended up debating the worthiness of the Affordable Housing Contribution Fund.

[ac3r]

Sounds on brand for Cambridge. Forget it being a city of NIMBYs, it's a city of BANANAs.

[cherrypark]

Not opposed to the concept that new developments shouldn't carry the burden of affordable housing costs, but just passing the buck to the province vs. any serious look at current home owning and asset appreciating residents is sort of half the problem.

[creative]

Not opposed to the concept that new developments shouldn't carry the burden of affordable housing costs, but just passing the buck to the province vs. any serious look at current home owning and asset appreciating residents is sort of half the problem.

Can you clarify your statement. I’m not sure what you are implying.

[bravado]

Just a heads up, council is set to decide on whether or not these eventually go to the OLT in the next few days:

City recommends two major housing developments, more than 1,500 units
Council will be asked to support the recommendations for 777 Laurel St. and 201 Water St. S next week

777 Laurel St thread

201 Water St S thread
Note that the 9 storey tower has been removed in the proposal, because you truly can have too much housing if you're a misanthrope

[ac3r]

I suspect the one on Laurel Street will be approved. They approved a large development right next to that proposal, but these towers are shorter so I don't see any issues. But...it's Cambridge after all.

[bravado]

The Laurel St one is a very established, very unchanging neighbourhood in the middle of Preston - I think it has the most resistance since it's something that's over 2 stories tall and isn't a detached house or an abandoned industrial yard. Looking forward to seeing if Council has had any change of heart since the last round of approvals/rejections.

[mgregorasz]

The Laurel St. proposal has had one level of parking added, but then to compensate for the increased cost for more parking, each of the towers have had more floors added. The 2 seven storey towers are now eight storeys and the other towers have had 3 to 5 storeys added.

Here is the link to the council agenda:

https://calendar.cambridge.ca/Council/De...7800f620e5

[mgregorasz]

So the Water St. proposal got approved while the Laurel St. proposal was deferred for 30 days to allow for a neighbourhood meeting about the increased building heights.

[bravado]

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news...es-9504369

It's definitely bizarro world where the meanest councillor in town is on the side of a great idea of keeping the pedestrian spaces open in downtown Galt all year! I wish the local news would actually share more details about what goes on with the rest of the Region because it's been a supremely vibrant spot and Kitchener and Waterloo downtowns don't actually have anything comparable - but you never hear about it if you aren't down here.

Caribbean street party: https://www.instagram.com/p/C_TXnJzO58y/?img_index=1
Latin street dancing: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-TmBPegxKX/
Galt jazz show: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9-RcOngd9i/
Market night: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9U-io7gC3u/

One of those opposed is Fareid Ahmadi, owner of Tops Shawarma.

Ahmadi, who previously owned a restaurant on Queen Street, opened up his new location on Main Street last year.

He said he's not entirely against the idea of a closure and acknowledges when events are happening it definitely generates business, but on weekdays especially, his restaurant is a ghost town.

"During the week, it's so slow," Ahmadi said.

"I believe that the people that come for lunch here and at other restaurants, they're just from around the area. I think people from outside, from my experience, they avoid the area."

Ahmadi understands that with the closure would come improved streetscape and hopefully marketing, but he isn't sure if it'll be enough to impact business.

As usual, small business owners are inexplicably unaware of why the spaces where they have their businesses are vibrant... How are they (almost) all like this? How does a shawarma place owner not know that their customers don't drive all the way downtown to get generic, common shawarma? His customers are all pedestrians and drunks from the bars nearby! Why don't small business owners in cute downtowns advocate for more housing and public spaces nearby, creating new recurring customers out of inefficient parking lots?

[plam]

One of those opposed is Fareid Ahmadi, owner of Tops Shawarma.

Ahmadi, who previously owned a restaurant on Queen Street, opened up his new location on Main Street last year.

He said he's not entirely against the idea of a closure and acknowledges when events are happening it definitely generates business, but on weekdays especially, his restaurant is a ghost town.

"During the week, it's so slow," Ahmadi said.

"I believe that the people that come for lunch here and at other restaurants, they're just from around the area. I think people from outside, from my experience, they avoid the area."

Ahmadi understands that with the closure would come improved streetscape and hopefully marketing, but he isn't sure if it'll be enough to impact business.

As usual, small business owners are inexplicably unaware of why the spaces where they have their businesses are vibrant... How are they (almost) all like this? How does a shawarma place owner not know that their customers don't drive all the way downtown to get generic, common shawarma? His customers are all pedestrians and drunks from the bars nearby! Why don't small business owners in cute downtowns advocate for more housing and public spaces nearby, creating new recurring customers out of inefficient parking lots?

so weird