864-872 King St W | 55, 44, 38, 16 fl | proposed

[neonjoe]

I think this is one case where newer cemeteries like Williamsburg strike a bit more of a balance. There’s a fishing pond, a nice boardwalk and the trillium trail that are amenities beyond just the burial of the dead. Perhaps small things to add additional recreational usages could be added in harmony to the older cemeteries that could complement what is already there to turn it into more of a destination for some recreation. Not the best but it would make it a bit better.

[ac3r]

One could also look at it from a non-white, non-western colonial settler perspective to make a bit more sense of ideal land use to see it from a perspective that differs from what is thought of as the norm.

We all understand that modern Canada only exists only because European (primarily white) people came here to attempt to commit a total racial, linguistic and cultural genocide of the existing Indigenous people to rape and exploit the land and people, a practice which still continues to perpetuate to this day. Those Indigenous people had spent the last few thousands of years living and dying on these lands. But, when settlers came and decided to try and exterminate them and develop new trading posts, settlements and ultimately cities; a dominion and nation...they almost never paid any respect to the lands those people have lived on.

Indigenous communities have, regrettably and fortunately, actually adapted to the evolution of human civilization. We have accepted that, yes, the places we left our ancestors (both tangible, physical remains and metaphysical) have been flooded, dredged, bulldozed, blown up, dig up, mined, bombed and so on in order to facilitate western civilization's occupation of this part of the Earth. To this day, it still requires an archaeological survey to build in many places across this country because what looks like a vast, empty field of trees and grass that may be suitable for a subdivision, has traces of Indigenous history - including human remains - still there. Of course, even when remains are found they are rarely respected...developments still go ahead, but even Indigenous communities can concede that yeah, it's best to put that land to use even if it is all stolen.

Can it not be argued that the vast cemeteries of colonizers and their later generations serve absolutely zero purpose to anyone at this point? If it has been acceptable to bulldoze the archaeological remains of Indigenous people to create our existing farm fields, industrial parks, cities, suburbs, highways, railroads etc (and Indigenous people mostly support such development...for all the whining you hear in the media about Indigenous resistance to this or that, most do actually want development because it benefits everyone), why should it be that hard of a pill to swallow for the contemporary settler class to consider removing a few aces of cemetery if it means providing more efficient urban land use whether that be park space, agricultural lands, housing, industry or anything else that provides a greater net benefit to society?

[Lebronj23]

Found this rendering of the 55fl tower

https://propertied.ca/additional-details...kitchener/

[nms]

From that link, the building is proposed to be moved back from the intersection and closer to the field behind it:

The first requested amendment involves increasing the maximum front yard setback to 32.3 metres, a significant change from the current zoning, which permits a maximum setback of 10 metres for structures over 24 metres in height.

The second amendment seeks to increase the maximum side yard setback to 38.5 metres, whereas the current zoning allows for a maximum of 10 metres for structures over 24 metres.

Additionally, the developers are requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback to 1.8 metres, while the current requirement is a minimum of 14 metres.

[ZEBuilder]

From that link, the building is proposed to be moved back from the intersection and closer to the field behind it:

The first requested amendment involves increasing the maximum front yard setback to 32.3 metres, a significant change from the current zoning, which permits a maximum setback of 10 metres for structures over 24 metres in height.

The second amendment seeks to increase the maximum side yard setback to 38.5 metres, whereas the current zoning allows for a maximum of 10 metres for structures over 24 metres.

Additionally, the developers are requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback to 1.8 metres, while the current requirement is a minimum of 14 metres.

Those ammendments are only for the now approved 44 floor building, the eventual 55 floor building will in no way be set back 32 meters from King. The only reason Vive needed those ammendments is the zoning bylaw is not designed around phased developments. If Vive were to have done the King building first they wouldn't have needed any of the setback ammendments.

[ijmorlan]

From that link, the building is proposed to be moved back from the intersection and closer to the field behind it:

Those ammendments are only for the now approved 44 floor building, the eventual 55 floor building will in no way be set back 32 meters from King. The only reason Vive needed those ammendments is the zoning bylaw is not designed around phased developments. If Vive were to have done the King building first they wouldn't have needed any of the setback ammendments.

And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?

Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.

[ZEBuilder]

Those ammendments are only for the now approved 44 floor building, the eventual 55 floor building will in no way be set back 32 meters from King. The only reason Vive needed those ammendments is the zoning bylaw is not designed around phased developments. If Vive were to have done the King building first they wouldn't have needed any of the setback ammendments.

And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?

Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.

You in most cases won't require a ZBA in order to produce a building with a park like area, the intent of the maximum in MU-3 zoning is to limit the sort of design that has limited interaction with the street, it still allows for a patio to be in front of the building 7.5 -10m worth (24-33 ft). It's a method to reduce your "Tower in the park" kind of development.

The entire frontage does not need to be building, it just requires that whatever building is built has proper interaction with the street, so in this case it forces the hand of the developer to have interaction with King and Pine, it doesn't prevent the developer from having a parkland area on the site it just limits where it can be put.

[taylortbb]

And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?

Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.

I mean, that seems reasonable to me? The other thing about that era of development was that buildings weren't built around cars, so everyone built up to a consistent street wall. But now, if you don't regulate building setbacks, developers will gladly push the whole building to the back near the parking and leave dead space facing the sidewalk. That rule is to prevent them for doing so, and ensure they create a walkable form.

[bravado]

Except it seems like minimum setbacks (bad) are the default - appropriate maximum ones (good) are a rarity.

[ijmorlan]

And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?

Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.

I mean, that seems reasonable to me? The other thing about that era of development was that buildings weren't built around cars, so everyone built up to a consistent street wall. But now, if you don't regulate building setbacks, developers will gladly push the whole building to the back near the parking and leave dead space facing the sidewalk. That rule is to prevent them for doing so, and ensure they create a walkable form.

OK, I think I see the point, and why somebody said the real issue is the lack of provision for phased development, where the complete development meets the rules but Phase 1 by itself doesn’t.

Ironically, I think some of these issues would actually be better handled by a more prescriptive master plan with actual design details, rather than messing around with setback limitations. Imagine if the rule was “first 4m starting from the frontage property line must be a covered portico extending to both side property lines, graded to match neighbouring properties”. Then on full build-out every block would have a rain-protected pathway all the way around it right next to the sidewalk. As it is, even with a maximum setback buildings don’t actually have to have a consistent streetwall; they just can’t be way back.

Of course neither the setbacks nor my portico idea guarantee that the building wall actually has any doors or windows in it. It’s not obvious to me how to require that sort of street interaction (“I know it when I see it”).

Having said all that, I’m still a bit skeptical of the need for this sort of detailed design rule. A “tower in the park” should be a sufficiently inefficient use of space that it would never happen in areas with high land values; something that actually uses more of the land area should crowd it out economically.

[ac3r]

Why does it have to be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ugly? These monstrosities are going to age as gracefully as old Soviet apartment blocks due to the void of any meaningful design language and the cheap materials. Ugh.

[Silie]

Why does it have to be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ugly? These monstrosities are going to age as gracefully as old Soviet apartment blocks due to the void of any meaningful design language and the cheap materials. Ugh.

...And then marketed as "upscale luxury living." Sure, a teeny-tiny glassed-in cubicle with maybe a granite counter and stainless steel appliances, in a building that will look like crap within a decade or two (at least it'll be one of many ) says upscale luxury to me.

[ac3r]

Right? 800-900'000 dollar units in a building nobody will want to live in within 10 years. But! You've got gorgeous views of parking lots and gravestones, the sound of ambulances and the LRT announcement going off every few minutes. Not to mention the traffic nightmare here due to the expert planners in this region deciding to have a street running light rail line running down the middle of 2 lanes of a very busy street with a stop at the entrance of a damn hospital. If there was any place along the line that justified cut-and-cover tunnelling or elevation it was here.

At least nobody in these condos will miss their train, because the next train to Conestoga Station is arriving in 2 minutes. *siren sounds*

[tomh009]

Vive so it'll be rental, not $900K condos.

I actually think the cemetery will be a nice view, lots of green and tree cover.

[Rainrider22]

And no noise complaints....from the neighbours