The Metz (Schneiders site redevelopment)

[Acitta]

If we build housing for the children of the generation that needed housing, does that count as solving the housing crisis? Give or take a few decades? This project is perpetual...

There has been a lot of activity on this site for months. It took a long time to get started, but they seem to be doing a lot now.

[Kodra24]

If we build housing for the children of the generation that needed housing, does that count as solving the housing crisis? Give or take a few decades? This project is perpetual...

There has been a lot of activity on this site for months. It took a long time to get started, but they seem to be doing a lot now.

Great to hear that

[Silie]

If we build housing for the children of the generation that needed housing, does that count as solving the housing crisis? Give or take a few decades? This project is perpetual...

There has been a lot of activity on this site for months. It took a long time to get started, but they seem to be doing a lot now.

We are talking about Auburn here. Barrel Yards still isn't finished after umpteen years. Although, to be fair, the most recent building went up lightning fast with precast, so maybe there's hope . . . .

[westwardloo]

There has been a lot of activity on this site for months. It took a long time to get started, but they seem to be doing a lot now.

We are talking about Auburn here. Barrel Yards still isn't finished after umpteen years. Although, to be fair, the most recent building went up lightning fast with precast, so maybe there's hope . . . .

I doubt Auburn is going to be in a rush to finish this site. Easily a 25+ year project.  Also they somehow made the more recent looking building at Barrel Yards look much worse then the first couple they built there. I have zero hope for the style of this neighbourhood. I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big and build 15 of the exact same precast concrete towers. If 4 or 5 developers owned parcels of land, a large section of the site would probably be developed by now. We would also get some variety in design and shape of buildings. I just hope the City of Kitchener doesn't make the mistake of selling Bamm Yards to 1 developer.

[tomh009]

I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

[westwardloo]

I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

I know this, but I don't like it, I don't like the way we plan subdivision either. I think the city should have more control over planning property, similar to what it was like in the early 1900's. Cities should be the ones that already have a planned the right of ways, parcels and zoning of all any property prior to it being sold to developers. If the private property owner still wants to sell it to one company so be it, but at least the city is the one that controls the layout of the development. 

Look at the street systems of neighbourhoods prior to 1960 vs our currently system. Now, every subdivision is separated by company, with little to no connection other than major arterial roads, mostly because they want to squeeze in an extra lot every place they can so rarely do they leave right of ways to be accessed by the neighbouring subdivision.  Cities used to have master plans that would layout roads, parks, schools, medical facilities, Etc. Now we just use zoning and have private companies decide how our cities should be built (Cul-de-Sac's and plaza's).

[ijmorlan]

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

I know this, but I don't like it, I don't like the way we plan subdivision either. I think the city should have more control over planning property, similar to what it was like in the early 1900's. Cities should be the ones that already have a planned the right of ways, parcels and zoning of all any property prior to it being sold to developers. If the private property owner still wants to sell it to one company so be it, but at least the city is the one that controls the layout of the development. 

Look at the street systems of neighbourhoods prior to 1960 vs our currently system. Now, every subdivision is separated by company, with little to no connection other than major arterial roads, mostly because they want to squeeze in an extra lot every place they can so rarely do they leave right of ways to be accessed by the neighbouring subdivision.  Cities used to have master plans that would layout roads, parks, schools, medical facilities, Etc. Now we just use zoning and have private companies decide how our cities should be built (Cul-de-Sac's and plaza's).

So ironically we now micro-manage the actual zoning, deciding which properties can be detached, semi-detached, townhouses, triplexes, small apartment buildings, medium apartment buildings, large apartment buildings, and on and on; but developers can make all sorts of horrible planning decisions as to the street layouts.

Except that I think part of it is the way developers work too — they used to lay out their property in a grid, and maybe it joined up smoothly with the adjacent property or maybe all the roads changed name and/or jogged over at the boundary.

A good example of planners dropping the ball in this manner is Hickory St., which absolutely should connect through to Phillip St. (and thence into UW campus, continuing as William Tutte Way all the way to the SLC) as a multi-use trail. The only reason it doesn’t is because the City didn’t make sure the WCRI re-development and the apartments around approximately 289 Lester St. linked it through.

[ac3r]

I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

And one can hope they never try to apply any. Zoning restrictions and regulations are expected, but the day a government tries to say no you can't buy that much land is when they should be sent to the guillotines.

[jeffster]

I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

Not only that, but the process of severing a property into pieces is time consuming and expensive. Been there, and it's not an enjoyable right. Might have to go there again for property on Lake Huron -- and again, not looking forward to the process if it's needed. The land size itself is 20% larger than the Schneider property (excluding the parking lot off to the side of the one street) - 1,089,000 SF.

[KevinL]

I hate that we allow 1 developer to buy up a piece of land this big

A private property owner selling land to another private property owner, there really aren't any restrictions that a government can apply.

What should be happening is, that when a parcel of land this big becomes available for development, it should be purchased by the municipality first; they can then work with the community and interested developers to create a master plan for the area, then subdivide it into developable parcels that get sold to developers well-suited to build what each portion needs. Then if any developer drops out, it can be re-sold for someone else to try again.

Not enough municipalities around here are willing, or even capable, to do this, alas.

[ac3r]

Unfortunately most cities and municipalities dislike doing anything like that, especially Region of Waterloo. Remember when they stated there would be no commercial space in the train station because they didn't want to have to do any property management? There's even less chance they'd want to get into the real estate game.

[nms]

If I recall correctly, the City of Waterloo originally purchased much of the former industrial property in downtown Waterloo before later selling some of it off to developers. This is why there there the various municipal lots in Waterloo and the fact that the owners of the Waterloo Town Square building only own the building footprint but not the parking lots around them. In Waterloo's case, I think it was due to a combination of the required environmental remediation that was needed, and flood control requirements. It may have also occurred because the industrial vacancies largely happened in two or three large chunks when the larger property owners closed (eg Waterloo Manufacturing, Seagram's etc).

[KingandWeber]

The City of Kitchener also purchased a large number of properties downtown to control development in the core (e.g. it consolidated then sold sold off the lands to enable the City Centre/Young development)

[ZEBuilder]

The City of Kitchener also purchased a large number of properties downtown to control development in the core (e.g. it consolidated then sold sold off the lands to enable the City Centre/Young development)

Kitchener is still purchasing properties downtown they're just not being overtly public about it. I know recently they've purchased just over 2 acres. And with that property they have an assembly of just under 3 acres, they also have other properties close to that assembly of 1.38 acres and 0.8 acres.

So it's not that the city can't do it it's more a question of if they want to or not. In this particular case though it's extremely likely to be converted to parkland. If they get a few other properties close by the city would be looking at about 8 acres (about 20% of Victoria Park). Theres also other properties they're looking at which would make it larger than 8 acres but it won't be continuous.

But long story short Kitchener hasn't just stopped buying properties, they've just been doing it quietly.

[panamaniac]

The City of Kitchener also purchased a large number of properties downtown to control development in the core (e.g. it consolidated then sold sold off the lands to enable the City Centre/Young development)

Kitchener is still purchasing properties downtown they're just not being overtly public about it. I know recently they've purchased just over 2 acres. And with that property they have an assembly of just under 3 acres, they also have other properties close to that assembly of 1.38 acres and 0.8 acres.

So it's not that the city can't do it it's more a question of if they want to or not. In this particular case though it's extremely likely to be converted to parkland. If they get a few other properties close by the city would be looking at about 8 acres (about 20% of Victoria Park). Theres also other properties they're looking at which would make it larger than 8 acres but it won't be continuous.

But long story short Kitchener hasn't just stopped buying properties, they've just been doing it quietly.

Where?   As I've said before, I think they need to be buying up properties in the block bounded by King/Madison/Duke/Cameron with a view to creating a new urban plaza/green space.