The Barrel Yards | 25 fl | U/C

[Spokes]

Kaufman is a great location, and I like the units a lot.  The biggest downside for us was the lack of indoor parking.  If you don't drive, or at least not drive frequently, this might be a non-issue.

This is slightly off topic for this thread - 

You and all the other Kaufman owners should get together and put out an request for proposal for someone to buy and develop the huge parking lot beside your building.  As part of the price, you could require a underground parking lot be developed and connected to your building.   In addition to this, it could actually release cash to the owners (assuming the condo corporation owns that land).  Seems to me that land would be a great spot for another tower?

Just don't get the guys who built 144 Park to do it

I've always thought that would be a good idea too.  The issue is if people would be willing to give up their parking spots in the short term while construction

[numberguy]

The evidence-based answer to that is no, people will not give up convenient parking.

[rangersfan]

Over the past several weeks the second 25 story building has really progressed after sitting seemingly dormant for a number of months.

[ookpik]

Here's a "theory" about why BarrelYards is currently rental-only: The developer wanted the rental revenue now but also wanted to have the option to convert some of these high-rises to condo in the future, say in a couple of years when the LRT comes on stream and [hopefully] property values rise further as a result. Apparently there's some verbiage in the lease agreements that suggests this possibility.

Anyone have anything more authoritative on this? I couldn't find any lease agreements online to look at.

[schooner77]

That rumour/idea has been circulating for awhile. When my wife and I took a tour and looked at a couple of the apartments there, I asked the sales agent that directly an he essentially evaded the the question. Building as a rental building allows them to avoid quite a few rules and restrictions that apply to condo development. I have been told that Auburn has deep pockets and can finance this without outside help. It's a good play on their part, but I would think that they would have to pull the trigger within a limited amount of time, before the building ages any significant amount.

[Drake]

I got it from Chris Pidgeon of GSP that the play at work here is that yes 2 towers will be condos, however rather than delay the project by having to sell units prior to construction starting, they would take the hit and build it with their own dough. Apparently it is easier to get financing in this scenario for them and allow them to break ground sooner.

I would imagine once the project moves along, and the units fill up, converting to condos of the two designated buildings won't be as difficult a task.

The downside as a possible future condo owner would be that they would essentially call all the shots until they sold the units as no one would be able to out vote them on any and every issue.

[BobbyDaSilva]

I would have to do some digging to confirm but these buildings may already be registered (or at least draft approved) as condos with the developer retaining ownership of all the units and renting them out. Not up to speed on Waterloo's OP but most municipalities have fairly strict rental conversions policies built into their OP's.

[The85]

According to the Region's subdivision (incl. condo) status of plans map (December 2015), a condominium application has been submitted for this property. It is listed as 'pending', which means a decision on draft approval has not been made yet.

Condo File 30CDM15404 has been assigned to this development.

[Pheidippides]

The slow progress continues.

This was taken from the Avondale side near the Memorial Recreation Complex where the townhouses are supposed to go (if that is still even planned):
   

The gap between the two sides of the extended "menno st" seems to be narrowing since I last saw the site.

Hard to believe this is only 2,300 parking spots.

[BuildingScout]

Now that the four buildings are nearly finished (from the outside) this development is starting to come together rather nicely.

[panamaniac]

I find the whole complex to be dark, bulky, and uninviting so far, although I've been inside and the apartments are beautiful. Apart from the hotel, I can't see any reason for non-residents to set foot there, based on what's there so far.

[Lens]

Bulky is a good descriptor. Aside from the two taller, skinnier, towers and the townhouses on FDB this whole site is uninviting and it feels pretty suburban to me.

[BuildingScout]

Bulky is a good descriptor. Aside from the two taller, skinnier, towers and the townhouses on FDB this whole site is uninviting and it feels pretty suburban to me.

Ten towers in a dense configuration, including a hotel and two office towers suburban?? I guess we have very different definitions of that word.

[Lens]

There aren't ten towers on the site now, so yes, it does feel suburban.

[BuildingScout]

There aren't ten towers on the site now, so yes, it does feel suburban.

Even the four current ones cover a small footprint, densely packed. Contrast with Fallowfield towers which are a good example of towers in a truly suburban configuration: much shorter height (half the number of stories), much larger overall land footprint, no mixed commercial usage, and you know, in the suburbs.

But apart from that, yeah, suburban.