112 Union St East | 4 fl | U/C

[kwliving]

But does every new building need to be accessible?  As long as there is a decent selection of accessible housing, surely people should also be able to (build and) live in townhouse-style housing like this, if they so prefer.

(That said, it's not what I want personally, but many other people do seem to like this.)

According to the AODA, by 2025, yes all buildings must be accessible. Of course, that is unrealistic.

Not only is it about disabled people getting housing, it's about having "visitable" housing. Mobility impairments isolate and when one can't get in to others living space, it disables people further.

In this projects case, the units are all built so that a ramp, elevator, strong people, or lift would need to be used. Why could there not be any level entrance units? The reason there are none could be many. Cost, awareness, lack of care, not being educated, or lack of legislation demanding accessibility in projects of this scale.

My beef is with the legislators, not with the individual developers.

[tomh009]

But does every new building need to be accessible?  As long as there is a decent selection of accessible housing, surely people should also be able to (build and) live in townhouse-style housing like this, if they so prefer.

(That said, it's not what I want personally, but many other people do seem to like this.)

According to the AODA, by 2025, yes all buildings must be accessible. Of course, that is unrealistic.

Not only is it about disabled people getting housing, it's about having "visitable" housing. Mobility impairments isolate and when one can't get in to others living space, it disables people further.

Apparently only for apartment/condo buildings.  From the Municipal Affairs and Housing web site:

Houses, including semi-detached houses, townhouses, and duplexes, are not affected by most accessibility requirements, with the exception of smoke alarm requirements. 

[creative]

I know the owners of one of these orphaned houses. They didn't hold out to try and sell for more money. The original developers for this site were never interested in these properties.

[BuildingScout]

I know the owners of one of these orphaned houses. They didn't hold out to try and sell for more money. The original developers for this site were never interested in these properties.

That is surprising as it would make a lot of sense to incorporate them into the development. If this is the case city council should lean on the developer to take over the entire corner.

[nms]

That is surprising as it would make a lot of sense to incorporate them into the development. If this is the case city council should lean on the developer to take over the entire corner.

It could just be a question of resources.  Buying more properties may have been beyond their reach.

[MacBerry]

No accessible/barrier free housing in this development is pitiful. Our province has mandated "full" accessibility by 2025 yet there is no mandate to make private developments like this have even one accessible living unit.

These developers are not alone in building "stairy" housing. I just wish it would stop.

But does every new building need to be accessible?  As long as there is a decent selection of accessible housing, surely people should also be able to (build and) live in townhouse-style housing like this, if they so prefer.

(That said, it's not what I want personally, but many other people do seem to like this.)

Community accessibility would be best served by modern universal design principles being applied to every building approval from single family homes to large public and private project sites and high rise buildings.

Unfortunately at both the provincial and federal level we live with outdated and nearly 20 year old building codes (a few revisions don't count as meaningful change).

[Pheidippides]

Union side of project April 7, 2016:
   

[panamaniac]

So then the architect said "(w)hy don't we plop some fake gables on the roof?"....

[Pheidippides]

   

[Pheidippides]

Signage on this project indicates that it has apparently been named "The Union Crossing"
http://www.theunioncrossing.com/

[OrokZin]

Hi All,

Just to clarify a couple of posts/comments - I am the property owner of the corner lot of Union and Moore (bordering the development of Union Crossing). A few have commented that "the property owners MUST have been approached by the developer at some point" and the impression seems to be that I (and my neighbors) were "holding out for a higher offer" or being otherwise difficult or greedy.

To clear things up:

- We were never approached about an offer by the developer, or communicated with at all, until receiving a variance meeting notice two days before the City was holding said meeting
- Although the plan was approved (including all variances for less parking, higher building height, encroachment on properties bordering Moore as well as John Street - except the precious train track... no variance there...), it fell through and the land and approved plan were put up for sale.
- A new developer looking to buy the site and develop stacked executive townhouses DID approach us with a reasonable offer that we DID accept. The deal was contingent on the City approving the new plan, which included driveways that faced Moore Ave S. The City did not approve the plan based on the fact that the driveways/townhouses were too close to Moore Avenue and that they would encroach on their "easement"...  Following the collapse of that deal (we were absolutely thrilled to take the first offer, by the way... no negotiation, no asking for more money, no holding out...), we heard absolutely nothing for years. The site appeared to be abandoned ...
-After several years (check Google Street View...) of the site having boarded up rundown houses on it (occupied only by drifters and junkies - we called so many times that the police eventually just stopped showing up to clear the buildings...), the site was taken off the market. After still more time, we were notified of another meeting to unveil the new plan...
- At no point were we communicated with by the developer/owner of the properties -- by mail, phone, or in person... The only communication we received was from the Adjustment Committee with regard to upcoming meetings...
- When we attended the meeting where the new plan was unveiled, we finally got to speak with the developer. We asked why they had never considered including our property in the plan and were told that "We can't develop on it because the easement goes about halfway through your living room... There is no way to make money off of your property and we just don't need it. We can work around it..." The City Councillor we spoke with agreed...

So, in the end, the construction has been underway for about 15 months and appears to be winding down. While we certainly feel that the look and feel of the development is far better than the earlier plan and that the buildings actually look quite nice, it has by no means been an "easy" process, nor has the developer "worked with the community" as stated in the Waterloo Record article...

For a property that the developer absolutely "didn't need" as part of their plan, there sure have been a good number of inconveniences and outright incursions on my home... The minor stuff would be: workers crossing the lawn to cut the corner on the way to the site, parking equipment in my private driveway, having meetings on my front walk, sitting on my stairs, littering on my property, using my backyard to talk about site plans, and blocking my driveway exit with equipment. The more major things would include: blocking my driveway with equipment for entire days without even so much as a notice, digging up the end of my driveway to trench gas lines for an entire day (at least they let us know that we would have to leave by 7 am on a Thursday - which we didn't have to do because we were on Christmas holidays ...), knocking snowbanks of shoveled snow back onto the freshly cleared sidewalk with materials trucks and NOT cleaning it afterward, randomly needing to shut off the water/hydro to my property, and not adhering to City guidelines (bylaws?) for noise and equipment times - often starting work before 700 am and operating machinery on Sundays throughout the summer.

Lastly, another post talks about parking at the development. This was raised with the City numerous times as a concern of the neighborhood.  My understanding is that there might be one space per unit, less the accessible parking spots, although looking at the recently paved lot, there doesn't look like a lot of room for 30-some-odd spaces, what with the waste tanks also located in the lot. There are absolutely no visitor parking spots and I'm guessing if a family/prospective occupant has more than one vehicle, they'll have to look elsewhere for a rental property. Where does the City think people are going to park? The only option would be Moore Ave, which has a school directly across from the site and therefore limited parking, or John St, which is already a busy thoroughfare. It just doesn't seem well thought out to me... But anyway, I guess everyone will be taking the LRT soon... 

In any event, the development is certainly in the final stages and we very much look forward to seeing the finished product. I just wanted to clarify a few points for folks who might be interested in what actually happened vs. what they "know must have happened" or just feel like casting aspersions on people.

Sorry for the ramble... J.

[MidTowner]

OrokZin, welcome to the forum. I'm a neighbour of yours (though not an immediate one- down further south on Moore), so good to hear from you for that reason, too.

I can't remember whether I was one of the ones who said that the developer "must have" approached you, but being human I made assumptions when I heard about that issue, and they were based on the only side of the story reported in the Record and elsewhere. So thanks for your side.

I don't agree with everything you opined (for instance, I'm glad that municipalities are starting to relax parking requirements, and promoting other forms of transportation). But I've lived next to a construction site and know you're not exaggerating about what you've had to put up with...it's a shame the City hasn't required the developer's crew to follow the rules and respect other people's property.

For me, the biggest takeaway from your story is the easement on Moore that prevented the use of your property. Is it necessary? Is Moore South really going to ever be widened? If the developer wanted to build something that used your lot that would have good frontage on Moore, that sounds like something the City of Waterloo should have tried to facilitate, instead of preventing... What should the community anticipate, that one day the City is going to expropriate your land and tear your house down to widen the road?

Anyway, thanks again for contributing, and for giving us all much better context on what really happened here.

[Canard]

   

[panamaniac]

How, what's the word .... fauxrustic?

[Canard]

It looks like one of my buildings in Planet Coaster.