Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
297
(09-25-2018, 01:58 PM)clasher Wrote: Demolition denied for 254 and 262 Queen. Kind of a shame I think... those houses aren't all that special and I imagine they will now just be left to degrade until demolition is needed due to safety concerns.
There were 16 (!) delegations speaking on this. Not all opposed, but many were. I left just before 10 PM, I think the meeting didn't finish until 1 AM.
Posts: 4,403
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
124
Quote:The vote came almost a year after council reluctantly approved the demolition of two heritage homes further down Queen Street, next to the Schneider Haus National Historic Site.
Mario Chilanski, who lives in the Victoria Park heritage district, reminded council of that earlier vote, quoting councillors' comments from October 2017 when council insisted that the demolition of the homes next to Schneider Haus would not create a precedent or send a signal that the Victoria Park district was open for demolition.
It still doesn't send that signal. These are at the edge of the district, surrounded by very different forms that are mostly much newer. They're not about to bulldoze half the neighbourhood or anything.
Posts: 485
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
21
This close to an election there's not much be gained by approving this and a lot to lose...
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
297
(09-25-2018, 03:27 PM)KevinL Wrote: Quote:The vote came almost a year after council reluctantly approved the demolition of two heritage homes further down Queen Street, next to the Schneider Haus National Historic Site.
Mario Chilanski, who lives in the Victoria Park heritage district, reminded council of that earlier vote, quoting councillors' comments from October 2017 when council insisted that the demolition of the homes next to Schneider Haus would not create a precedent or send a signal that the Victoria Park district was open for demolition.
It still doesn't send that signal. These are at the edge of the district, surrounded by very different forms that are mostly much newer. They're not about to bulldoze half the neighbourhood or anything.
It's two isolated old (not historic IMO) houses, not part of a neighbourhood, in the Queen St S corridor, which has specifically been designated for intensification. But Chilanski said he had spent hours and hours reviewing the previous meeting's video footage, and spent probably half his allotted time admonishing councillors to vote against this proposal, based on their previous comments.
Sadly I can only vote for one councillor and I'm not optimistic that we'll see a big change in the council composition after the election.
Incidentally, earlier in the meeting, it took over 30 minutes to approve the removal of five parking spots on safety grounds. And another thirty minutes to approve two blocks' worth of sidewalk, over more resident objections.
Posts: 4,912
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
I agree, but usually in those cases we see a deferral. This was a straight up rejection.
Posts: 7,595
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
09-25-2018, 07:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2018, 07:54 PM by danbrotherston.)
I am neighbouring this development, and frankly, I'm ticked...I should have gone to speak to it, but these houses don't fit the character of the neighbourhood. All the usual excuses to oppose development apply the opposite here, and yet, we still don't get approval.
Worse, this means that any development that *does* happen will necessarily be up market, to cover the increased costs of incorporating the houses in the development.
Anyone who voted for this, just voted AGAINST making housing more affordable in this city. Did I say ticked, nah, livid. I've asked repeatedly for the voting record, but nobody has told me, anyone happen to know who was there?
Posts: 4,912
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
I know. We finally had an opportunity to add good housing stock. Swing and miss. Sad.
Queen South is a MIXED USE CORRIDOR. This is exactly the kind of project that should be approved.
Posts: 1,312
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
40
I imagine Vive will take this to the LPAT? Assuming ROOF can still get another home somewhere else and will sell their land too...
Posts: 1,935
Threads: 102
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
18
The writing on the wall for this decision was made a couple weeks ago when the heritage committee rejected the idea for 2/3 properties in question to be demolished.
I also wonder if part of the decision was based on how Vive approached the development of this project (not having an agreement in place with all land owners before going to the city etc).
How does the proposed rent of 1550/month compare to get average rental rates in Kitchener? Still seems quite pricey (although I don't really have much bearing in this department ).
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
297
(09-26-2018, 11:17 AM)rangersfan Wrote: The writing on the wall for this decision was made a couple weeks ago when the heritage committee rejected the idea for 2/3 properties in question to be demolished.
I also wonder if part of the decision was based on how Vive approached the development of this project (not having an agreement in place with all land owners before going to the city etc).
How does the proposed rent of 1550/month compare to get average rental rates in Kitchener? Still seems quite pricey (although I don't really have much bearing in this department ).
ROOF supports the proposal. And Vive committed to three affordable units for ROOF, but that did not sway the council.
Currently Vive's own Woodside Terraces are renting for $1300, and Belmont Trio is advertised at $1500. Two years from now, when this project was slated to be completed, those prices will be somewhat higher.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
So... bets on whether those houses will get demolished through neglect?
Posts: 4,912
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
(09-25-2018, 07:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am neighbouring this development, and frankly, I'm ticked...I should have gone to speak to it, but these houses don't fit the character of the neighbourhood. All the usual excuses to oppose development apply the opposite here, and yet, we still don't get approval.
Worse, this means that any development that *does* happen will necessarily be up market, to cover the increased costs of incorporating the houses in the development.
Anyone who voted for this, just voted AGAINST making housing more affordable in this city. Did I say ticked, nah, livid. I've asked repeatedly for the voting record, but nobody has told me, anyone happen to know who was there?
All true. I mean, how weird would it be, having a new apartment beside newer apartments and a very new 'house like' structure? Lot of newer buildings in that area, really no point of having 2 homes, which I believe all there is, sticking out like a sore thumb.
Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
(09-26-2018, 03:16 PM)mpd618 Wrote: So... bets on whether those houses will get demolished through neglect?
Demolished because:
1) Water pipe burst in the middle of January, everything wrecked inside.
2) Fire.
3) Squatters destroy the inside.
4) Something else.
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
297
(09-25-2018, 07:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Anyone who voted for this, just voted AGAINST making housing more affordable in this city. Did I say ticked, nah, livid. I've asked repeatedly for the voting record, but nobody has told me, anyone happen to know who was there?
I was there, and spoke for the development, as did a few others. The council listened far more closely to the heritage proponents.
The full council was there. It was not a recorded vote but I'm trying to find out who the supporters and opponents were (I had left by the time of the vote).
|