The Breithaupt Block Phase III | 11 fl | Complete

[danbrotherston]

In your view, what counts as a "giant wall"? How big a garage would you have accepted?

In general I think that a plain wall (of any material that is largely homogenous in appearance) on my property line starts to feel somewhat imposing somewhere around 3m or so. I'm comfortable with 8 foot fences, but 10 exceeds some threshold and I'd almost certainly refer to a two storey fence with the adjective "giant", it's considerably different than what I'm used to. Imagining a 15m concrete wall instead of a fence is absolutely imposing and deeply disheartening. I recognize that's not what's actually in the proposal, but it's reasonable to me to start with that notion as the extreme worse case, and push the wall back until it feels better.

The building behind my house is a modern LCBO - around two storeys, simple yellow brick wall with some lights and no other adornment. It feels perfectly fine (and was built there after I moved in in a previously open field so is somewhat relevant) and starts somewhere around 10m from the other side of my fence. I'd definitely be comfortable with another storey but likely irritated if it went much beyond that.

The visual monotony really matters in this scenario. If there were a mural or interesting architecture it would ease my concerns. If it was three storeys, then there was another setback for the fourth and beyond that would help as well. There's something that really resonates in me about "human scale" and my understanding of that is somewhere around 4 storeys at the street, and then the tower set back some amount. I don't think a five storey parking garage is at human scale.

This seems fairly reasonable, but I will again point out, this is a back yard, laneway.  Certainly I don't want my home to face a blank wall, but in behind, it's a lot more reasonable.

Also, IIRC, this wasn't going to be a blank wall but an "architecturally interesting" garage.  While I'm not sure that's much better (I'm guessing, at best something like the uptown parkade), it's definitely not a blank wall.  A mural or something would probably be a big improvement (I look at several murals in the laneway I see from my building), it's something that's hard to promise in perpetuity. It would be nice if there were better solutions to that kind of thing (same with transit passes in lieu of parking, they're usually time boxed in some way).

[dgoh0]

There is nothing worth saving in that block anyway.

What about the dozen or so properties in that block inhabited by families and individuals? I'm all for progress and everything, but that kind of attitude is not very becoming of your interests.

[kps]

What about the dozen or so properties in that block inhabited by families and individuals?

They used to back on to industrial buildings. The space where the garage was proposed was never residential.

[plam]

There is nothing worth saving in that block anyway.

What about the dozen or so properties in that block inhabited by families and individuals? I'm all for progress and everything, but that kind of attitude is not very becoming of your interests.

Most people will move if offered enough money. We're not talking about stealing peoples' homes here...

[panamaniac]

What about the dozen or so properties in that block inhabited by families and individuals? I'm all for progress and everything, but that kind of attitude is not very becoming of your interests.

Most people will move if offered enough money. We're not talking about stealing peoples' homes here...

And what I meant was none of the houses have heritage value, afaik.  What I described would, imo, have been an optimal result, both for the developers and for those who want to keep development out of the neighbourhood.

[robdrimmie]

What about the dozen or so properties in that block inhabited by families and individuals?

They used to back on to industrial buildings. The space where the garage was proposed was never residential.

This is a very relevant point as well, and one I didn't take into consideration until just now, so thank you for raising it. 

I don't know when the buildings that were in the lot were torn down, but at a minimum whatever dimensions they started at seems an appropriate reference for whatever "appropriate for the neighbourhood" considerations need to take place. Assuming it was consistent with the rest of the commercial buildings in that part of town they would likely have been at least four storeys and could very well have been a plain brick wall.

[KevinL]

I don't know when the buildings that were in the lot were torn down

This building was torn down sometime after 2009: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4543499,...312!8i6656

[MidTowner]

Too bad the developers didn't acquire the entire block.  There's nothing there worth saving and the extra space would have enabled them to add some transitional (3-4 storeys) residential buildings around the perimeter of the site, with the tower and parking garage as proposed.  And the neighbourhood could have gained a hard edge beyond which the SFHs could be preserved.  Although personally, I'd allow six storeys anywhere in Mt Hope neighbourhood.

That would have been a much better situation, but it would not have solved the problem. There are people in the neighbourhood who are just opposed to development. If the situation you describe arose, they would successfully goad someone on the other side of Wellington or Waterloo into getting upset about the four storey building proposed across the street from their home.

The City should be more clear about what is expected near Ion stations. The Midtown PARTS study area, for instance, ends at Moore. I have neighbours who think that that means everything will stay the same on the other side of Moore, and should.

That's not realistic, but the City is not plainly saying what is expected or will be accepted for Mount Hope and other central neighbourhoods.

[rangersfan]

I think the PARTs project really missed the mark in this area.
If we can't have dense developments steps from the multi modal transit hub then why did we even bother with the LRT?

There have been a lot of job losses recently in the community (Kraus Carpets, North, Erwin Hymer) and we have a situation where people are actively making it hard for a company to bring great jobs here. Sure it's not ideal to have car centric developments near the LRT but for many people the preferred method to get to work is by car.
I don't like being pessimistic but attitudes and transportation methods take time to evolve.

I prefer to bike or take transit, but living where I do now (Stanley Park), and with children, schools, appointments etc most days these options aren't realistic and I have flex hours which many people do not have.

[Spokes]

Like it or not car is still very much King in Waterloo Region.

[robdrimmie]

I think the PARTs project really missed the mark in this area.
If we can't have dense developments steps from the multi modal transit hub then why did we even bother with the LRT?

I 100% agree, but a commitment from the city does have to mean something. They made a serious mistake, but that commitment is relevant.

There have been a lot of job losses recently in the community (Kraus Carpets, North, Erwin Hymer) and we have a situation where people are actively making it hard for a company to bring great jobs here.

There's a false equivalence of some sort in your argument about jobs. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it feels jarring to me to compare actual lost manufacturing jobs with possibly constrained tech jobs - many of which aren't filled by residents of this community. Google famously busses in a lot of people from Toronto.

I think that's a great thing and there should be easier and better flow along the corridor, what I'm saying here is that these reasons are part of why I devalue the jobs argument in this situation and agree with the statement above about focusing on the validity of the neighbourhood vs development details.

I agree that changing modalities takes time and that needs to be considered. It's very similar I feel to the neighbourhood's argument that a sudden jump from low density to very high density is problematic. It's going to take time for people to adjust to the different types of density.

[panamaniac]

I don't know when the buildings that were in the lot were torn down

This building was torn down sometime after 2009: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4543499,...312!8i6656

One wonders what pre-dated that mid-century building?  Was the parking lot originally industrial or residential?

[kps]

One wonders what pre-dated that mid-century building?  Was the parking lot originally industrial or residential?

Old fire insurance maps would answer that. Too bad Kitchener hasn't put theirs online, like Waterloo has.

[MacBerry]

This building was torn down sometime after 2009: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4543499,...312!8i6656

One wonders what predated that mid-century building?  Was the parking lot originally industrial or residential?

It appears that in the one former building shown in this online photo there are at least two out buildings that were at least 1.5 to 2 stories backing onto the laneway. I grew up in this area and I do remember one or two additional business or industrial type buildings on the vacant land ... aka parking lots.

[Square]

I wonder what this item in the photo is? For any weather enthusiasts like myself, it looks like a temperature weather station to me! I wonder if a weather station was here in Kitchener weather stations past?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4544233,-...m2!1e4!1e1