The Metz (Schneiders site redevelopment)

[panamaniac]

For connectivity, at a minimum, the City should require that a broad double-path (one for cyclists, one for pedestrians, like in Waterloo Park) be included immediately beside the railway, all the way from Borden to Stirling. Also, I understand there was a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks; if I have that right, it should be re-opened and connected to said path. This is just a matter of ensuring that obvious city planning takes place and should go without saying.

Editorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

Firewall ...

[plam]

AcittaEditorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

Firewall ...

Here's perhaps the crux of the editorial:

Unfortunately, the reality of the initial redevelopment plans for the site fall short of these exciting possibilities.

High-rise towers over 30 storeys tall, townhouses, a six-storey office building and retail space shoehorned into this parcel of land won't leave people saying "wow." The plans for this fairly predictable, high-density development named The Metz will make them ask, "Is that all there is?"

Surely London, Ont.-based Auburn Developments can do better with this property.

[ac3r]

Surely London, Ont.-based Auburn Developments can do better with this property.

Yeah...no.

[welltoldtales]

Never trusted anything from London.

[Acitta]

Editorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

Firewall ...

Clear your cookies for the site.

[tomh009]

Or pay for a subscription … it's less than $10/month to get coverage of local news and issues.

[KingandWeber]

Or pay for a subscription … it's less than $10/month to get coverage of local news and issues.

I want to second this comment. Regardless of what you think of the Record (and I actually think they've been fairly decent lately) having a local paper is pretty important to the health of local government. As out friend Joni says, don't know what you've got til it's gone...

[KevinT]

Or pay for a subscription … it's less than $10/month to get coverage of local news and issues.

I want to second this comment. Regardless of what you think of the Record (and I actually think they've been fairly decent lately) having a local paper is pretty important to the health of local government. As out friend Joni says, don't know what you've got til it's gone...

Finally just did it, thanks guys.

[Acitta]

Article in The Record about last night's public meeting.
Schneiders redevelopment could create ‘traffic hell’, residents say

[KevinL]

They have an excellent point about the affordable units being concentrated in a single building - that's not how you build a diverse urban landscape. Hopefully this feedback results in revisions to the design.

[tomh009]

Article in The Record about last night's public meeting.
Schneiders redevelopment could create ‘traffic hell’, residents say

From the article:

"Public space includes a public park of 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres), an urban plaza of 0.44-hectares and a new multi-use trail. That's far less than required under the city's parkland dedication policy, which would require about 5.6 hectares (13.9 acres) of park space."


Is that really correct? The entire parcel is only 10 ha, and the policy says that 56% of it should be dedicated to parkland?

[jeffster]

Article in The Record about last night's public meeting.
Schneiders redevelopment could create ‘traffic hell’, residents say

From the article:

"Public space includes a public park of 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres), an urban plaza of 0.44-hectares and a new multi-use trail. That's far less than required under the city's parkland dedication policy, which would require about 5.6 hectares (13.9 acres) of park space."


Is that really correct? The entire parcel is only 10 ha, and the policy says that 56% of it should be dedicated to parkland?

The number is the greater of 5% or 1 hectare per 300 units. Note, that this is the maximum, not minimum. Keep in mind too that this is The Record, which isn't always accurate. The Record is making it appear that this is the minimum requirement that is required.

Also, it appears that the developer could give cash considerations instead of land.

1.0 General

Parkland Dedication Policy

The Planning Act authorizes municipalities to require the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes. The amount may not exceed 2% for commercial or industrial development, and may not exceed 5% for all other development; alternatively, land in the amount of 1 hectare per 300 residential units may be required. This authority extends to subdivision approvals, consent (e.g., severance, easement, right-of way), and site plan approval for the development or redevelopment of land. It is the municipality’s option to require cash in lieu of land.

For residential development the City will require parkland dedication based on 5% or 1 hectare per 300 residential units, whichever is the greater.

[nms]

Given that places like Victoria Park are very crowded on pleasant weather days, I wouldn't object to sufficient green spaces being provided close to where a higher density of people are living. Open and green spaces are also great spaces for pop-up gatherings including festivals, markets or neighbourhood parties. Urban spaces shouldn't be about scuttling between tall buildings that are close together with nothing but hard spaces in between.

[Acitta]

The City’s Planning and Development Consultations webpage has now been updated with materials presented at the Neighbourhood Information Meeting last week. 

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/planning-and...evelopment

[panamaniac]

Interesting stuff.  Glad to see provision for pedestrian access to Mill St ("future") and to the trail leading to Mill Station.  I like the scale of 6-8 storeys facing Courtland.  Construction starting as early as next year strikes me as a bit optimistic, but we'll see.  Overall, however, this proposal doesn't really excite.  In a way, I'm disappointed that the site doesn't include the remainder 0f Courtland up to Stirling and along Striling back to the tracks, but I guess this could give other developers a chance to build in the vicinity, which could offset some of the sameness in style that this proposal threatens.