General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[timio]

Beverley/Kerr area.

[jgsz]

Where is that? The render makes it look like it's in the middle of the countryside.

It is supposed to be at Kerr Street and Shade Street.

[KevinL]

Phase 2 Ion is set to run right behind that, with a station likely at Main and Wellington.

[tomh009]

Phase 2 Ion is set to run right behind that, with a station likely at Main and Wellington.

Well! That's good.

[rangersfan]

If approved great news for Downtown Galt. After all these years Waterloo has had the tallest buildings in the Region, if all the known projects go ahead Kitchener Cambridge will be the only cities with projects 30 stories plus.

[Spokes]

That's a great looking project!

[Spokes]

“Thirty storeys would make Shade Street, shade street,” says Cambridge resident

Plans for a new, 30-storey condominium project in east Galt got a rough ride from area residents at the planning meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 12.
...
Talking of the height and density of the project, with its 592 units, another resident said, “They are trying to cram 80 pounds into a five-pound bag.”

If approved as is, the project would create one of the tallest apartment towers in Waterloo region, in the middle of a low-rise, low-density neighbourhood on the fringe of the Galt core. Sited on a 2½-acre site at the corner of Shade and Kerr streets, it would be close to the proposed Cambridge main station of Waterloo Region’s LRT second phase.
...
Even so, the proposal goes well beyond the limits set out within the city's zoning bylaw, which puts the maximum density allowed at 250 units per hectare. The developer is seeking to increase it by more than double, to 587 units per hectare. The maximum building height allowed under the zoning bylaw is 11 storeys, but the developer is proposing two apartment towers rising 24 and 30 storeys.

The developer is also seeking an amendment that would allow the minimum size of 20 single-bedroom apartments to be reduced to 473 square feet, from 538 square feet. None of the units in the project would meet the definition of affordable housing, and the developer intends to apply to turn the apartments into a condominium at a later date.

One area that isn’t in dispute would be parking, where the proposal would exceed the city’s parking requirements.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/977...-resident/

[Spokes]

I laughed at this quote, "Proponents of the development argue that the location is suitable because it wouldn’t take away from the character of Galt’s downtown core, while meeting provincial goals for intensification."

Downtown Galt needs things like this. Downtown Galt isn't working as it is right now.

[Bjays93]

Being a cambridge (galt) resident, is there a place to get involved in the discussion about this building?

While theres always going to be room for improvements, I wouldn't want a vocal minority to inhibit a necessary development from taking place

[Spokes]

Email your councilor? It sounds like consultation meetings have happened already.

I think Cambridge would be well served taking some fairly dramatic and aggressive moves to jump start things. Especially if it happened to be near Hespeler Rd.

[Bjays93]

Email your councilor?  It sounds like consultation meetings have happened already.

I think Cambridge would be well served taking some fairly dramatic and aggressive moves to jump start things.  Especially if it happened to be near Hespeler Rd.

I agree. This development is still in an excellent location though. Just outside of the downtown core on what I'm fairly certain is just empty land. Right on the future lrt line and right next to galt arena. It's also partway up the hill and would stand out beautifully behind the downtown area

[panamaniac]

I love the quote “They are trying to cram 80 pounds into a five-pound bag.” That's a keeper!
I confess, I understand the sentiment. It will be interesting to see how City Council responds to the developer's ambition.

[timio]

The property is currently empty.

[nms]

"The maximum building height allowed under the zoning bylaw is 11 storeys, but the developer is proposing two apartment towers rising 24 and 30 storeys."

What's the point of a City spending the time and energy of its politicians, staff and citizens to create a zoning bylaw if the expectation is that anyone can come and propose to double (or in this case more) the proposed height just because they think that it is a good idea? Presumably politicians, staff and citizens supported the 11 storey limit for a good reason in the first place?

[taylortbb]

"The maximum building height allowed under the zoning bylaw is 11 storeys, but the developer is proposing two apartment towers rising 24 and 30 storeys."

What's the point of a City spending the time and energy of its politicians, staff and citizens to create a zoning bylaw if the expectation is that anyone can come and propose to double (or in this case more) the proposed height just because they think that it is a good idea? Presumably politicians, staff and citizens supported the 11 storey limit for a good reason in the first place?

I've asked staff this question. The answer is apparently that the zoning is set very conservatively, because for anything that complies with it the city has basically no control over the project. Provincial law restricts what cities can zone for, and it excludes a lot of things they'd like control over.

However, when it's an exception to the zoning, then it's a negotiated agreement and the provincial restrictions don't matter. The city can't require a good looking building in zoning, but they can also say they won't change the zoning unless the building looks good.

I think it's generally dumb, as it creates a false expectation for neighbours. It also makes it far too easy for NIMBYs to oppose projects. I also think it incentivizes building crap, as it's generally easy to build boring generic suburban buildings under the zoning, while good urban buildings require a year long zone change process. 

Regardless of what I personally think though, the exception process is definitely intended to be used, and the storey limits shouldn't be thought of as what the city consider the maximum acceptable density.