30-40 Margaret Ave | 3 fl townhouses | Planned

[panamaniac]

I wonder what this means for other announced projects that have not yet started.

You and many others.  It seems a bold move to buy a pre-build condo at the moment, given the current uncertainties. 

Although, if this project was mostly sold, the problem must be something other than COVID, one would think.

[Momo26]

I would be curious to know why this isn't a go forward? Anyone who had a unit booked know and care to share?

This is one that had a fair amount of push back initially right?

It's too bad, it looked fantastic in renders. A high quality build.

[tomh009]

This is an unfortunate cancellation. I really liked the look of these buildings. The units were a decent size too. It seems weird that it has been cancelled, since the first phase sold out rather quickly. The development company must have some financial issues going on. I wonder if they will try to sell the land to a developer. Maybe the city would be interested in purchasing it and developing a decent sized urban park. I am sure the site will have something planned for it sooner rather than later. It is a great location.

This could be the case, yes. I do think they sold enough to qualify for a construction mortgage, but the developer must self-finance a significant portion, 30-40% if I recall correctly. It's quite conceivable that Activa's cash flow (in the current economic situation) no longer enables them to proceed with this, and they have chosen to retrench and ensure the future of the company.

As for an urban park space, I think it's a nice idea but I can't see it happening given the city's current financial situation.

With luck, we might see a new project announced there within a year. Might take longer than that, though.

[danbrotherston]

This is an unfortunate cancellation. I really liked the look of these buildings. The units were a decent size too. It seems weird that it has been cancelled, since the first phase sold out rather quickly. The development company must have some financial issues going on. I wonder if they will try to sell the land to a developer. Maybe the city would be interested in purchasing it and developing a decent sized urban park. I am sure the site will have something planned for it sooner rather than later. It is a great location.

There's another urban park within 85 meters of that site (and if need be that park could be expanded by de-parking-lot-ing the adjacent land which the city already owns). I think there are places more in need of a park than there.

It is unfortunate, I thought that was going to be a really good development for the city. It's unclear to me why it would be cancelled, last I heard realestate sales in KW were strong...in fact prices are so strong, it's almost suspicious, they could cancel and restart at a higher price..but I'd rather guess that they are having cashflow issues?

[danbrotherston]

I would be curious to know why this isn't a go forward? Anyone who had a unit booked know and care to share?

This is one that had a fair amount of push back initially right?

It's too bad, it looked fantastic in renders. A high quality build.

Has there ever been a project in KW (or anywhere these days) without pushback that wasn't simply paving over farm land?

[taylortbb]

It's unclear to me why it would be cancelled, last I heard realestate sales in KW were strong...in fact prices are so strong, it's almost suspicious, they could cancel and restart at a higher price

That was my thought too. That move has become pretty common in Toronto when prices jump after pre-sales. Wouldn't surprise me to see Activa pull it here, they do have a less than stellar reputation.

[panamaniac]

I would be curious to know why this isn't a go forward? Anyone who had a unit booked know and care to share?

This is one that had a fair amount of push back initially right?

It's too bad, it looked fantastic in renders. A high quality build.

Has there ever been a project in KW (or anywhere these days) without pushback that wasn't simply paving over farm land?k

But in how many cases has the “pushback” been relevant in terms of the approved form? The Breithaupt Phase III tower and the recent Beechwood apartment tower come to mind, but the majority of projects have been unscathed, no?

[ijmorlan]

Has there ever been a project in KW (or anywhere these days) without pushback that wasn't simply paving over farm land?

In the good old days, you could buy up a block of houses, knock them down, and build a factory, and everybody would be happy that you were creating jobs and enhancing the reputation of the place as a town of industry.

So things have definitely changed, and overall I would argue not for the better in this particular area.

[panamaniac]

Has there ever been a project in KW (or anywhere these days) without pushback that wasn't simply paving over farm land?

In the good old days, you could buy up a block of houses, knock them down, and build a factory, and everybody would be happy that you were creating jobs and enhancing the reputation of the place as a town of industry.

So things have definitely changed, and overall I would argue not for the better in this particular area.

Well, given that K-W from the good old days is such an aesthetic and urban delight, I can see where you're coming from ...

[ijmorlan]

Well, given that K-W from the good old days is such an aesthetic and urban delight, I can see where you're coming from ...

I should clarify that I’m actually OK with the zoning rules that prevent a factory moving in next to me. But overall we now have way too much of the idea that I should have a veto on changes to the city around me. Often, change and new development are what is needed to keep the city healthy, so this isn’t a good thing. What I would like to see is retention of the important health and safety aspects of zoning, combined with a massive reduction of most of the detailed requirements, along with a general relaxation on the part of all us about changes happening near us.

[panamaniac]

ng
Well, given that K-W from the good old days is such an aesthetic and urban delight, I can see where you're coming fr ...

I should clarify that I’m actually OK with the zoning rules that prevent a factory moving in next to me. But overall we now have way too much of the idea that I should have a veto on changes to the city around me. Often, change and new development are what is needed to keep the city healthy, so this isn’t a good thing. What I would like to see is retention of the important health and safety aspects of zoning, combined with a massive reduction of most of the detailed requirements, along with a general relaxation on the part of all us about changes happening near us.

 
Who, other than the City/OMB has a "veto"?  Certainly not neighbourhood groups and other private citizens.  If a project requires up-zoning, I really don't have too much trouble with community input, and even NIMBYism.  Much of it amounts to little more than venting and, if there are substantive concerns that lead to changes in a project that make it a happier fit in the community, then I'm fine if the developer is obliged to work a bit to meet higher expectations.  The cases where a project fails simply due to community opposition are relatively rare, istm.

[danbrotherston]

Has there ever been a project in KW (or anywhere these days) without pushback that wasn't simply paving over farm land?

In the good old days, you could buy up a block of houses, knock them down, and build a factory, and everybody would be happy that you were creating jobs and enhancing the reputation of the place as a town of industry.

So things have definitely changed, and overall I would argue not for the better in this particular area.

I don't think it's the case that "everyone would be happy"...it's just that we never listened to all the voices. We still don't, although it's not entirely a bad thing that we listen to more (although it would be nice if we were less racist and classest in who we listen to), but it's a shame that those who are being listened too aren't being more responsible with their voice that they now have.

On the other hand, maybe its just the case that we always listened to these same people, but now we're impacting more than just the voiceless.  I dunno, I'm not a historian.

[ijmorlan]

I don't think it's the case that "everyone would be happy"...it's just that we never listened to all the voices. We still don't, although it's not entirely a bad thing that we listen to more (although it would be nice if we were less racist and classest in who we listen to), but it's a shame that those who are being listened too aren't being more responsible with their voice that they now have.

I don’t mean literally everybody, but the general feeling was that industry was prosperity, and up to a point that was (and is) true. Now we want to be wealthy but we don’t want to see a factory. We want to live in the city and never have a building near us replaced with a bigger building (especially not if poorer people might move into it; or in other situations especially if wealthier people might move into it).

While many of these not-wants end up having little impact on what is built, a related set of not-wants is encoded as law in the zoning code, meaning that all sorts of decisions which are the business of nobody but the property owner are instead subject to mandatory public comment and may be nixed by elected or unelected officials. The example I always use is one of those zone change application signs I once saw, which went up on a gas station. The proposed zoning change? From “gas station” to “gas station with convenience store”. In other words, they had to get a zone change to sell chocolate bars out of the station office. But nobody who already has a gas station as a neighbour has any business objecting to it beginning to sell a few things on the side.

Similarly, it’s nobody’s business if I start offering music lessons in my home (OK, maybe my common-wall neighbour), or grow vegetables in the front yard, or take in a boarder (I’m looking at the City of Waterloo rental bylaw). I think these ones are pretty unarguable; but I would go further and say that it’s really nobody’s business if I want to replace my house with a short row of townhouses or open a corner grocery store. These are all just small steps in the evolution of the city.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think it's the case that "everyone would be happy"...it's just that we never listened to all the voices. We still don't, although it's not entirely a bad thing that we listen to more (although it would be nice if we were less racist and classest in who we listen to), but it's a shame that those who are being listened too aren't being more responsible with their voice that they now have.

I don’t mean literally everybody, but the general feeling was that industry was prosperity, and up to a point that was (and is) true. Now we want to be wealthy but we don’t want to see a factory. We want to live in the city and never have a building near us replaced with a bigger building (especially not if poorer people might move into it; or in other situations especially if wealthier people might move into it).

While many of these not-wants end up having little impact on what is built, a related set of not-wants is encoded as law in the zoning code, meaning that all sorts of decisions which are the business of nobody but the property owner are instead subject to mandatory public comment and may be nixed by elected or unelected officials. The example I always use is one of those zone change application signs I once saw, which went up on a gas station. The proposed zoning change? From “gas station” to “gas station with convenience store”. In other words, they had to get a zone change to sell chocolate bars out of the station office. But nobody who already has a gas station as a neighbour has any business objecting to it beginning to sell a few things on the side.

Similarly, it’s nobody’s business if I start offering music lessons in my home (OK, maybe my common-wall neighbour), or grow vegetables in the front yard, or take in a boarder (I’m looking at the City of Waterloo rental bylaw). I think these ones are pretty unarguable; but I would go further and say that it’s really nobody’s business if I want to replace my house with a short row of townhouses or open a corner grocery store. These are all just small steps in the evolution of the city.

My main point was that I suspect things were not so different in the past. History is written by the victors so it is, and we build a narrative that we like. I do suspect that just as many people were upset about developments in the past as they are now.

On the issue of zoning, you're absolutely right, it's ridiculous the zoning that we have now, I think there should only be a few zoning restrictions even permitted, obviously there should be some property and building standards--those should be separate, but in terms of use, I believe the only zoning restrictions should be based the impact on others, i.e., noise or pollution should be restricted maybe some other things (oh and noise only counts when it's more annoying than my neighbour with a leaf blower/dragster/loud children...who are very annoying/extremely annoying/totally charming respectively).

[Acitta]

The Record:  Redevelopment plans scrapped for long-vacant Margaret Avenue site