R+T is very suburban?

[kalis0490]

Why is R+T so suburban. With an LRT, university and the heart of waterloos industry, there should be more mixed use 8+ ish storey  office buildings.

instead theres 3 storey suburban buildings.

This should be fixed with increased density.

Druker's post on Social media brought this up for me

[danbrotherston]

Why is R+T so suburban. With an LRT, university and the heart of waterloos industry, there should be more mixed use 8+ ish storey  office buildings.

instead theres 3 storey suburban buildings.

This should be fixed with increased density.

Druker's post on Social media brought this up for me

I've heard at least part of this is UW's policies. I'm not sure what specifically, but I know that city planners I have spoken too often implied that the University was not co-operative and wouldn't really be willing to be better.

I also suspect there are zoning issues...

Whatever the source, it is incredibly frustrating, at all levels. The built form is suburban, but the location is very urban, it's an incredible waste.

The building there at the train station...I mean, I'm sure it's good for a suburban office building, but it's constantly touted as an amazing accomplishment, and I'm like, it has an acre of surface parking next to a train station, this is as near to a failure of policy as you can get, it only looks good by the ungodly low standards we have.

[ac3r]

Maybe it's zoning issues? I don't think there is a single building out there that is taller than 3 floors. It's a shame because parking lots take up more surface area than all of the buildings combined. I can't stand being in the area because it's just a vast, flat wasteland of asphalt and empty lots. Overall, I find that Waterloo is such an ugly and uncomfortable city compared to Kitchener and Cambridge.

[westwardloo]

R&T is completely suburban it is built for car owners and is a complete failure in urban planning. It reminds me of the various office parks in Mississauga. Unfortunately some companies and their employees prefer these types of locations. Stantec was located downtown Kitchener and chose to move into a new suburban office surrounded by parking lots.  I can't speak for UW  planning policy, but surely a lot of the blame can fall on the City of Waterloo. In my opinion the biggest planning failure in the region in the past 2 decades was allowing Black Berry to build their suburban HQ beside cornfields in north waterloo.  Imagine if the city had pushed BB to build a couple office towers in uptown? Or a the very least along the LRT route, which was well into planning when black berry was deciding to build its new HQ.  

Unfortunately UW has too much power and land at their disposal. Not sure if you have seen what they have planned for the land on the other side of westmount off laurelwood, but it is just as bad as R&T and is no were close to the LRT station.

[tomh009]

Maybe it's zoning issues? I don't think there is a single building out there that is taller than 3 floors.

OpenText 2 is five floors, I think. Still not very tall.

[robdrimmie]

I went to a conference in San Jose in 2012 or so (it was for mobile developers and I was the only one there with a BlackBerry) and ever since then I've been relatively convinced that R&T's general theme is 100% "We Can Be A Silicon Valley Commercial Park TOOOOO!". If you scoot around San Jose in Street View it's that same low building massive parking lot wasted space spread out feeling on an absurd scale. 

eg: https://goo.gl/maps/Cx9Zn3bLp1pcPBQQ8

[ijmorlan]

R&T park is a total fail. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn’t have been designed with continuous buildings (with porticos, obviously) along the roads starting at the LRT station, with parking lots behind the buildings.

While I personally would like to see less parking, that isn’t my actual complaint; my complaint is that what they’ve built is bad for everybody. Same complaint I have about The Boardwalk.

The idea about “zoning problems” doesn’t make sense. If either the City or the University wanted to do it properly, and the other was at least not completely pig-headed about it, that could be solved.

[tomh009]

The university is in control here. The zoning allows the low-rise office park, and there is nothing the city can do to force a change of direction. I think Rob may be onto something here, they wanted the technology park feeling, not an urban environment.

Ugh.

[kalis0490]

I think we should have tritag advocate this to Mike Pererira who run the park. He seems open to ideas.  

https://ideaquarter.com/about/  -theres a good future pic  with ~20 fl towers.

the city has a great render of what they want the park to be - can't find it

[ac3r]

I think we should have tritag advocate this to Mike Pererira who run the park. He seems open to ideas.  

https://ideaquarter.com/about/  -theres a good future pic  with ~20 fl towers.

the city has a great render of what they want the park to be - can't find it

You're thinking of the Waterloo Innovation Network plan designed by Martin Simmons Architects. Unfortunately, we'll never ever see this built because Waterloo is extremely conservative about themselves. Here's what they had in mind instead of this sprawling, low rise development full of parking lots we have now:







Waterloo will be left in the dust and become nothing but a Kitchener suburb with schools as time goes on...they don't want anything, ever. The most progress they've achieved was building a couple condos around King/Allen and Barrel Yards which has yet to be completed despite being started exactly 1 decade ago (and still isn't anywhere near completion).

[kalis0490]

theres reason for hope https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...r-revamp-/

we should really rally for change here - get an article somewhere

[danbrotherston]

R&T park is a total fail. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn’t have been designed with continuous buildings (with porticos, obviously) along the roads starting at the LRT station, with parking lots behind the buildings.

While I personally would like to see less parking, that isn’t my actual complaint; my complaint is that what they’ve built is bad for everybody. Same complaint I have about The Boardwalk.

The idea about “zoning problems” doesn’t make sense. If either the City or the University wanted to do it properly, and the other was at least not completely pig-headed about it, that could be solved.

It's not bad for everyone...it's only bad for folks who can conceive of walking farther than halfway out to the parking lot.

If you drive and never ever want to walk anywhere ever, it's actually pretty good.

Source: I worked there and I wasn't always an outspoken anti-establishment transportation guy.

[ijmorlan]

It's not bad for everyone...it's only bad for folks who can conceive of walking farther than halfway out to the parking lot.

If you drive and never ever want to walk anywhere ever, it's actually pretty good.

Source: I worked there and I wasn't always an outspoken anti-establishment transportation guy.

I claim it’s bad even for the car drivers. If it was built my way, they could drive to the parking lot, walk into the building, and then at lunch they could walk to the next building under cover to hit the café (or whatever). As it is they have to walk (a) further and (b) in the rain. Same comment applies for visiting another building for a meeting.

Question: if the way it has been built is so fabulous, why is there a bridge linking the two OpenText buildings?

Same thing at the Boardwalk. Even for somebody who prefers driving everywhere, having the stores closer together and not separated by massive parking lots is more convenient.

[danbrotherston]

It's not bad for everyone...it's only bad for folks who can conceive of walking farther than halfway out to the parking lot.

If you drive and never ever want to walk anywhere ever, it's actually pretty good.

Source: I worked there and I wasn't always an outspoken anti-establishment transportation guy.

I claim it’s bad even for the car drivers. If it was built my way, they could drive to the parking lot, walk into the building, and then at lunch they could walk to the next building under cover to hit the café (or whatever). As it is they have to walk (a) further and (b) in the rain. Same comment applies for visiting another building for a meeting.

Question: if the way it has been built is so fabulous, why is there a bridge linking the two OpenText buildings?

Same thing at the Boardwalk. Even for somebody who prefers driving everywhere, having the stores closer together and not separated by massive parking lots is more convenient.

Definitely not a) the parking is as close to the buildings as you could ever build, even getting in/out of a parking garage is longer than the 50 meter maximum walk to my car I had.

As for visiting another building, you can't do better than the bridge, and...ultimately, nobody is meeting with other companies in the office park.

Trust me, this is great for drivers...it might not be if it got filled out the way Toronto or Silicon Valley has, because there would be traffic, but that isn't the experience of most people in town. They think getting a light red is an intolerable traffic jam.

[nms]

In anyone aware of a developer who has come in to ask to build something other than what is already there? Residential developers are beginning to improve their residential stock from what was being proposed and built 15 years ago. I am sure that if a commercial developer had the gumption to create something great, and they knew that they could make a profit at it, they would.

Also remember that Waterloo Region is very much a suburb of Toronto when it comes to development styles. We get the copycats and the leftovers. With the exception of the big insurance companies (Mutual Life/SunLife, Manulife, Economical etc) I can't think of any other commercial development in the last 100 years in the Region that might be considered as spectacular in terms of lasting architectural value that started from whole cloth or bare dirt. The Google building might be one example, but even that project started with an existing piece of architecture.

On a personal note, I think that UW missed a big opportunity in not convincing Mike Laziridis to plant the Quantum-Nano Centre on the north campus as a new starting point for the Engineering, Science and Math faculties. It would have given those faculties space to grow while allowing the other faculties to expand into the former Engineering faculties. But alas, I am neither a billionaire nor someone who pulls the levers of power at the University.

PS I also worked on the North campus for two co-op terms. It was a desolate, wind-swept space.