Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed

[cherrypark]

Bemused by the premise that these comparable, existing buildings set some standard for height that should not be exceeded. Excited for all the petition writers to be enthusiastic about future 4-10 storey developments near Victoria and Park!

[danbrotherston]

Bemused by the premise that these comparable, existing buildings set some standard for height that should not be exceeded. Excited for all the petition writers to be enthusiastic about future 4-10 storey developments near Victoria and Park!

I mean, I understand why people try this argument, it's inherently conservative.

What pisses me off, and frankly, reveals NIMBYs true goals is when they oppose buildings smaller than the neighbouring buildings, as they did on Belmont.

[ac3r]

The Reddit thread has been deleted, unfortunately. All the replies seemed to consist of people telling the OP that they were making a real bad argument against new development, so they removed it.

[jeffster]

The NIMBYs are posting a petition on Reddit asking people to sign, with a list of their grievances about the project. Suffice to say, they don't have much of an argument besides "there will be shadows and they are tall": https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comme...velopment/

The 4 comments so far are pretty pro-housing, with a variety of differing but compatible perspectives expressed in a variety of styles. Let’s hope the comments continue to follow that trend.

Oringal post deleted.

[Bjays93]

Reddit is extremely liberal, probably even moreso than this forum. No surprise there.

[ac3r]

Eh? Yeah, Reddit "leans left". But when I think of liberalism, it's densifying large cities for the greater good through such projects. When I think the opposite, I think of geriatric old ass boomers who should just proverbially die already, living in houses they bought for mere pennies compared to our standards, who don't want any change or anyone new living in the area. In other words, entitled, out of touch, usually wealthy old fools who should not be listened to unless they need a diaper change. Really, truly sick of these kind of people...nothing frustrates me more as an architect as entitled, annoying, old - usually white - people complaining about things they don't care about or understand.

No surprises there at all indeed, really, except that some boomer couldn't handle constructive responses to their shitty argument and deleted their thread out of shame. Personal take but conservatives are stupid people, it's not a surprise that when they present their arguments to the public at large, they get called stupid. Oh well.

[dtkvictim]

I mean, I understand why people try this argument, it's inherently conservative.

What pisses me off, and frankly, reveals NIMBYs true goals is when they oppose buildings smaller than the neighbouring buildings, as they did on Belmont.

I feel I should repeat myself first: I don't think neighbours should have much or any say about these developments. With that in mind, I don't think there is merit to your comment about NIMBYs goals. First, you are othering a fairly diverse group of people simply because they disagree with you. The people who use nearby buildings as benchmark, and those who oppose a building smaller than existing structures are not the same group. Certainly there is some overlap, and I'm sure you've even met some of these individuals. But that alone doesn't make all people you disagree with fit into this bucket.

Secondly, a neighbourhood composed of 1 highrise to 99 lowrise buildings is not the same as the inverse. It sounds stupid to say something so obvious, but saying that a development shorter than an existing nearby structure can't be opposed for height reasons is implying that both scenarios are indeed the same.

I think we can criticize those helping to fuel our housing crisis while maintaining nuance and understanding, and avoiding divisiveness.

Personal take but conservatives are stupid people, it's not a surprise that when they present their arguments to the public at large, they get called stupid. Oh well.

When conservatives present their opinions to liberal echo chambers they get called stupid. I feel you should know, the opposite is equally as true.

[danbrotherston]

Reddit is extremely liberal, probably even moreso than this forum. No surprise there.

I mean, a "left-right" spectrum is too simple to describe one person's political ideology, let alone an entire forum.

FWIW I left Reddit because the folks there were excessively anti-road safety, among other problems. I wasn't really in the mood to put up with folks continually suggesting I didn't have a right to be safe getting around the city.

(And yes, I'm sure some folks here know that I was banned from the Kitchener sub because I called some asshole names...which by the way, first strike being a "perma-ban" seems excessive to me...but after that, it was my choice to delete my account and leave all the other subs I was a part of.)

[danbrotherston]

I mean, I understand why people try this argument, it's inherently conservative.

What pisses me off, and frankly, reveals NIMBYs true goals is when they oppose buildings smaller than the neighbouring buildings, as they did on Belmont.

I feel I should repeat myself first: I don't think neighbours should have much or any say about these developments. With that in mind, I don't think there is merit to your comment about NIMBYs goals. First, you are othering a fairly diverse group of people simply because they disagree with you. The people who use nearby buildings as benchmark, and those who oppose a building smaller than existing structures are not the same group. Certainly there is some overlap, and I'm sure you've even met some of these individuals. But that alone doesn't make all people you disagree with fit into this bucket.

Secondly, a neighbourhood composed of 1 highrise to 99 lowrise buildings is not the same as the inverse. It sounds stupid to say something so obvious, but saying that a development shorter than an existing nearby structure can't be opposed for height reasons is implying that both scenarios are indeed the same.

I think we can criticize those helping to fuel our housing crisis while maintaining nuance and understanding, and avoiding divisiveness.

Personal take but conservatives are stupid people, it's not a surprise that when they present their arguments to the public at large, they get called stupid. Oh well.

When conservatives present their opinions to liberal echo chambers they get called stupid. I feel you should know, the opposite is equally as true.

You are right on some points, but wrong on others. People claiming that a development "doesn't fit the character of the neighbourhood" when that development is a similar size and scale to other buildings nearby are using a ridiculous argument. If they were more honest, they'd say "we don't want more people here"...but that would mean being honest about their objectionable motives.

I'm sure there are some folks who are trying to give constructive criticism. I have two comments that I always give in response to that. First, we're in a housing crisis. It's too late, we've lost the opportunity to try and build better, because we just need to build as much as possible. And second, maybe they do have valuable things to say. It's too bad they're drowned out by the angry mob trying to keep people out of their neighbourhood.

Yeah, I might be othering them, at this point, I don't care, I try not to hate people too easily, but at least where I live, these folks are ridiculous, and it's hurting my community, so I'm done giving them the time of day. Sorry if they aren't all bad, but at a certain point, you have to look around and see the people who are fighting with you and question if you are in the right place.

As for the stupidity of whomever...just because conservatives will also call liberals stupid does not mean that there is no objective truth. At this point, both parties (lets be specific here, because there is data on this) have extremists who are poorly informed, but conservatives are objectively measured as less informed and more prone to missinformation than progressives pretty reliably.

[nms]

If developers and municipal staff did a better job of communicating the benefits of a new development to the community, that would go a long way towards gaining neighbourhood acceptance, particularly if a developer is proposing something that goes well beyond what a certain piece of property has been zoned for.  Every square inch of downtown Kitchener has been planned and discussed for decades.  Most people who live downtown have a reasonable expectation that things will change.  It's when a developer arrives with a plan to dramatically increase the density beyond what was already planned  with no apparent benefit for the nearby community, neighbours begin to ask questions. I do not buy the argument of, "Give the developers what they want and maybe we can convince them to throw a community benefit elsewhere". Developers should know their community and plan to become a part of it rather than appear to be maximizing their profit for the sake of themselves and real estate investors while those who will ultimately be living in the building and those in the surrounding area have to live with the consequences of any negative impacts.

What would make a project more palatable to me:
- ample sidewalk or plaza space around the building that would allow pedestrians to not feel as if they are squeezed between a glass/concrete/whatever wall and a high capacity road
- trees all along the sidewalk (this development is cutting down 51 trees of various maturity. I doubt that any trees of meaningful use are going to appear on site)
- onsite affordable housing (don't just give money to something that might be built elsewhere by someone else)
- family sized units, or a provision that single-occupancy units could be converted into larger units later (this would only work with rental buildings)
- meaningful contribution to accessible green space nearby (the downtown Kitchener parks are on the cusp of being overrun using Kitchener's own metrics once all of the current under construction and planned buildings are occupied)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.

Things like this:
- We are going three stories taller because the building is narrower to allow for an outdoor gathering space or play structure
- We are going three stories taller so be able to plant more trees around the building for a pleasant pedestrian experience and to reduce the urban heat island effect
- We are going five stories taller because this building will have 35 affordable housing units onsite
- We are going five stories taller because we have moved the parking podium to the back (non street-facing) side of the building and there will be occupied residential or commercial units facing the street

If the neighbourhood is being asked to make trade-offs, then they should be able to expect some community benefit. How does this development contribute to the neighbourhood? (I ask rhetorically)

[danbrotherston]

If developers and municipal staff did a better job of communicating the benefits of a new development to the community, that would go a long way towards gaining neighbourhood acceptance, particularly if a developer is proposing something that goes well beyond what a certain piece of property has been zoned for.  Every square inch of downtown Kitchener has been planned and discussed for decades.  Most people who live downtown have a reasonable expectation that things will change.  It's when a developer arrives with a plan to dramatically increase the density beyond what was already planned  with no apparent benefit for the nearby community, neighbours begin to ask questions. I do not buy the argument of, "Give the developers what they want and maybe we can convince them to throw a community benefit elsewhere". Developers should know their community and plan to become a part of it rather than appear to be maximizing their profit for the sake of themselves and real estate investors while those who will ultimately be living in the building and those in the surrounding area have to live with the consequences of any negative impacts.

What would make a project more palatable to me:
- ample sidewalk or plaza space around the building that would allow pedestrians to not feel as if they are squeezed between a glass/concrete/whatever wall and a high capacity road
- trees all along the sidewalk (this development is cutting down 51 trees of various maturity. I doubt that any trees of meaningful use are going to appear on site)
- onsite affordable housing (don't just give money to something that might be built elsewhere by someone else)
- family sized units, or a provision that single-occupancy units could be converted into larger units later (this would only work with rental buildings)
- meaningful contribution to accessible green space nearby (the downtown Kitchener parks are on the cusp of being overrun using Kitchener's own metrics once all of the current under construction and planned buildings are occupied)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.

Things like this:
- We are going three stories taller because the building is narrower to allow for an outdoor gathering space or play structure
- We are going three stories taller so be able to plant more trees around the building for a pleasant pedestrian experience and to reduce the urban heat island effect
- We are going five stories taller because this building will have 35 affordable housing units onsite
- We are going five stories taller because we have moved the parking podium to the back (non street-facing) side of the building and there will be occupied residential or commercial units facing the street

If the neighbourhood is being asked to make trade-offs, then they should be able to expect some community benefit. How does this development contribute to the neighbourhood? (I ask rhetorically)

I mean, various developments have tried this...Mill St. had a small, but non-zero affordable housing component. It got scaled back and that affordable housing component was lost, NIMBYs (who pretend to care about affordable housing) declare it a win.

Queen St. was going to be a mid-priced rental building with strong design, it STILL got NIMBY pushback which resulted in the run down houses next to it being required to be retained, which scaled back the development and increased costs. STILL declared a win.

You don't want a massive parking podium, neither do I. I also want less traffic. Yet the NIMBYs demand more parking.

I think you folks are overly optimistic.

The problem is that many NIMBYs certainly the loudest ones in Vic Park, are not interested in improving their communities, they like their communities just the way they are, they don't want change of any kind, certainly not of the "more people live here" kind.

[cherrypark]

If developers and municipal staff did a better job of communicating the benefits of a new development to the community, that would go a long way towards gaining neighbourhood acceptance, particularly if a developer is proposing something that goes well beyond what a certain piece of property has been zoned for.  Every square inch of downtown Kitchener has been planned and discussed for decades.  Most people who live downtown have a reasonable expectation that things will change.  It's when a developer arrives with a plan to dramatically increase the density beyond what was already planned  with no apparent benefit for the nearby community, neighbours begin to ask questions. I do not buy the argument of, "Give the developers what they want and maybe we can convince them to throw a community benefit elsewhere". Developers should know their community and plan to become a part of it rather than appear to be maximizing their profit for the sake of themselves and real estate investors while those who will ultimately be living in the building and those in the surrounding area have to live with the consequences of any negative impacts.

What would make a project more palatable to me:
- ample sidewalk or plaza space around the building that would allow pedestrians to not feel as if they are squeezed between a glass/concrete/whatever wall and a high capacity road
- trees all along the sidewalk (this development is cutting down 51 trees of various maturity. I doubt that any trees of meaningful use are going to appear on site)
- onsite affordable housing (don't just give money to something that might be built elsewhere by someone else)
- family sized units, or a provision that single-occupancy units could be converted into larger units later (this would only work with rental buildings)
- meaningful contribution to accessible green space nearby (the downtown Kitchener parks are on the cusp of being overrun using Kitchener's own metrics once all of the current under construction and planned buildings are occupied)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.

Things like this:
- We are going three stories taller because the building is narrower to allow for an outdoor gathering space or play structure
- We are going three stories taller so be able to plant more trees around the building for a pleasant pedestrian experience and to reduce the urban heat island effect
- We are going five stories taller because this building will have 35 affordable housing units onsite
- We are going five stories taller because we have moved the parking podium to the back (non street-facing) side of the building and there will be occupied residential or commercial units facing the street

If the neighbourhood is being asked to make trade-offs, then they should be able to expect some community benefit. How does this development contribute to the neighbourhood? (I ask rhetorically)

I think most of the wants here are cogent and your manner of explanation approach would be great if it could be made so straight forward. I do think, though, that reading documents on the community feedback from similar projects (recently in Belmont) or this petition you'll realize that, regrettably, the most prominent community complaints that arise are none of those things (even if some may be intrinsic).

Maybe that just means that the constructively critical neighbours need to speak up more. In part I think that is true.

[tomh009]

What would make a project more palatable to me:
(...)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.

I'm no fan of massive podiums. But isn't that what the cities are effectively looking for, by asking for less height at the street wall, and the taller parts of the building be set back?

And, yes, the parking, between the challenge of building deep underground parking in the region (high water table) and the parking minima (which at least Kitchener is willing to be flexible on).

[danbrotherston]

What would make a project more palatable to me:
(...)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.

I'm no fan of massive podiums. But isn't that what the cities are effectively looking for, by asking for less height at the street wall, and the taller parts of the building be set back?

And, yes, the parking, between the challenge of building deep underground parking in the region (high water table) and the parking minima (which at least Kitchener is willing to be flexible on).

Podiums can be good and bad, I mean, I think a 6 story sidewalk fronting podium is preferred over a 30 story sidewalk fronting building, and also a 30 story building with huge setbacks.

But a podium with ugly parking facade is worse than a podium with apartments above retail (which is also worse than podium which more closely mimics a natural urban streetscape)

[TMKM94]

Someone spray painted a big Red No on the development proposal sign on Park st 🙄. I really hope NIMBYS don't Succeed in getting the development cancelled or reduced in size.