Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Login or Create an Account
Doubtful they'd get it cancelled. I'm not sure about a reduction in height...it's possible, because there are so many single family homes next to the site, but it might be approved. The important thing is - if we want to see this get built - we need to be vocal about it. Attend meetings or send emails to the appropriate council members. They've all been receptive of it to me as well as the actual developer from what I understand as I helped do some of the architecture work.
(11-24-2021, 05:23 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Was the developer engaged with the concerned neighbourhood(s) prior to bringing the proposal forward?
I'm not sure if they have. To be honest, I'm not sure many people live adjacent, there are a few on Park St. I think, and maybe a couple homes on Victoria are adjacent.
That being said, the main objectors, do not live adjacent to the development. I suspect most live in the Vic Park neighbourhood, but there are also those from all over the city. This is one thing that bothers me the most, there are folks objecting who don't live anywhere near this development. They don't like the "direction" the city is going...you know...turning into like...a city.
11-26-2021, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2021, 11:11 AM by cherrypark.)
(11-24-2021, 03:52 PM)ac3r Wrote: Doubtful they'd get it cancelled. I'm not sure about a reduction in height...it's possible, because there are so many single family homes next to the site, but it might be approved. The important thing is - if we want to see this get built - we need to be vocal about it. Attend meetings or send emails to the appropriate council members. They've all been receptive of it to me as well as the actual developer from what I understand as I helped do some of the architecture work.
For this:
(1) Submit your comments to the city before December 7 to the contacts below.
Sent a brief email outlining my feelings of support and Eric was very appreciative to hear this point of view. It only takes a few minutes to make your voice heard, and the people opposing it are surely not hesitant to do so.
(11-26-2021, 12:45 PM)CP42 Wrote: Sent a brief email outlining my feelings of support and Eric was very appreciative to hear this point of view. It only takes a few minutes to make your voice heard, and the people opposing it are surely not hesitant to do so.
I have sent my email in support of the project. I went a step further and encouraged the city to push the developer to go higher in height and add affordable housing units as the reason for more.
11-26-2021, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2021, 02:58 PM by urbd.)
Good luck with all your support emails.
This development (like most) was obviously submitted with extra floors that were not part of the proforma so that the developer can slash them as soon as the NIMBYs complain. Classic tactic that most condo developers use. There is ZERO chance that this development will be approved as submitted.
(11-26-2021, 02:58 PM)urbd Wrote: Good luck with all your support emails.
This development (like most) was obviously submitted with extra floors that were not part of the proforma so that the developer can slash them as soon as the NIMBYs complain. Classic tactic that most condo developers use. There is ZERO chance that this development will be approved as submitted.
This is fundamentally a broken system, and it is the fault of the cult of the fake middle ground.
11-26-2021, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2021, 04:34 PM by ac3r.)
(11-26-2021, 02:58 PM)urbd Wrote: Good luck with all your support emails.
This development (like most) was obviously submitted with extra floors that were not part of the proforma so that the developer can slash them as soon as the NIMBYs complain. Classic tactic that most condo developers use. There is ZERO chance that this development will be approved as submitted.
Why do you think this will be the case? This forum seems to believe that NIMBYs hold all the power here but that is simply not the case. I know they're annoying, but they haven't had much impact on developments in this region. I can say that confidently not just by examining what has happened, but because I work in this industry.
For some examples: Charlie West was originally proposed to be 25 floors and ended up being 31. Duke Tower was proposed to be 33 floors and ended up being 39. Station Park was approved with basically no objection whatsoever to include 5 towers, two of them at 38 and 44 floors. Young Condos was proposed to be something like...10 floors? It ended up becoming 25. The Drewlo development was supposed to be 1 single tower at maybe 18 floors (I forget) and ended up becoming two towers at 23 and 19. 100 Victoria was proposed to be 15 and 19 and ended up being 21 and 17. 30 Francis is proposed to be 44 and I am pretty confident it will be approved. Q Condos is 34 and will likely be approved as well (the current building is all boarded up already).
NIMBYs get in the way and for sure they have caused some projects to be altered, but for the most part they achieve absolutely nothing. The vast majority of successful projects in this region were not only approved, but in many cases were even expanded.
I expect this to pass and as ac3r highlighted it could maybe even get more height depending on how the project is revised and phased. Station Park was originally Sixo which was also not nearly as tall as it will be now. Kitchener (unlike Waterloo) has shown a continued willingness to approve height, at least in the downtown core.
(11-26-2021, 06:50 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: I expect this to pass and as ac3r highlighted it could maybe even get more height depending on how the project is revised and phased. Station Park was originally Sixo which was also not nearly as tall as it will be now. Kitchener (unlike Waterloo) has shown a continued willingness to approve height, at least in the downtown core.
Downtown is the keyword. No reason not to allow this type of height. Especially after spending that money on the Ion.
