Charles St GRT terminal redevelopment

[Chris]

I've said it before somewhere on this forum. I would love to see the park extended. You can't build inner city parks often and this is the best chance to offer a bigger central park for the region and the increasing downtown residents.

Once upon a time the Epton site was my pick for a downtown arena. Now, I have no real concrete thoughts on renovating vs building new for the Aud. Maybe the old Stabler or the Value Village mall would be a great compromise if a new facility is required but I imagine this would have to move to land already owned by the city or region.

Bonus idea that just came to me. The Rangers can play in Victoria Square Garden and they can build an arena on top of the future transit hub.

[danbrotherston]

And while I don't agree with danbrotherston much, NIMBYism is kinda valid here. Who wants to live in a condo or historic, low rise heritage neighbourhood next to a loud and busy stadium/auditorium? Or deal with increased car traffic downtown? Not everyone wants to take the bus or LRT. We just spent all this money on narrowing streets for better bike infrastructure as well, particularly the streets right next to this location. Or, who wants to disrupt Victoria Park - which is normally a serene, relaxing place with lakes, wildlife and space for calming recreation?

So is it loud and busy, or barely used and sitting empty? I personally live right next to this, and would be happy to have an arena/event venue. I wouldn't welcome the extra traffic, but having a venue with events and sports right next to me would be a worthwhile tradeoff. That said, I don't think it's the right place for an Aud replacement, nor is it the best use of the land. I just don't think your argument makes sense as an actual neighbour to this property.

I, like some others here, would prefer this to become an extension of the park. We have a dearth of greenspace in this city (most cities do), and should take every opportunity to grow it. I would also like this publicly owned property to stay in service of the public - so if not greenspace, something community oriented would be my next preferred option.

I have lived next to a sports field before. "Loud and noisy" and "rarely used" coexist just fine.

The problem is lack of consistency. There isn't enough consistent traffic to really benefit businesses, but on the days there is traffic, it is extremely intense (traffic being people AND cars).

This is actually important for understanding why climate change is a big deal too. Systems which have huge extremes are inherently unstable and difficult to manage efficiently.

[danbrotherston]

I've said it before somewhere on this forum. I would love to see the park extended. You can't build inner city parks often and this is the best chance to offer a bigger central park for the region and the increasing downtown residents.

Once upon a time the Epton site was my pick for a downtown arena. Now, I have no real concrete thoughts on renovating vs building new for the Aud. Maybe the old Stabler or the Value Village mall would be a great compromise if a new facility is required but I imagine this would have to move to land already owned by the city or region.

Bonus idea that just came to me. The Rangers can play in Victoria Square Garden and they can build an arena on top of the future transit hub.

Indeed, this really is the key part. We don't even necessarily need the WHOLE property for that, but what *IS* needed is a vision plan from our government for the WHOLE area. They should be looking at the parking lots around especially to the north of the terminal.

The fact that they aren't doing this already is highly concerning.

If the property is a regional property though, that would explain it, the region council doesn't seem to understand that there are urban areas in the region.

[tomh009]

If the property is a regional property though, that would explain it, the region council doesn't seem to understand that there are urban areas in the region.

That's exactly it. It's a GRT (thus, regional) property so the city is not in control. Hopefully they are discussing this area with the city, but it's a more complex scenario than if the city owned it directly.

[Rainrider22]

The city of Kitchenet owns the parking portion of the land.

[Lebronj23]

Taken from a realtor website 

[attachment=8112]

[jeffster]

If the property is a regional property though, that would explain it, the region council doesn't seem to understand that there are urban areas in the region.

That's exactly it. It's a GRT (thus, regional) property so the city is not in control. Hopefully they are discussing this area with the city, but it's a more complex scenario than if the city owned it directly.

I always wondered then -- did the city of Kitchener get money for this site from the GRT/Region? It's originally owned by Kitchener Transit, and hence, the City of Kitchener, and staff was all paid by the City of Kitchener, back when it was first built. I am not sure how much, if any, the city of Waterloo contributed to this, and obviously the rest of the region contributed zero. I seem to recall that this was mostly paid by the city though, if memory serves me correctly.

[tomh009]

That's exactly it. It's a GRT (thus, regional) property so the city is not in control. Hopefully they are discussing this area with the city, but it's a more complex scenario than if the city owned it directly.

I always wondered then -- did the city of Kitchener get money for this site from the GRT/Region? It's originally owned by Kitchener Transit, and hence, the City of Kitchener, and staff was all paid by the City of Kitchener, back when it was first built. I am not sure how much, if any, the city of Waterloo contributed to this, and obviously the rest of the region contributed zero. I seem to recall that this was mostly paid by the city though, if memory serves me correctly.

I expect that this was one of the Kitchener Transit assets (just like the buses and maintenance facilities) that was transferred to the region when GRT was created back in 2000. I can't remember the financial terms of the transaction, though.

[Belmonster]

Lots of good ideas in this thread! If you haven't already, please fill out the Kitchener Engage survey for this property -- it would be great for the people with decision making to hear these perspectives as well: https://www.engagewr.ca/embeds/projects/...ools/24446

[dtkvictim]

Speaking of NIMBYs, the typical argument I'm most sympathetic to is regarding sightlines and privacy. If I building like this goes up, I'll be choosing between moving or never seeing the sun in my home again. I just want to live in a 3-5 story neighbourhood, friends.

The reality is that this is the core of the core: these are the blocks where there is bound to be the highest density and the tallest buildings. It's great for some, no fun for other people. But if you do want to live in a mid-rise neighbourhood, I expect that (in the longer run) it will need to be a bit further from the core.

I understand that, I'm just sympathetic to people losing privacy they previously had, and wouldn't like it myself.

While I don't personally understand why, some people want to live in a highrise neighbourhood, and I won't resist that being developed even if it's not for me. My issue is that the midrise mixed used neighbourhood that DTK has been is slowly being replaced with a highrise mixed used neighbourhood, and no (IMO) adequate replacement for what DTK was is being developed. From my perspective we are slowly becoming what every other North American city is: a choice between an extremely dense highrise core, and suburbia. Neither are places I want to live, at least not in their typical North American forms.

[tomh009]

The reality is that this is the core of the core: these are the blocks where there is bound to be the highest density and the tallest buildings. It's great for some, no fun for other people. But if you do want to live in a mid-rise neighbourhood, I expect that (in the longer run) it will need to be a bit further from the core.

I understand that, I'm just sympathetic to people losing privacy they previously had, and wouldn't like it myself.

While I don't personally understand why, some people want to live in a highrise neighbourhood, and I won't resist that being developed even if it's not for me. My issue is that the midrise mixed used neighbourhood that DTK has been is slowly being replaced with a highrise mixed used neighbourhood, and no (IMO) adequate replacement for what DTK was is being developed. From my perspective we are slowly becoming what every other North American city is: a choice between an extremely dense highrise core, and suburbia. Neither are places I want to live, at least not in their typical North American forms.

I think mixed mid-rise neighbourhoods will evolve a bit further from the core and the LRT stations, including mid-town, east end and Cedar Hill. There are already some mid-rise projects and there will be more.

[ac3r]

The entire City of Kitchener plan regarding the LRT has been to develop areas around the LRT stations. Look into the PARTS plan. The tl;dr is if you're downtown, expect it to evolve into high density - skyscrapers, towers etc. Those further out will be more mid density. There's really no stopping that evolution.

[jordan2423]

Lots of good ideas in this thread! If you haven't already, please fill out the Kitchener Engage survey for this property -- it would be great for the people with decision making to hear these perspectives as well: https://www.engagewr.ca/embeds/projects/...ools/24446

That surveyed closed for public feedback on December 31st last week

[Joedelay Highhoe]

I also believe the city will sell the Rockway golf course eventually.

I really hope you're wrong! Rockway was designed by Stanley Thompson and built in 1935. Can a golf course get Heritage status? Our region needs more courses NOT owned by Golf North.

[REnerd]

I think that putting condos here would be a giant missed opportunity.  Where else will the city get an opportunity to do a major city building exercise?  There are lots of other parking lots or lands available for condo towers - let the private sector get to work on that!

I vote for the expansion of Victoria Park!  When was the last time you heard someone say Central Park was too big?  It would be an amazing green anchor to the center of the city and allow for continued intensification!