Posts: 766
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
59
(01-18-2021, 03:20 PM)jeffster Wrote: (01-17-2021, 01:55 PM)Spokes Wrote: I'm surprised the zoning allows for this here
It is one of the area's that the city of Kitchener zoned for larger buildings, up to 15 floors if I recall. In particular, between Glasgow and Union. Though I thought that most taller builds were supposed to be set-back from the street, to allow retail on street front. However, it seems that this is replacing the tire place, so it's not likely considered a loss.
I believe Belmont is only zoned for up to 8 floors. Anything else needs a deviation.
Posts: 7,577
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
Those buildings are all on the right side of the railroad tracks, though.
Posts: 103
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation:
2
There are also several high rises just to the south on Belmont, and the new Trio buildings a bit farther down Belmont. As someone who lives in the area, this seems pretty reasonable. Just hoping the main level doesn't end up as another dentist office 
The Dettmer Tire that was on the site has now moved so they seem to want to move quickly on this?
Posts: 7,577
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(03-02-2021, 06:07 PM)jamincan Wrote: Those buildings are all on the right side of the railroad tracks, though.
Expand the image, there are highrises to the south as well.
Also, I think you mean city trail, not railroad tracks. I don't think it matters either way.
Posts: 766
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
59
Posts: 10,274
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
295
(03-04-2021, 03:59 PM)Bytor Wrote: 8 stores offers a lot of densification, though. Look at how many European cities have few buildings above that 6-8 storey height and are much more dense than we are.
We don't need to simply blindly hand out deviances to every developer that wants it. Kitchener already upped things with the 8 storey zoning targets along important corridors like Belmont, and there's no good reason to just push things down people's throats without reason to allow a 12 storey building here. The locals need to not be NIMBYs, but we also need to not be assholes.
As I understand it, they can do 24m with residential only, or 36m with the existing mixed-use bonusing scheme, without the need for zoning changes or variances. The developer is proposing 12 floors/45m which means quite high floors: they could do 10-12 floors (depending on what floor height they want) at 36m and not need a variance.
The parking variance is small and most people here would certainly support it, even if neighbours generally want buildings to max out their parking spaces.
Posts: 122
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
5
03-24-2021, 10:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2021, 10:19 AM by LesPio.)
Already announced...but here's some more info.
Six Sixty Belmount
https://www.zehrgroup.ca/2021/01/11/whats-coming/
While we have not yet published information around the specifics of this project, we can ensure that you’re the first to get it by registering through our website https://sixsixtybelmont.ca/
Posts: 18
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2021
Reputation:
1
There is now a dedicated anti-660 website: https://www.friendsofbelmontvillage.com/
Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
(07-09-2021, 02:04 PM)WaterLouGehrig Wrote: There is now a dedicated anti-660 website: https://www.friendsofbelmontvillage.com/
Good grief....I think that more people living there would be great for businesses...but maybe I am wrong.
Posts: 3,828
Threads: 62
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
190
That disclaimer at the top is rich. It has the usual white guilt "we acknowledge we're on the land of..." thing but then goes right into arguing that nobody should live there but the people who already live there (most of whom are wealthy white young people and business owners).
I'm not on their side in any way, though considering how ugly this building is I do support not building it. I would want to see better looking proposals go up instead. You can densify Belmont Village without needing to make ugly 13 floor condo buildings. Currently, it's basically just some strip malls along a street. Adding anything tasteful and contemporary to this area would only improve the place over what it currently is. Limit things to 4-6 floors mixed use structures on Belmont Ave at most, perhaps pushing things to 8-12 floors on the surrounding streets (for now).
Posts: 6,468
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
85
I didn’t see opposition to residential development. Did I read the wrong material?
Posts: 613
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
54
(07-15-2021, 08:59 PM)ac3r Wrote: That disclaimer at the top is rich. It has the usual white guilt "we acknowledge we're on the land of..." thing but then goes right into arguing that nobody should live there but the people who already live there (most of whom are wealthy white young people and business owners).
I'm not on their side in any way, though considering how ugly this building is I do support not building it. I would want to see better looking proposals go up instead. You can densify Belmont Village without needing to make ugly 13 floor condo buildings. Currently, it's basically just some strip malls along a street. Adding anything tasteful and contemporary to this area would only improve the place over what it currently is. Limit things to 4-6 floors mixed use structures on Belmont Ave at most, perhaps pushing things to 8-12 floors on the surrounding streets (for now).
Have you seen some yet to be public renders? So far the blocky massing concept is not inspiring, especially that weird top blob. Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence it will be better with a full design.
Posts: 3,828
Threads: 62
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
190
07-16-2021, 11:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2021, 11:43 AM by ac3r.)
I've seen a lot more than has been released, but I'm not sure I can share it publicly since it hasn't been released publicly yet (I'll ask though). It's definitely an ugly building for sure. It vaguely looks like some other work by ABA Architects, specifically buildings like the Trio on Belmont or even a smaller version of One Victoria. Fairly weird massing and blocky use of balconies like those two buildings. Their work is really hit or miss.
Posts: 4,325
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
180
(07-16-2021, 11:43 AM)ac3r Wrote: I've seen a lot more than has been released, but I'm not sure I can share it publicly since it hasn't been released publicly yet (I'll ask though). It's definitely an ugly building for sure. It vaguely looks like some other work by ABA Architects, specifically buildings like the Trio on Belmont or even a smaller version of One Victoria. Fairly weird massing and blocky use of balconies like those two buildings. Their work is really hit or miss.
Just curious: I get the impression that you see a lot of building designs and plans before they are public; but including projects you’re not working on directly. In what capacity do you see these designs? Do architects share plans around amongst themselves, or is something else happening?
|
