Six-Sixty Belmont | 13 fl | Proposed

[ac3r]

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?

I tend to see it through a variety of ways. Most of the time, work (or plans) is just sort of passed around internally between us, asking for criticisms or suggestions. I've got a lot of colleagues working with different developers, architecture firms, interior designers, artists etc who I'm able to ask. At times I'm asked to help out with certain things, so people send me a bunch of files to play around with and I can see things that way too. It's always shared to cities/regions and since I have a lot of contacts who work in planning departments in different places in Ontario and abroad, I can reach out and get some info before it's shared with the community at large. Obviously respect for their work and confidentiality means I can't just go post it all online, as much as I would love to sometimes!

[cherrypark]

The revised urban design brief is up for this project following community consultation, including some more substantial renders.

[jeffster]

Nimby's were successful in getting down a couple floors. Nice.

[Spokes]

Fits well there

[tomh009]

Is that almost all glass? It actually looks fairly similar to Arrow Lofts, with the old-factory-style window treatments.

[westwardloo]

Nimby's were successful in getting down a couple floors. Nice.

Another way to look at it is, the Nimby's successfully removed 15 +/- residential units from a project in a region that is desperate for more housing supply and probably made the cost per unit slightly higher. I wish the "local" paper would start running stories showcasing the negative effect these "community" organized anti-development groups have on projects.  

Can't decide if I like the concept. Seems like they have a lot going on and no doubt the change in floor plate from one floor to the next will be value engineered.

[cherrypark]

Nimby's were successful in getting down a couple floors. Nice.

Another way to look at it is, the Nimby's successfully removed 15 +/- residential units from a project in a region that is desperate for more housing supply and probably made the cost per unit slightly higher. I wish the "local" paper would start running stories showcasing the negative effect these "community" organized anti-development groups have on projects.  

Can't decide if I like the concept. Seems like they have a lot going on and no doubt the change in floor plate from one floor to the next will be value engineered.

From Debbie Chapman's newsletter the changes include:

• A reduction in the building height from 13 storeys to 11 storeys
  
• Removal of the indoor amenity space on the penthouse level
  
• Reduction in building height from 49 metres to 39.1 metres, plus mechanical penthouse
  
• Reduction in building base height from 3 storeys to 2 storeys
  
• Reduction in the number of units from 163 to 132
  
• Increase in on-site parking from 161 to 170 spaces
  
• A funding commitment of $250,000 towards Menno Homes and their supportive housing project at 544 Bridgeport Rd.
  

Sure its not as big, but as you said losing 31 units; gaining 0 units above 2 bedroom in an area the is certainly family oriented; and adding 9 parking spaces even with the drop in units. Not sure that all totals up to the kind of outcomes we need here (and ironic considering the "what you complained" document lists added traffic as a negative, but yet the parking went up from 1.0 to 1.3 per unit).

[taylortbb]

• Reduction in the number of units from 163 to 132
  
• Increase in on-site parking from 161 to 170 spaces
  
• A funding commitment of $250,000 towards Menno Homes and their supportive housing project at 544 Bridgeport Rd.
  

So they succeeded in making the building more expensive, and more of a luxury housing development. I'm sure it's the same people that complain about the lack of affordable housing.

So frustrated with these community groups, which appear to mostly be about doing as much harm as possible to lower income people, all while wrapping their actions in the words of progressive politics. How convenient that the supportive housing project won't be in their neighbourhood, luxury housing here, affordable housing elsewhere.

[danbrotherston]

Yup, just one more project to be angry about.

[ac3r]

Unsurprising, but that's Waterloo Region for you. A tiny, tiny, tiny handful of annoying people can prevent others from having a place to live. On the other hand, we all complain about it, how many bother going to these community meetings in favour of these projects as proposed?

[WLU]

• Reduction in the number of units from 163 to 132
  
• Increase in on-site parking from 161 to 170 spaces
  
• A funding commitment of $250,000 towards Menno Homes and their supportive housing project at 544 Bridgeport Rd.
  

So they succeeded in making the building more expensive, and more of a luxury housing development. I'm sure it's the same people that complain about the lack of affordable housing.

So frustrated with these community groups, which appear to mostly be about doing as much harm as possible to lower income people, all while wrapping their actions in the words of progressive politics. How convenient that the supportive housing project won't be in their neighbourhood, luxury housing here, affordable housing elsewhere.

How did the building become more of a luxury housing development?

[panamaniac]

• Reduction in the number of units from 163 to 132
  
• Increase in on-site parking from 161 to 170 spaces
  
• A funding commitment of $250,000 towards Menno Homes and their supportive housing project at 544 Bridgeport Rd.
  

So they succeeded in making the building more expensive, and more of a luxury housing development. I'm sure it's the same people that complain about the lack of affordable housing.

So frustrated with these community groups, which appear to mostly be about doing as much harm as possible to lower income people, all while wrapping their actions in the words of progressive politics. How convenient that the supportive housing project won't be in their neighbourhood, luxury housing here, affordable housing elsewhere.

To be fair, this was never going to be other than an expensive building.  Expensive vs more expensive, does it make any difference?

[dtkvictim]

Nimby's were successful in getting down a couple floors. Nice.

Another way to look at it is, the Nimby's successfully removed 15 +/- residential units from a project in a region that is desperate for more housing supply and probably made the cost per unit slightly higher. I wish the "local" paper would start running stories showcasing the negative effect these "community" organized anti-development groups have on projects.  

Can't decide if I like the concept. Seems like they have a lot going on and no doubt the change in floor plate from one floor to the next will be value engineered.

Is the bold section true? I was always under the impression that high rise developments had a higher cost per sqft, so is there a point where the increased height flips and start becoming cheaper again? Or is it cheaper up to a certain height, where the engineering challenges start to increase cost?

[taylortbb]

So they succeeded in making the building more expensive, and more of a luxury housing development. I'm sure it's the same people that complain about the lack of affordable housing.

So frustrated with these community groups, which appear to mostly be about doing as much harm as possible to lower income people, all while wrapping their actions in the words of progressive politics. How convenient that the supportive housing project won't be in their neighbourhood, luxury housing here, affordable housing elsewhere.

How did the building become more of a luxury housing development?

The total number of units went down, and the amount of parking went up. That means fixed costs, like site acquisition, planning, etc get split over fewer units, and more parking means the cost of parking (~$50k/spot) goes up on a per-unit basis.

The only way to keep the project viable will be to make it a higher end (more luxurious) development. Costs are up probably $20-30k/unit, which means final price has to go up more to make the margins still work out.

Same thing happened with Ophelia, where the preservation of the two houses turned it into a "luxury rental" development as that was the only way to make the increased costs still have acceptable margin.

[taylortbb]

To be fair, this was never going to be other than an expensive building.  Expensive vs more expensive, does it make any difference?

At the margin, absolutely. At a time when we have a housing shortage, we're building less housing. That means the same number of buyers competing over fewer units.

Any individual project only contributes slightly to this dynamic, but in aggregate it absolutely drives prices higher, and every step up in price is a few less people able to afford market rate housing.