528, 533, 550 Lancaster St W | 10, 12, 18, 30, 30 fl | U/C

[Lebronj23]

Rumour is there there are plans for at least 2-3 other towers here down to General Dr. Hopefully the two heritage cottages aren't destroyed in the process. Corley is part of the Auburn crew so maybe they'll be done by 2050

looks like the rumour is true. 

The main purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to re-designate the whole of the lands to Mixed Use and modify the Specific Policy Area to allow a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.8 and a maximum building height of 83m (26 storeys). Similarly, the main purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to re-zone the whole of the lands to MIX-2, and to modify the site specific provisions to allow an FSR of 5.8, a building height of 83m (26 storeys), a parking rate of 0.72 spaces per unit, among other requests for relief. The amendments would facilitate the applicant’s development concept, which proposes 5 multiple residential buildings of varying heights (i.e., 26, 20, 20, 16, and 10 storeys) 

https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenDa...0Plans.pdf

https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenDa...634914.pdf

[Lebronj23]

[attachment=8030]

[Rainrider22]

Looks like a nice addition. That would be an amazing area to live.

[Lebronj23]

Looks like a nice addition.  That would be an amazing area to live.

Agreed. We are getting a ton of large proposals not just in the DT core but all around the city, it’s crazy!

[jeffster]

Looks like a nice addition.  That would be an amazing area to live.

Agreed. We are getting a ton of large proposals not just in the DT core but all around the city, it’s crazy!

I think what we're witnessing is the predictable evolution of the city. We're running out of areas to grow, more people are OK with not living in a house, so now we're going to have more apartment/condos, and taller ones at that, in areas we didn't always see them.

One hopes that it looks good in the end, like the rendering, and not something like Mooregate or the Waterloo Ghetto.

[ac3r]

Rumour is there there are plans for at least 2-3 other towers here down to General Dr. Hopefully the two heritage cottages aren't destroyed in the process. Corley is part of the Auburn crew so maybe they'll be done by 2050

Do you work in this industry too? Haha. I know I'm not the only one privy to info who posts here...only I locked myself out of my account for about two weeks and couldn't update this thread. You, another and myself seem to have knowledge of things others don't. :^)

[ac3r]

Agreed. We are getting a ton of large proposals not just in the DT core but all around the city, it’s crazy!

I think what we're witnessing is the predictable evolution of the city. We're running out of areas to grow, more people are OK with not living in a house, so now we're going to have more apartment/condos, and taller ones at that, in areas we didn't always see them.

One hopes that it looks good in the end, like the rendering, and not something like Mooregate or the Waterloo Ghetto.

Absolutely. Butttt...that's my main problem with this region. Development won't just take place within the downtown cores, it'll take place wherever there is major infrastructure - whether that means high capacity arterial roads, highway exits, light rail stations or major bus hubs. It's planning 101. The Region of Waterloo and all 3 cities have done all sorts of projections but I can guarantee none of them are going to accurately predict the level of intensification that'll take place in this city in 20, 40 or even 60 years from now. The most recent population projection, for example was done in something like 2015 and predicted ROW would hit 630'000 by 2030 - yet it's 2021 and we're well past that. We are the fastest growing region in the entire country and while that will definitely not always be true, we'll still continue to grow as a major city/region. Our economy is enough to write that into stone (assuming somehow our tech companies/reputation fail, which is unlikely). I hope our planners are wise enough to take that into account going forward. However, most politicians - who are austerity minded - are not. We're going to rapidly outgrow our infrastructure and planned infrastructure before we know it - and I don't even need an expensive neural network/AI computer model and team of 500 planners to determine that...I can confidently say that whilst writing a forum post on a Sunday evening.

That's kind of one reason why I repeatedly complain about how bad the Region of Waterloo (both as a community and a government) shot itself in the foot when it came to the LRT. Light rail is a great technology, but it's very, very, very limited. Feel free to @RemindMe_OfThis but by like...2045 at the earliest, we're going to regret not burying the downtown sections of our LRT, for example - just to get underground infrastructure built in place. I post about this on this forum and tend to get shot down by "oh it's too expensive" or "well there's a creek nearby" - like, sorry, what? Look at the big picture. Maybe we underestimated the growth of our region - after all, initial studies for this started in about 2004 - but we should have predicted the growth we'd see...even if it meant overestimating, which we obviously needed to do.

Toronto opened its first subway route in 1954 and by the 70s it was already starting to be stressed. Forget about it today...the thing is packed, you risk death standing on certain platforms because they are SO full of bodies. In 2021 the thing is pushed beyond belief...I say this jokingly but I'm surprised the trains can even move given how many people pack onto them at any given moment. Expansion took a hell of a lot of time too. Half a century later and it's basically just falling apart with almost no meaningful investment due to political/economic BS. The fact of the matter is ROW is going to grow, grow, grow and it's going to need infrastructure to keep up with that. Surface light rail is most definitely not going to suffice within 30ish years, so then we need to invest in something heavy and long term. And no, just trying to cut back on cars, building bike lanes and building pretty paths - well, it's just not going to work, as much as the bike-o-philes here want to say otherwise. If I had to guess, our current LRT will end up like the Scarborough RT, only worse now that we are specifically aiming to densify our city unlike city planners were doing in the 80s: that is, very rapidly becoming obsolete due to overcapacity, technology and little chance to improve what already exists. The SRT lasted - at best, 15 years before they started realizing that thing was not going to last. I'd guess Line 1 of the ION will be bursting at its seams by 2035-2040 at best. It was already standing room only at launch, only to be decimated due to the pandemic. Running dual LRVs is not really a long term solution either.

Yeah, maybe it was too early for us to develop a subway system here (it was considered, researched and rejected), but maybe we should have saved our money in the meantime. Ottawa - who are a lot larger than us - started off with the Transitway, a BRT. They then progressed to a small LRT system about 15 years later. Roughly 15 years later after that, they opened up a proper "light metro" (yes the technology is "light rail" but the infrastructure is not) - that is, a rapid transit system that doesn't stop at fucking stoplights 3 seconds after departing Queen Station like ours does...lol...and it runs underground in the downtown core. It is what it is: rapid transit. That sort of long term strategizing is what you need when you're dealing with a city/region that is projected - not only mathematically/socially projected to grow by tens of thousands a year - to keep and keep growing. If you want to get cars off the road now - and in 25 years - you need to plan for it.

[Acitta]

I think what we're witnessing is the predictable evolution of the city. We're running out of areas to grow, more people are OK with not living in a house, so now we're going to have more apartment/condos, and taller ones at that, in areas we didn't always see them.

One hopes that it looks good in the end, like the rendering, and not something like Mooregate or the Waterloo Ghetto.

Absolutely. Butttt...that's my main problem with this region. Development won't just take place within the downtown cores, it'll take place wherever there is major infrastructure - whether that means high capacity arterial roads, highway exits, light rail stations or major bus hubs. It's planning 101. The Region of Waterloo and all 3 cities have done all sorts of projections but I can guarantee none of them are going to accurately predict the level of intensification that'll take place in this city in 20, 40 or even 60 years from now. The most recent population projection, for example was done in something like 2015 and predicted ROW would hit 630'000 by 2030 - yet it's 2021 and we're well past that. We are the fastest growing region in the entire country and while that will definitely not always be true, we'll still continue to grow as a major city/region. Our economy is enough to write that into stone (assuming somehow our tech companies/reputation fail, which is unlikely). I hope our planners are wise enough to take that into account going forward. However, most politicians - who are austerity minded - are not. We're going to rapidly outgrow our infrastructure and planned infrastructure before we know it - and I don't even need an expensive neural network/AI computer model and team of 500 planners to determine that...I can confidently say that whilst writing a forum post on a Sunday evening.

That's kind of one reason why I repeatedly complain about how bad the Region of Waterloo (both as a community and a government) shot itself in the foot when it came to the LRT. Light rail is a great technology, but it's very, very, very limited. Feel free to @RemindMe_OfThis but by like...2045 at the earliest, we're going to regret not burying the downtown sections of our LRT, for example - just to get underground infrastructure built in place. I post about this on this forum and tend to get shot down by "oh it's too expensive" or "well there's a creek nearby" - like, sorry, what? Look at the big picture. Maybe we underestimated the growth of our region - after all, initial studies for this started in about 2004 - but we should have predicted the growth we'd see...even if it meant overestimating, which we obviously needed to do.

Toronto opened its first subway route in 1954 and by the 70s it was already starting to be stressed. Forget about it today...the thing is packed, you risk death standing on certain platforms because they are SO full of bodies. In 2021 the thing is pushed beyond belief...I say this jokingly but I'm surprised the trains can even move given how many people pack onto them at any given moment. Expansion took a hell of a lot of time too. Half a century later and it's basically just falling apart with almost no meaningful investment due to political/economic BS. The fact of the matter is ROW is going to grow, grow, grow and it's going to need infrastructure to keep up with that. Surface light rail is most definitely not going to suffice within 30ish years, so then we need to invest in something heavy and long term. And no, just trying to cut back on cars, building bike lanes and building pretty paths - well, it's just not going to work, as much as the bike-o-philes here want to say otherwise. If I had to guess, our current LRT will end up like the Scarborough RT, only worse now that we are specifically aiming to densify our city unlike city planners were doing in the 80s: that is, very rapidly becoming obsolete due to overcapacity, technology and little chance to improve what already exists. The SRT lasted - at best, 15 years before they started realizing that thing was not going to last. I'd guess Line 1 of the ION will be bursting at its seams by 2035-2040 at best. It was already standing room only at launch, only to be decimated due to the pandemic. Running dual LRVs is not really a long term solution either.

Yeah, maybe it was too early for us to develop a subway system here (it was considered, researched and rejected), but maybe we should have saved our money in the meantime. Ottawa - who are a lot larger than us - started off with the Transitway, a BRT. They then progressed to a small LRT system about 15 years later. Roughly 15 years later after that, they opened up a proper "light metro" (yes the technology is "light rail" but the infrastructure is not) - that is, a rapid transit system that doesn't stop at fucking stoplights 3 seconds after departing Queen Station like ours does...lol...and it runs underground in the downtown core. It is what it is: rapid transit. That sort of long term strategizing is what you need when you're dealing with a city/region that is projected - not only mathematically/socially projected to grow by tens of thousands a year - to keep and keep growing. If you want to get cars off the road now - and in 25 years - you need to plan for it.

The ION wouldn't have got built at all if they tried to make it a subway. There was too much whining as it was. Even if they did manage to push through a subway project, it would still be under construction. Just look at how far behind schedule the Eglington Crosstown is, and that is only partly underground.

[plam]

Yeah, maybe it was too early for us to develop a subway system here (it was considered, researched and rejected), but maybe we should have saved our money in the meantime. Ottawa - who are a lot larger than us - started off with the Transitway, a BRT. They then progressed to a small LRT system about 15 years later. Roughly 15 years later after that, they opened up a proper "light metro" (yes the technology is "light rail" but the infrastructure is not) - that is, a rapid transit system that doesn't stop at fucking stoplights 3 seconds after departing Queen Station like ours does...lol...and it runs underground in the downtown core. It is what it is: rapid transit. That sort of long term strategizing is what you need when you're dealing with a city/region that is projected - not only mathematically/socially projected to grow by tens of thousands a year - to keep and keep growing. If you want to get cars off the road now - and in 25 years - you need to plan for it.

1) As Acitta says, I don't think we would have gotten anything bigger through. It was already a close thing.

2) The point is a bit incoherent here. Is it "go big or go home?" That's not quite right either. What, start with a BRT? I think that would have been even more terrible.

3) I also think that raw speed isn't as important as other considerations. If there are more things closer by, then one doesn't need to make as long a trip.

[tomh009]

The ION wouldn't have got built at all if they tried to make it a subway. There was too much whining as it was. Even if they did manage to push through a subway project, it would still be under construction. Just look at how far behind schedule the Eglington Crosstown is, and that is only partly underground.

This. LRT was absolutely the best option that could have been approved.

Capacity can be greatly increased by (1) reducing headways from 10 minutes to five minutes and (2) running double cars. If those are insufficient we should have more routes elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to concentrate it all on a single route.

As for speed, the LRT is capable of more. Traffic light priority is the simplest improvement, the speeds can also be increased, subject to regulations.

As I said, absolutely the best option. And zero regrets about this.

[ijmorlan]

The fact of the matter is ROW is going to grow, grow, grow and it's going to need infrastructure to keep up with that. Surface light rail is most definitely not going to suffice within 30ish years, so then we need to invest in something heavy and long term. And no, just trying to cut back on cars, building bike lanes and building pretty paths - well, it's just not going to work, as much as the bike-o-philes here want to say otherwise. If I had to guess, our current LRT will end up like the Scarborough RT, only worse now that we are specifically aiming to densify our city unlike city planners were doing in the 80s: that is, very rapidly becoming obsolete due to overcapacity, technology and little chance to improve what already exists. The SRT lasted - at best, 15 years before they started realizing that thing was not going to last. I'd guess Line 1 of the ION will be bursting at its seams by 2035-2040 at best. It was already standing room only at launch, only to be decimated due to the pandemic. Running dual LRVs is not really a long term solution either.

People who knew transit knew that the Scarborough RT was not the best solution when it was built; an LRT system would have made more sense, and was initially planned, until the Province saw an opportunity to promote their homegrown transit system.

As to capacity overload, we can use the money that would have gone into tunnelling (but really wouldn’t have been spent at all, since there is no way a subway would have been built) to build a second, third, and even fourth LRT line. This gives better coverage. Even in Toronto, for the money that would be required to build a subway system more appropriate to today’s city, a network of LRT lines on every major street could be built, which would provide much better service overall and better resiliency in the face of outages than a couple more subway lines. There are one or two subway lines that should be built, but not the ones that are actually being built; and the one that does make sense (Ontario line) is being underbuilt for no good reason (and with the additional downside of introducing a 4th rail network into the TTC rather than extending on of the existing ones).

that is, a rapid transit system that doesn't stop at fucking stoplights 3 seconds after departing Queen Station like ours does...lol...

That is fixable. By just giving it actual signal priority and ending safety paranoia (forcing LRVs in dedicated lanes in the middle of the street to obey the same speed limits that are universally exceeded by motor vehicle traffic in the side lanes immediately next to the sidewalk, among other pointless practices which do not significantly increase safety), our end-to-end trip time could be significantly lower.

[jamincan]

Absolutely. Butttt...that's my main problem with this region. Development won't just take place within the downtown cores, it'll take place wherever there is major infrastructure - whether that means high capacity arterial roads, highway exits, light rail stations or major bus hubs. It's planning 101. The Region of Waterloo and all 3 cities have done all sorts of projections but I can guarantee none of them are going to accurately predict the level of intensification that'll take place in this city in 20, 40 or even 60 years from now. The most recent population projection, for example was done in something like 2015 and predicted ROW would hit 630'000 by 2030 - yet it's 2021 and we're well past that. We are the fastest growing region in the entire country and while that will definitely not always be true, we'll still continue to grow as a major city/region. Our economy is enough to write that into stone (assuming somehow our tech companies/reputation fail, which is unlikely). I hope our planners are wise enough to take that into account going forward. However, most politicians - who are austerity minded - are not. We're going to rapidly outgrow our infrastructure and planned infrastructure before we know it - and I don't even need an expensive neural network/AI computer model and team of 500 planners to determine that...I can confidently say that whilst writing a forum post on a Sunday evening.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the Region of Waterloo is mandated by the province to following population projections as set out under Places to Grow for planning purposes. The current growth plan projects 742k by 2031 and 835k by 2041. As a point of reference, Statistics Canada estimates our current population at 605,232, with growth of 87,506 over the previous 10 years. That would suggest that the growth estimates are on the conservative side (ie. projecting more growth than we would likely actually receive).

You've complained about planners not doing due diligence with LRT in the past, but you have not supported your arguments and have been shown repeatedly that you are incorrect on a number of basic historic facts that can be easily verified.

[taylortbb]

The most recent population projection, for example was done in something like 2015 and predicted ROW would hit 630'000 by 2030 - yet it's 2021 and we're well past that. We are the fastest growing region in the entire country and while that will definitely not always be true, we'll still continue to grow as a major city/region.

The projection is 730k by 2031. I do think we'll likely exceed that, but we're not going to be nearly as far off as you suggest. I'll also point out that while we're now the fastest growing metro in the country, we weren't back in 2015. Assuming that we'd become the fastest growing would have been a bold prediction in 2015.

That's kind of one reason why I repeatedly complain about how bad the Region of Waterloo (both as a community and a government) shot itself in the foot when it came to the LRT. Light rail is a great technology, but it's very, very, very limited. Feel free to @RemindMe_OfThis but by like...2045 at the earliest, we're going to regret not burying the downtown sections of our LRT, for example - just to get underground infrastructure built in place. I post about this on this forum and tend to get shot down by "oh it's too expensive" or "well there's a creek nearby" - like, sorry, what? Look at the big picture. Maybe we underestimated the growth of our region - after all, initial studies for this started in about 2004 - but we should have predicted the growth we'd see...even if it meant overestimating, which we obviously needed to do.

The population targets we're supposed to plan for have the force of provincial law under the Places To Grow Act. The region can't just decide we're going to plan for more people.

Even if we could, you're totally ignoring political reality. The choice wasn't underground ION vs surface ION, it was surface ION vs no ION. It doesn't matter how much that's the wrong choice under any logical system, we live in a democracy and in 2011 most people preferred the no ION option. Sure, we now have a massive amount of development which will strain the ION system in the future, but in 2011 there was no way to know that would happen. Even on the predecessors to this forum, where people love tall buildings, the thought of 30+ floors in KW was a fantasy. Now we're talking 40-50 (and maybe even more), when just 18 months ago the tallest building in Kitchener was 19 floors.

Around 2016 the region very suddenly flipped on net migration of the 25-34 demographic. It used to be a new outflow, and it became quite a significant net inflow. The exact reasons are hard to say, but it coincided with Shopify and Google really ramping up their hiring, while the wave of post-BlackBerry startups started to take off. Suddenly we were a destination, and that's also when we started moving up the fastest growing ranks. But there's no way anyone could have seen that coming with any certainty back in 2008. In 2008 there wasn't a lot going on here other than BlackBerry, a lot of hype but not (yet) a lot of action.

The fact of the matter is ROW is going to grow, grow, grow and it's going to need infrastructure to keep up with that. Surface light rail is most definitely not going to suffice within 30ish years, so then we need to invest in something heavy and long term. [...] Running dual LRVs is not really a long term solution either.

Yeah, maybe it was too early for us to develop a subway system here (it was considered, researched and rejected), but maybe we should have saved our money in the meantime. Ottawa - who are a lot larger than us - started off with the Transitway, a BRT. They then progressed to a small LRT system about 15 years later. Roughly 15 years later after that, they opened up a proper "light metro" (yes the technology is "light rail" but the infrastructure is not) - that is, a rapid transit system that doesn't stop at fucking stoplights 3 seconds after departing Queen Station like ours does...lol...and it runs underground in the downtown core. It is what it is: rapid transit. That sort of long term strategizing is what you need when you're dealing with a city/region that is projected - not only mathematically/socially projected to grow by tens of thousands a year - to keep and keep growing. If you want to get cars off the road now - and in 25 years - you need to plan for it.

Look at Calgary vs Ottawa. Both built rapid transit systems at around 500k people, similar to when we started to build ION. Calgary chose surface LRT, Ottawa chose BRT. Only one of them has required replacement since. Calgary has an immensely successful LRT system, highest ridership in North America, yet they manage to do it with surface LRT. Meanwhile the Ottawa BRT has been an overcapacity disaster for 15+ years. Calgary has also been far more successful at directing development along the LRT, whereas people don't want to live next to the smelly noisy Ottawa BRT.

The Ottawa BRT also saddled Ottawa with incredibly high operating costs. The C-Train on the other hand expanded to 4 car trains, giving it the capacity to grow past 300k daily riders using surface infrastructure.

BRT would have been a huge disaster here. It wouldn't have directed development towards it like ION did, and it would have run in to capacity issues much sooner. Eventually we may need to tunnel the central section of ION, but that'll come after 3 car trains, 4 minute headways, and improved signal priority.

[nms]

These last few posts should probably be shifted a population thread. (or for that matter, keep the next paragraph here and move the rest elsewhere)

One question I would have with this development in particular, is how come its not fitting the model of the "everything dense will be within 800m of an LRT station" that all of the LRT proponents kept pushing? Aside from one GRT bus route there isn't much chance of bring more transit to the is corner (but what do I know?).  Maybe it will be time to resurrect the old Berlin & Bridgeport Street Railway? If the crews dig deep enough, they might even find the old track bed!

As for population growth, I continue to be skeptical of the "growth will always happen" mantra.  The Lancet Medical Journal (by way of a University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics study last year) predicts that the world population will peak in 2064 and Canada in 2078.  The same study predicts a net loss of 900 million people between 2064 and 2100.  The Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital predicts a peak by 2070 and decline of 400 million by 2100.  The UN predicts a global date closer to 2100 with a growth rate close to zero.  The UN predicts that Canada will be in a situation where deaths outnumber births for most of the 21st Century from 2035 onwards.* (I am not a trained demographer, but humour me)

But what about immigration? Well, for now, that's all that is keeping Canada's population growing.  What happens when the majority of countries are below their replacement level for fertility.  By the end of this century, 183 out of 195 countries will have fertility rates below their replacement level (with many countries in the world already there today). While there will likely continue to be displaced refugees from war, climate or other turmoil around the world, there will likely be a lot less immigration from the stable areas of the world which have generally driven much of our immigration (Most of Europe, India and China come to mind). In extreme cases, Japan is predicted to shrink from 128 million today to 53 million by 2100; Italy will drop from 61 million today to 28 million by 2100; China from a peak of 1.4 billion in 2024 to 732 million by 2100.

Finally, what happens should the current high-tech boom turn into a bust? The Region has seen it before when the factories shifted elsewhere between the 1970s and the 1990s.  All it takes is better conditions elsewhere where people start building better mousetraps at a better price.

Or, perhaps more optimistically (or not) depending on your world view, the new push to remote work drives families and the working population to other corners of the province/country/world where there are other attractive elements (eg living in your hometown, closer to other family, converting your cottage into an all-season home etc). And, since we are dreaming in Technicolor here, the province has developed a great transit network where you can travel to door-to-door in under two hours to anything south of North Bay for a commute into the "head office" once a week on flex-time, or maybe less, and still be home in time to have dinner with your family.

[plam]

Can also move this to a demographics thread...

Even if total population doesn't increase, cities can still grow by depopulating the hinterlands. Urban population proportion has grown in many Western countries in the past 50 years. Is the trend going to continue? I think so.