Kraus Development (525-565 Conestogo Road) | 3-35 fl | Proposed

[nms]

If we look simply at the "housing as shelter" demand, "a roof over ones head regardless of the form" is one thing.  I wish that any local discussion of accomodation focused on "homes" and not "houses".  The former includes all types of shelter; the latter is typically seen as "single-family housing".  But maybe I'm being overly pedantic.

There have been several types of accommodation in the region (in no particular order, and I'm likely missing something):

1. Owned Single Family Homes: these were seen at the peak of prosperity, and pushed heavily after the Second World War (eg "Why are you fighting? So that someday you can live in freedom on your own property with your kids playing in the yard").  Actual size has varied all over the place from the small "strawberry box" story 1000 square feet house, to the "monster" 3000-4000+ square foot house to the country estate in the middle of a farmer's field.

2. Rented Single Family Homes: for those who need (temporary) housing, but don't wish to buy. This could range from 1 year to 20+ years.

3. Owned Multi-residential (typically condos, (towers or townhouses) these days but also includes co-operative housing): for those who want ownership without property maintenance or (usually) stairs.

4. Rented multi-residential (including university residences or employee dormitories) : For those who don't want to buy (or can't) something

5. Rooming houses: I'm not sure how many of these exist anymore, but definitely the early 20th Century had rooming houses that were often homes of widows (say after World War I) who kept their own home and rented out rooms for income.  Meals were sometimes included.

The housing advertising market is heavily skewed to 1 and 3 because they are selling something.  Whether they are selling a 100-house subdivision, or a 100-unit condo tower depends on what they have.  Selling condos as investment properties is easiest for developers who want a quick(ish) return on their investment that is targeted at investors who also want a quick(ish) return on their investment. 

Seniors housing (either 'retirement living' or 'nursing home') is either 3 or 4 above.

[SF22]

They are pulling down the building closest to Northfield. Every morning that I've driven past on the highway this week, they've had two excavators actively working on demolition.

[ac3r]

I can't remember, did it get approved? Or are they just demolishing the site? I'd hope it doesn't end up as an urban void like The Metz turned out to be. I don't think that'll be done until at least 2040 - if that. At least this is in a mostly commercial and industrial area so having a big empty space won't look as bad.

I really hate companies like Auburn, Vive and Drewlo because they have a monopoly on development in this region along with very deep pockets, so they take so long to finish anything. It wouldn't be so annoying if they didn't buy up all the best land.

[SF22]

I can't remember, did it get approved? Or are they just demolishing the site? I'd hope it doesn't end up as an urban void like The Metz turned out to be. I don't think that'll be done until at least 2040 - if that. At least this is in a mostly commercial and industrial area so having a big empty space won't look as bad.

I really hate companies like Auburn, Vive and Drewlo because they have a monopoly on development in this region along with very deep pockets, so they take so long to finish anything. It wouldn't be so annoying if they didn't buy up all the best land.

Looks like it was approved in early/mid December 2023: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.7056800

[tomh009]

I really hate companies like Auburn, Vive and Drewlo because they have a monopoly on development in this region along with very deep pockets, so they take so long to finish anything. It wouldn't be so annoying if they didn't buy up all the best land.

Nobody has a monopoly on development in the region. Anyone can buy land, and develop it.

And if you think the above three have "all the best land in the region", you are totally ignoring the premium locations downtown, as the three do not have a single property in the area between Victoria, Weber, Frederick/Benton and Charles.

[Lens]

I can't remember, did it get approved? Or are they just demolishing the site? I'd hope it doesn't end up as an urban void like The Metz turned out to be. I don't think that'll be done until at least 2040 - if that. At least this is in a mostly commercial and industrial area so having a big empty space won't look as bad.

I really hate companies like Auburn, Vive and Drewlo because they have a monopoly on development in this region along with very deep pockets, so they take so long to finish anything. It wouldn't be so annoying if they didn't buy up all the best land.

Vive doesn't have the $, they get it from partners like Auburn, who along with Drewlo, actually have the cash. They've both been trying to lock up as many sites as possible to shut out others and ensure they have a pipeline of revenue and growth for decades.

[ac3r]

I really hate companies like Auburn, Vive and Drewlo because they have a monopoly on development in this region along with very deep pockets, so they take so long to finish anything. It wouldn't be so annoying if they didn't buy up all the best land.

Nobody has a monopoly on development in the region. Anyone can buy land, and develop it.

You're ignoring the fact they have a lot of money to throw around. Sure, anyone can buy it and develop it. But as Lens pointed out, these developers are locking in as many sites as they can as soon as they can but with no rush to do anything. That does none of us any good in the middle of a housing crisis.

Also where they own land is irrelevant to my point. If I bought up a huge swath of land in the suburbs...or hell, the giant Manulife parking lot at Charles/Joseph, fenced it up and then didn't touch it for 10 years that isn't going to be any use for people. Well, perhaps with the exception of myself since I could decide to just flip the property (like Vive has done in the past) in 10 years time when it has more value. If said property was instead bought by a developer eager to get to work and immediately began construction of housing projects, then the public benefits. Also downtown being prime land is subjective. Yes to a lot of us who like urban life it is, but others may prefer to live somewhere more suburban with this development, SmartCentre Cambridge or the large Drewlo project being examples. For many people, such locations may be preferable if they're closer to highways or places of employment.

I get this is how capitalism works, but it's still annoying when you know these projects will take a decade plus to finish. Heck look at how it has taken Drewlo with their downtown project. It's going on half a decade and they are barely half way finished.

[Rainrider22]

I agree 100 percent with ac3r. The difficulty with our region is that the same few developers seem to have a monopoly which has created the situations ac3r describes. Additionally and maybe just as important, they have the same formula for design and build, which most of us on here don't always like, ugly !!!

I work in the GTA and what you see there is multiple developers with a lot of money and a lot of new ideas. Look at Mississauga and see the difference in design and build. Much more interesting and varied. Yes this is capitalism and I get that, so I don't know what the answer is to have our region be more appealing to developers to work here.

[SF22]

I mean, smaller developers can have the same problems with delaying and bad design. The proposed 10-storey condo at Frederick/Lancaster is being done by More Developments, which is a off-shoot of some kind from Rome Transportation, who works out of the house next door to the site (between the old Tim Hortons and Suddaby School). I believe it's their first building, and I don't know what's going on, but it feels stalled as heck. That building had a community meeting in Nov 2019, and they ripped it down in Feb 2022, and it's been sitting as a dirt lot for an entire year now with zero progress except for giving the building a new name and then making a new website. Even if progress is slow, at least it's something? 197 Frederick was supposed to be completed by now, and they haven't put so much as a shovel in the ground. /endrant

[tomh009]

Other developers certainly have funding available. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to acquire and develop Station Park. Or City Centre. Or the TEK series. Also multiple developers who are choosing to focus on Northdale.

Barrel Yards was for sale long before Auburn acquired it, but no other developer wanted to tackle such a big project. And the same thing happened at Schneiders. Drewlo bought a long-vacant property by Cameron Heights, and a derelict hotel in Waterloo. Vive has been buying mostly smaller properties, although they have a few big ones slated for the east end.

So, if those developers didn't purchase and (plan to) develop those properties, would someone else have bought them? Or would they still be vacant?

[taylortbb]

If I bought up a huge swath of land in the suburbs...or hell, the giant Manulife parking lot at Charles/Joseph, fenced it up and then didn't touch it for 10 years that isn't going to be any use for people. Well, perhaps with the exception of myself since I could decide to just flip the property (like Vive has done in the past) in 10 years time when it has more value. If said property was instead bought by a developer eager to get to work and immediately began construction of housing projects, then the public benefits.

That's a public policy failure in how we assess property taxes. The existence of rebates for vacant property in Ontario might have made sense in an era of surplus land and no demand justifying its development, but that's hardly the case now. We should be assessing a vacancy premium on lands that have approved developments but aren't building.

[urbd]

The issue really are these huge parcels in the first place... if the cities would only purchase them, masterplanned them, subdivided them AND THEN sell them as smaller lots of various sizes to attract a wider variety of developers it would be much different. But the whole system is designed to benefit developers no matter what, including leaving a gaping hole in the city for decades.

[tomh009]

The issue really are these huge parcels in the first place... if the cities would only purchase them, masterplanned them, subdivided them AND THEN sell them as smaller lots of various sizes to attract a wider variety of developers it would be much different.

I think very few cities--at least in North America--would do that. It's a big investment in land, demolition/environmental and planning, with an uncertain price that they can eventually sell for. Yes, results would be better but it's really unlikely, here or elsewhere.

[westwardloo]

The issue really are these huge parcels in the first place... if the cities would only purchase them, masterplanned them, subdivided them AND THEN sell them as smaller lots of various sizes to attract a wider variety of developers it would be much different.

I think very few cities--at least in North America--would do that. It's a big investment in land, demolition/environmental and planning, with an uncertain price that they can eventually sell for. Yes, results would be better but it's really unlikely, here or elsewhere.

Funny enough if cities still developed parcels of land this way, they probably would have made more money on land value then they have on development fees in the last 30 years.

[taylortbb]

I think very few cities--at least in North America--would do that. It's a big investment in land, demolition/environmental and planning, with an uncertain price that they can eventually sell for. Yes, results would be better but it's really unlikely, here or elsewhere.

Funny enough if cities still developed parcels of land this way, they probably would have made more money on land value then they have on development fees in the last 30 years.

Absolutely. Such a plan would almost certainly, overall, make the city more money if well run. But well run would involve some individual projects likely sometimes losing money, returns are only good with some risk. But as soon as the city lost money even once on this scheme heads would roll, voters would be outraged, and it would be reduced to only making investments with guaranteed return. Guaranteed return projects would not be nearly so profitable, nor would it involve taking on a project like this property.