Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Victoria and Park | 25, 36, 38 fl | Proposed
Not a welcoming thing for a out of Town developer hopefully this doesn't keep them from building other projects in the Region. I hope LPAT does the right thing and allows the development without changes. I think when Breithaupt Block 3 was brought to LPAT them not allowing Google to have their parking garage with the building was a dumb decision but at least they allowed the building.
Reply


I love the idea of moving the tent city to Vic/Park, but it doesn't really solve either problem. We should designate and sanction areas in the city for people who "live rough," and we should also vote out everyone who voted against this proposal.

Melissa Bowman for Mayor?
Reply
I've gotten replies from two councillors so far; posting in case others are curious (but don't let it stop you from sending your own email).

Scott Davey (Ward 1) Wrote:Thank you for reaching out.  I'm actually one of the councillors that supported the development, so I can't answer your "why?" question... but I do appreciate you taking the time to ask it.

Equally as concerning as the general supply-loss amidst a crisis, is the potential loss of the 48 affordable units that were planned via donation with this development.

Hopefully a few emails of this nature will help inform council on similar future decisions.

Debbie Chapman (Ward 9) Wrote:Thank you for your feedback. I look forward to the future of this site. While the City has exceeded its density ratio goals for the core, I think the site has great potential to further intensify the downtown area.

Some of the concerns that were raised about the proposal included transitions from the surrounding properties to this property, the traffic at the intersection, the streetscape, shadows, parkland etc. Unlike many other proposals we have received in downtown, this one is particularly close to an established heritage designated neighbourhood. 

I understand your disappointment, but I am sure it will not be long before a new proposal comes forward.
Reply
SO Debbie's plan is hope...Hope is not a plan...
Reply
Debbie Chapman (Ward 9) Wrote:Thank you for your feedback. I look forward to the future of this site.

You had your chance.

It's a real shame she's up for reelection and running unopposed.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 01:25 PM)ac3r Wrote:
Debbie Chapman (Ward 9) Wrote:Thank you for your feedback. I look forward to the future of this site.

You had your chance.

It's a real shame she's up for reelection and running unopposed.

Even if she wasn't running unopposed, I think the reality is that she is what the neighbourhood wants. I voted for Melissa Bowman last time, I thought the contrast was quite clear, but lots of people I know in the neighbourhood voted for Chapman precisely because she would oppose development. Ironically, many of those people were lower income, and believed that opposing development was the best way to ensure the affordability of the neighbourhood. Unsurprisingly, opposing development has not made the neighbourhood more affordable.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 01:19 PM)jeremyroman Wrote: I've gotten replies from two councillors so far; posting in case others are curious (but don't let it stop you from sending your own email).

Scott Davey (Ward 1) Wrote:Thank you for reaching out.  I'm actually one of the councillors that supported the development, so I can't answer your "why?" question... but I do appreciate you taking the time to ask it.

Equally as concerning as the general supply-loss amidst a crisis, is the potential loss of the 48 affordable units that were planned via donation with this development.

Hopefully a few emails of this nature will help inform council on similar future decisions.

Debbie Chapman (Ward 9) Wrote:Thank you for your feedback. I look forward to the future of this site. While the City has exceeded its density ratio goals for the core, I think the site has great potential to further intensify the downtown area.

Some of the concerns that were raised about the proposal included transitions from the surrounding properties to this property, the traffic at the intersection, the streetscape, shadows, parkland etc. Unlike many other proposals we have received in downtown, this one is particularly close to an established heritage designated neighbourhood. 

I understand your disappointment, but I am sure it will not be long before a new proposal comes forward.
Funny they sent me basically the exact same emails
Reply


Should there not be a conflict of interest with Chapman for this site rendering her unable to vote. It’s well known she is apart of the VPNA and works closely with them, take one look at there website, and the VPNA public advertised their opposition for this project. Many of the the vpna organizers were delegates at the last council meetings fiercely opposing the project. If certain councillors couldn’t vote because they or a family member own property in the area, I think this should constitute a conflict as well.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 12:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-22-2022, 09:06 AM)Chris Wrote: I would love to see this happen. Careful what you wish for comes to mind...

I want it to happen because I think it will reduce the harm these people will face.

The fact that it would stick it to the NIMBYs is merely a delicious cherry on top of an otherwise really unfortunate and mediocre situation.

I agree 100%.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 02:00 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Funny they sent me basically the exact same emails

Just checked my inbox and lmao...! She sent me the same copy paste response - or more likely one of her staffers did. Almost tempted to call her out on it, but she wouldn't give a shit if she is just mass spamming the same reply out to people.

I wonder if this would have got approved if it was not election season? The opposition from the councilors to this project was oddly strong, so I wonder how many of them are just clutching at whatever they can get in hopes they get reelected. Not many people vote in local elections and those who do tend to be...uh, old? And those lot tend to be the only ones who bother, so maybe council felt like it would be a slam dunk into another term if they opposed this.

Who knows...either way, this is disappointing and certainly killed any wish to work on an architectural project in this region ever again. To quote a post on Reddit over all of this, "The selfishness of busybody boomers with nothing better to do than salt the earth on the way out is SO frustrating." And yeah, mollymuppet78 is right.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 01:19 PM)jeremyroman Wrote: I've gotten replies from two councillors so far; posting in case others are curious (but don't let it stop you from sending your own email).

Scott Davey (Ward 1) Wrote:Thank you for reaching out.  I'm actually one of the councillors that supported the development, so I can't answer your "why?" question... but I do appreciate you taking the time to ask it.

Equally as concerning as the general supply-loss amidst a crisis, is the potential loss of the 48 affordable units that were planned via donation with this development.

Hopefully a few emails of this nature will help inform council on similar future decisions.

Debbie Chapman (Ward 9) Wrote:Thank you for your feedback. I look forward to the future of this site. While the City has exceeded its density ratio goals for the core, I think the site has great potential to further intensify the downtown area.

Some of the concerns that were raised about the proposal included transitions from the surrounding properties to this property, the traffic at the intersection, the streetscape, shadows, parkland etc. Unlike many other proposals we have received in downtown, this one is particularly close to an established heritage designated neighbourhood. 

I understand your disappointment, but I am sure it will not be long before a new proposal comes forward.

This pisses me off to a great degree. She doesn't even know about the development plans for DTK. I participated in the PARTS plan for the LRT. This site was discussed. Transitions to the surrounding properties was discussed and the plan includes explicitly a mid-density backstop.

I'm sure she doesn't know this as she has previously been quoted saying that she' wants development stop until there is a plan.

But honestly...it's such a bad faith discussion. Parkland isn't a real priority (she makes no attempt to expand or add parks), shadows are bullshit (that corner is a sweltering heat island, streetscape...how could that be better? Traffic...bullshit...the road is over built as it is.

I really have nothing but derision for the VPNA folks...I think they are toxic and harmful to our city, and while I'm unlikely to speak at council again, I would strongly urge people to call that out. Honestly, if they're allow to trash condo dwellers, as "not part of the community" then why shouldn't others be allowed to call out the real actual harmful behaviour of others in the community. Or are we only allowed to complain about made up grievances.
Reply
I got the same canned response from Chapman. I was in one of the meetings where the NIMBYs started talking about their own shadow studies... I was thinking, it's probably your first time using that software, isn't it possible that you got it wrong and not the professionals that do that kind of work routinely?!? But no, Joe Schmoe that fired up FreeShadowStudies.com obviously knows best. I live in the area and you know where most of the shadows comes from!? ALL THE GIANT FRIGGING TREES! I can hardly see my back neighbours houses because of all the big old trees... same with the Iron Horse towers, they're tough to see from Schneider Avenue due to the tree cover. These people are ridiculous.
Reply
(06-22-2022, 05:54 PM)clasher Wrote: I got the same canned response from Chapman. I was in one of the meetings where the NIMBYs started talking about their own shadow studies... I was thinking, it's probably your first time using that software, isn't it possible that you got it wrong and not the professionals that do that kind of work routinely?!? But no, Joe Schmoe that fired up FreeShadowStudies.com obviously knows best. I live in the area and you know where most of the shadows comes from!? ALL THE GIANT FRIGGING TREES! I can hardly see my back neighbours houses because of all the big old trees... same with the Iron Horse towers, they're tough to see from Schneider Avenue due to the tree cover. These people are ridiculous.

I mean, this is kind of the point right.

Shadows from trees is a good thing, yet people use shadows from buildings as a reason not to build them?! Do people object to planting trees as well, no obviously not.

Shadows aren't a universally bad thing, shade is a good thing in many (maybe even most) contexts. There are obviously limits--courtyards which are perpetually in complete shade are less pleasant--but that is never what is being discussed.

Shadows are something that's just easy to complain about because nobody thinks about it and nobody (on council) has the courage to call out the bullshit. Hell, I'd have more sympathy for "the shadows will harm my solar power generation's output. Than I have for "the shadows will cover my back yard for an hour in the afternoon".  Do you know how much money I've spent to try and shadow my back yard during the afternoon?!
Reply


(06-22-2022, 04:29 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(06-22-2022, 02:00 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Funny they sent me basically the exact same emails

Just checked my inbox and lmao...! She sent me the same copy paste response - or more likely one of her staffers did. Almost tempted to call her out on it, but she wouldn't give a shit if she is just mass spamming the same reply out to people.

I wonder if this would have got approved if it was not election season? The opposition from the councilors to this project was oddly strong, so I wonder how many of them are just clutching at whatever they can get in hopes they get reelected. Not many people vote in local elections and those who do tend to be...uh, old? And those lot tend to be the only ones who bother, so maybe council felt like it would be a slam dunk into another term if they opposed this.

Who knows...either way, this is disappointing and certainly killed any wish to work on an architectural project in this region ever again. To quote a post on Reddit over all of this, "The selfishness of busybody boomers with nothing better to do than salt the earth on the way out is SO frustrating." And yeah, mollymuppet78 is right.

You could see this coming from as far back as your January 26, 2022 post ac3r.

Councillors need a job, so they all start running AWAY from decisions in the year of an election. A wasted year in governance.
"I would like to apologize to anyone i have not offended. Please be patient. I will get to you shortly."
Reply
As Tomh009 pointed out, this project has been appealed to the OLT



https://jus-olt-prod.powerappsportals.co...2248ae4c8f
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links