Woodside Terraces 3 (130-140 Highland Road East) | 17 fl | Proposed

[ac3r]

Vive Development and Neo Architecture are proposing a 17 floor rental apartment building at 130-140 Highland Road East.

This project is proposed to have 17 floors in total. The building will be stepped, meaning the building will be a maximum of 17 floors, with an 11 floor section and a 5 floor section. A total of 211 units are planned: a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, some with optional dens for a total of 404 bedrooms. The 5 floor section will have a total of 5 live-work units of various sizes. A 1050 square foot commercial space will face Spadina Avenue. 118 parking spaces are proposed, the majority underground. A landscaped courtyard sits between this project and the existing Woodside Terraces Phase 2 building to create a common space. A landscaped bike lane will connect Highland Road and the property to Highland Courts Park and to Mill Street and the Iron Horse Trans-Canada Trail.

A public Zoom meeting will be held February 9th at 7:00PM.

Note: this new project is separate from their conversion of the existing building and construction of a new building at 270 Spadina Road East known as Woodside Terraces 1 & 2, but is being considered the 3rd phase in that project (with Phase 1 being the renovation of the existing 20th century modernist apartment and Phase 2 being the new addition to the original building). Nonetheless, I am putting it in its own thread to avoid any ambiguity and to ease with searching.

[tomh009]

I'm not a huge fan of the big dark-grey tower but it's still good density, close to the IHT and with two bus lines (#2 and #16) nearby. The less-tall parts of the design tie in better with the existing complex.

No details here but I'm pretty sure they are proposing to build this on the former gas station property (demolished maybe 20-30 years ago?) fronting Highland Rd -- maybe also including the one-storey chiropractic office.

[ac3r]

It will indeed be on the old gas site lot and the entirety of the existing property at 130 Highland (the 1 floor building) so...right up to the driveway to the park parking lot which will be widened to allow access to the surface parking behind the building and the construction of the bike lane to the park. The majority of the courtyard will sit where the empty lot currently is, tucked between the podium and existing Woodside Terrace buildings.

I'm also not a fan of the tower, but the majority of the wall will not be directly facing the street so the setbacks of the stepped tower effect will not making it feel so imposing from the road/sidewalks and the foliage of the park and existing 6 floor buildings should ensure the tower does not feel so imposing when viewed from the north/public park.

Here's the site plan that helps put it all into context, I forgot to attach that in a second post. Open in a new tab and feel free to zoom in as it's high resolution.

[tomh009]

The footprint is not quite as imposing on the plan, and I think the impact on the park is minimal. That's good.

It's good to fill in the vacant lot, abandoned gas station lots are a scourge all over the city (and other cities, too).

[cherrypark]

Can they go ahead and make the other side of Highland a nice garden sidewalk instead of the gas station too?

Plan seems alright and in alignment with the renovation in Phase 1. Shame about the increased cost of renting for the old building but at least their update seems to be looking good from the outside so far.

[ac3r]

Looking at the back/north side of the project again, one thing I'd wish for: more architectural definition on that side. The front side has some minor variation in the balconies which is visually interesting (albeit IMO bland). The opposite side is mostly just a monochromatic wall which, even if mostly covered at the human eye level, is still very meh. Doesn't take much effort to make some minor changes so the visual dynamism is increased. Right now the trend is staggered windows which is soooo boring and looks goofy since everything has this now.

[Acitta]

There seems to be a lot more grass and trees in the rendering than actually exist in the area. Do they intend to make the Big Bear parking lot into a park?

[dtkmelissa]

I'm not a huge fan of the big dark-grey tower but it's still good density, close to the IHT and with two bus lines (#2 and #16) nearby. The less-tall parts of the design tie in better with the existing complex.

No details here but I'm pretty sure they are proposing to build this on the former gas station property (demolished maybe 20-30 years ago?) fronting Highland Rd -- maybe also including the one-storey chiropractic office.

Currently two transit routes though this week's Regional Council meeting had staff recommending cancelling route 2 (and 73) due to low ridership.

[KevinL]

That site plan shows it runs all the way from Spadina to the park driveway, so that's both the old gas station lot and the small commercial building.

[tomh009]

Looking at the back/north side of the project again, one thing I'd wish for: more architectural definition on that side. The front side has some minor variation in the balconies which is visually interesting (albeit IMO bland). The opposite side is mostly just a monochromatic wall which, even if mostly covered at the human eye level, is still very meh. Doesn't take much effort to make some minor changes so the visual dynamism is increased. Right now the trend is staggered windows which is soooo boring and looks goofy since everything has this now.

That balcony variation matches the phase 1/2 buildings, which have 50% of the balconies with glass railings and 50% with metal. They could surely do the same with the (what I assume are) French balconies in the back.

[taylortbb]

Well at least the NIMBYs are being transparent that them making money on their property is more important than people being housed...

Plan for 17-storey rental apartment building in Kitchener draws criticism from neighbours: https://archive.is/7qeA9

Ahead of the meeting, Bateman said he’d received about 20 comments about the project — two were supportive.

Others expressed concerns over such things as height and subsequent shadow impacts on the area, increased traffic and insufficient parking, and construction noise, dust and potential damage to neighbouring properties.

During the meeting, a question was asked about the building’s potential impact on property values in the area.

[ac3r]

NIMBYs remind me of the type of people who write angry reviews on Yelp and Google. In other words, they're the only ones who are usually bored enough to waste their time writing a message and leaving a 1 star review. The people that enjoy things usually don't bother, they just let their money do the talking.

That said...2 supportive voices says a lot: that those of us who are actually in support of projects like this ought to be speaking up in favour of them. When we don't, the NIMBYs are the ones council and the local media hear from and it gives the wider public the impression that densifying is a bad idea.

Of course I did not do that myself as I forgot all about the public meeting lol. But next time, promise!

[panamaniac]

Well at least the NIMBYs are being transparent that them making money on their property is more important than people being housed...

Plan for 17-storey rental apartment building in Kitchener draws criticism from neighbours: https://archive.is/7qeA9

Ahead of the meeting, Bateman said he’d received about 20 comments about the project — two were supportive.

Others expressed concerns over such things as height and subsequent shadow impacts on the area, increased traffic and insufficient parking, and construction noise, dust and potential damage to neighbouring properties.

During the meeting, a question was asked about the building’s potential impact on property values in the area.

"(A) question" = one Nimby wondered about impact (up? down? neither?) on property values.

This is (yet) another project where neighbours venting will not affect the outcome of the approval process.

[Acitta]

The official plan amendment application for this project was passed by the planning committee on Monday. It was not unanimous. There were several delegations opposing the project.

[jeffster]

The official plan amendment application for this project was passed by the planning committee on Monday. It was not unanimous. There were several delegations opposing the project.

Chapman had a hard time convincing everyone that this build is a great idea, I gather. Sucks that any councillor would vote against Chapman, the housing first councillor.