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:
  • 13 Vote(s) - 3.85 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours
(06-24-2022, 03:31 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: Would the Bramm St. yard be a large enough property?

Debbie Chapman and the NIMBYs in the area would never allow that in their backyard!
Reply


Exactly. Think of all the sirens that would disturb the rich retirees. They can't have medical care to save lives in their neighbourhood. The barely used asphalt and gravel parking lots full of weeds are an important heritage feature of the city and must be protected at all costs. Chapman 2022 - Make Kitchener Awful Again.
Reply
(06-24-2022, 03:31 PM)TMKM94 Wrote: Would the Bramm St. yard be a large enough property?

No, not even remotely close. The Bramm lot is only about 7 acres. If you include the undeveloped properties along Park and Victoria (that were rejected for development this week) you still only get to 11 acres.

In fact the entire area between the mainline tracks and Victoria from Park to King is still only 40 acres or so. A 60 acre site is utterly massive. Hence why it almost certainly cannot be located centrally.
Reply
Gatineau just chose a 70 acre site for their new 600 bed hospital.
Reply
Why is a 44-storey highrise being built in downtown Kitchener with no public discussion?

The development requires no approval by city councillors, even though it will be a huge change from what is there now, Luisa D’Amato writes
Reply
(06-25-2022, 11:08 AM)Acitta Wrote: Why is a 44-storey highrise being built in downtown Kitchener with no public discussion?

When zoning allows new development: "This is outrageous, why is there no public debate about this development?"

When zoning doesn't allow new development: "This is outrageous, why aren't they sticking to the zoning?"

I'm starting to thing people just dislike change...
Reply
Wahhhh wahh wahh. All these NIMBYs do is complain. The Record is also very complicit in the regression angle, with the same handful of shitty journalists writing story after story about how bad all this change is. Where are the articles in support of things? No matter what is happening, the same couple people write article after article about why something is bad.

Honestly...this region is extremely frustrating to work in and I've worked in cities all over the country and world. I rarely see this much opposition to anything good. If you don't like it, move the hell away.
Reply


(06-25-2022, 01:57 PM)ac3r Wrote: The Record is also very complicit in the regression angle, with the same handful of shitty journalists writing story after story about how bad all this change is.

I would actually say that D'Amato is not so much complaining about the building -- she is writing more about the bonusing structure built into the 1985 zoning by-law. She says it has achieved its goals, and that's a good thing. But that it's time to adjust how it works. And I do agree that the quid-pro-quo of bonusing should be adjusted, not to prevent density, but to ensure that the density brings appropriate value to the city.

Quote:Those of us who remember downtown Kitchener in the mid-1980s, its many problems, and the repeated failed attempts to breathe life into it, are pleased to see so many people living here now. We got what we wished for. Maybe more than we wished for.

“We are blessed in this region to be a place where people want to live and stay,” Stevenson said.

But he said the days of density bonusing are numbered. The bylaw is being reviewed and “this is the last period of time for bonusing.”

It’s now long past time to rewrite that bylaw so that it responds to the concerns we have in 2022, like housing that’s affordable to people on low incomes, or a building that’s designed to be kind to the environment.
Reply
(06-25-2022, 02:54 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I would actually say that D'Amato is not so much complaining about the building -- she is writing more about the bonusing structure built into the 1985 zoning by-law. She says it has achieved its goals, and that's a good thing. But that it's time to adjust how it works. And I do agree that the quid-pro-quo of bonusing should be adjusted, not to prevent density, but to ensure that the density brings appropriate value to the city.

Who cares? It's articles like these that give NIMBYs ammunition for their fight to keep this city from going anywhere but a dead end. We need to keep building and building densely.

Here's a good post from a Reddit thread in reply to "It’s now long past time to rewrite that bylaw so that it responds...":

Quote:These buildings are kind to the environment. They locate thousands of people on the same small parcel of land rather than spreading them out across the countryside. They locate people in walkable neighbourhoods near transit and thereby reduce emissions from driving. They encourage high-income individuals to live in 700 square feet instead of 3000 square feet, so they buy less useless stuff and share heating and cooling with shared walls. It's a clear environmental win.

And it's also a win for the housing crisis. The more houses we add to the overall stock, the better - but we can't achieve that if residents and council keep complaining about bylaws and shadows and having NIMBYs stall projects.

And we can certainly build more housing using midrise buildings, row houses, townhomes and so on but until we change zoning rules, that's not going to happen. We can't sit around waiting for this sort of stuff. These sort of projects need to get built, even if the projects themselves aren't great (ugly architecture, little or no commercial space, a lack of multi bedroom units and so on). They're downtown, located near rapid transit, multiuse trails, businesses, stores and so much more. They're perfect. I think it's obvious that these people (the journalist and NIMBYs) are just against tall buildings. Every time one is proposed they go crazy and do all they can to stop it.
Reply
I'm not against tall buildings. And, honestly, I don't think D'Amato is, either. She does think the bonusing system needs to be updated to match our current priorities, and I think that's a reasonable position.
Reply
(06-25-2022, 10:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I'm not against tall buildings. And, honestly, I don't think D'Amato is, either. She does think the bonusing system needs to be updated to match our current priorities, and I think that's a reasonable position.

I really don't know what D'Amato is for or against. I get the idea she doesn't really have any positions or opinions and is just seeking to write articles which get her noticed.

The thing about this article which is revealing to me, though is not D'Amato, but is the quotes. Basically people flipping out about this building being built with no consultation because it is within zoning. Which really reveals all those people who go to council (or are ON council) and bray "just build within zoning" as the frauds they are.

I'm sure I would never do well in politics, because I wouldn't pander to bullshit.
Reply
I don't think it's really fair to expect the general public to be coherent when it comes to their opinions on new developments. The truth is that they either like it or they don't like it, and will develop the necessary arguments to support their position. This isn't intellectually rigorous, but opinions don't really need to be.

I do expect a higher standard from our decision-makers, though.
Reply
(06-26-2022, 08:28 AM)jamincan Wrote: I don't think it's really fair to expect the general public to be coherent when it comes to their opinions on new developments. The truth is that they either like it or they don't like it, and will develop the necessary arguments to support their position. This isn't intellectually rigorous, but opinions don't really need to be.

I do expect a higher standard from our decision-makers, though.

I mean, I agree with you completely. But like I said, we should stop listening to these people, we should start calling them on their bullshit.

Honestly, I think this is a fairly toxic situation in our society...people have never been faced with their bullshit. It's the same with the freedumb morons. They've been pandered to for years, every moronic thought that enters their brain was listened to, and now they're marching on the capital because being asked to wear a mask communism to them. Obviously that's an extreme example, but it comes from the same place.

I'm not suggesting that we don't speak to these people with compassion, but humouring their bullshit doesn't help anyone.
Reply


(06-26-2022, 05:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-26-2022, 08:28 AM)jamincan Wrote: I don't think it's really fair to expect the general public to be coherent when it comes to their opinions on new developments. The truth is that they either like it or they don't like it, and will develop the necessary arguments to support their position. This isn't intellectually rigorous, but opinions don't really need to be.

I do expect a higher standard from our decision-makers, though.

I mean, I agree with you completely. But like I said, we should stop listening to these people, we should start calling them on their bullshit.

Honestly, I think this is a fairly toxic situation in our society...people have never been faced with their bullshit. It's the same with the freedumb morons. They've been pandered to for years, every moronic thought that enters their brain was listened to, and now they're marching on the capital because being asked to wear a mask communism to them. Obviously that's an extreme example, but it comes from the same place.

I'm not suggesting that we don't speak to these people with compassion, but humouring their bullshit doesn't help anyone.

Bolding the first line of jamincan's post because it can be interpreted two different ways (not sure how he intended), but I read it a little differently than I think you did. The public doesn't collectively form a coherent opinion because such a collective opinion doesn't really exist, it's the sum of thousands of opinions each of which are far more valid than the sum of their parts.

Using language like "these people" to fully disregard the individuals you are referring to makes me think you are falling into the same trap as politicians who listen to the collective output. Take opposition to a development as an example (I'm being generously positive here just for the sake of example, I know it's actually worse): 100 people report 100 different minor, non-blocking gripes against a development. The perspective politicians incorrectly take is attributing the sum of all 100 issues to each of the 100 individuals, which makes them feel the public sentiment are far more negative than it may actually be. It causes them to skip right past determining which issues can and should be resolved, straight to denying the development.

On a personal level, this same issue colours my judgement of the public (and probably yours, using language like "these people"). I easily look at this example and think "Wow, I completely disagree with all 100 of these people", but in reality I'm in at least 99% agreement with all 100 individuals, and of the 100 possible issues I only disagree with each individual on at most 1 specific problem.

A lot of bullshit issues are going to be brought up, and those do need to be called out. But that needs to be done without calling the more reasonable concerns bullshit as well. It just really sucks to be addressing major change within our cities while undergoing multiple crises as it feels like we don't have time for the nuance these issues deserve.
Reply
What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that?
local cambridge weirdo
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 15 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