General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[cherrypark]

A cool article about growth/investment KW - it also mentions they are planning to convert the office at 22 Fredrick to residential

https://renx.ca/heavy-kitchener-waterloo...o-re-forum

Very interested to see how that residential conversion goes.

[tomh009]

A cool article about growth/investment KW - it also mentions they are planning to convert the office at 22 Fredrick to residential

https://renx.ca/heavy-kitchener-waterloo...o-re-forum

Very interested to see how that residential conversion goes.

Not a trivial project. The floorplate size might be suitable, and the elevators might be OK. Some things are easy (amenities, building access, parking, garbage chutes) but they'll also need to install plumbing and convert HVAC to something like a chiller-based system. And balconies, or none?

The old RBC building did a cheap conversion with in-unit air conditioners but that is also a much smaller building.

[tomh009]

A cool article about growth/investment KW - it also mentions they are planning to convert the office at 22 Fredrick to residential

https://renx.ca/heavy-kitchener-waterloo...o-re-forum

Very interested to see how that residential conversion goes.

“We're transitioning 22 Frederick into a residential building to serve the downtown for rental needs to serve students who may be at Conestoga College," explains Europro Vice-President Jesse Nathanson.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/temporary-c...-1.6396645

[Lebronj23]

A good up to date illustration of the proposals in the pipeline, crazy to see how many are much taller than DTK only in the last few years

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=101299079

[sevenman]

A good up to date illustration of the proposals in the pipeline, crazy to see how many are much taller than DTK only in the last few years

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=101299079

I noticed TEK Tower 2 and TEK Tower 3 on there.  Are they new proposals?

[sevenman]

A good up to date illustration of the proposals in the pipeline, crazy to see how many are much taller than DTK only in the last few years

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=101299079

I noticed TEK Tower 2 and TEK Tower 3 on there.  Are they new proposals?

Quick Google search.   Tek Tower 2 and 3 are the IN8 proposals on Queen and on Charles........Carry on

[ijmorlan]

“We're transitioning 22 Frederick into a residential building to serve the downtown for rental needs to serve students who may be at Conestoga College," explains Europro Vice-President Jesse Nathanson.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/temporary-c...-1.6396645

Won’t that make at least one of the bridges really useful? I’d love to be able to get to class without getting my boots on!

[westwardloo]

It appears developers are taking the cities new parks by-law to OLT. I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I do think the city needs to build up a fund to develop new parkland throughout the city. On the other hand it is quite clear that once again the Urban city centre residents are paying for facility expansion in the suburbs.  If the funds were used strictly to purchase land in areas of the city with lacking parks space (City centre) I would be more on board for the increase in fees.  Funding the suburbs with fees from densification  and taxes from existing neighbourhoods is not sustainable.  The Mattamy Homes of the world should be funding new schools, parks, community centres in these neighbourhoods. Clearly people still want to buy into the suburban life so tack on a 50-100k fee to each lot sold to fund the amenities required.   

https://archive.ph/n5Bam

[cherrypark]

It appears developers are taking the cities new parks by-law to OLT. I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I do think the city needs to build up a fund to develop new parkland throughout the city. On the other hand it is quite clear that once again the Urban city centre residents are paying for facility expansion in the suburbs.  If the funds were used strictly to purchase land in areas of the city with lacking parks space (City centre) I would be more on board for the increase in fees.  Funding the suburbs with fees from densification  and taxes from existing neighbourhoods is not sustainable.  The Mattamy Homes of the world should be funding new schools, parks, community centres in these neighbourhoods. Clearly people still want to buy into the suburban life so tack on a 50-100k fee to each lot sold to fund the amenities required.   

https://archive.ph/n5Bam

I find both ends disappointing: that the developers don't see contributing to the parkland and amenities as a relevant cost of high densification, while also seeing the inequity that is putting this money into the general parks and recreation funding that is going to build $90M+ rec centres to serve new communities (who have swaths of unsustainable utilities and linear infrastructure that is already going to drag the city in the future).

Would be nice to see those 10 developers instead put some kind of counter proposal together that would likely increase the attraction and value of their future developments downtown anyways, or contribute collectively to assembling some more blocks of parkland in abutting parcels they have.

[bravado]

I don’t see why developers should be paying to provide public services. This indirectly means that new residents will be paying in the end.

If our tax dollars don’t adequately support building new parks, then raise the taxes. Why can’t we do what previous generations did and build things? Why do future residents have to subsidize existing ones?*

* because our budgets are strained from past mistakes, so we keep making new ones to cover up the gaps

[cherrypark]

I don’t see why developers should be paying to provide public services. This indirectly means that new residents will be paying in the end.

If our tax dollars don’t adequately support building new parks, then raise the taxes. Why can’t we do what previous generations did and build things? Why do future residents have to subsidize existing ones?*

* because our budgets are strained from past mistakes, so we keep making new ones to cover up the gaps

Because the municipal tax rate is permanently the #1 concern of those running for council. Raising tax more vs. burdening newcomers (or more likely renters under those owners) who can't currently vote against you and won't see the direct causal relationship is an easy choice with those incentives.

Your argument for fairness isn't wrong, its just unlikely to ever be that people's altruism exceeds their pocketbook defence.

[danbrotherston]

I do think that developers (really, new property buyers) should pay for new infrastructure needed to support new developments.

This is actually how development has worked for a long time. Taxes should support maintenance of existing properties, but new development should pay for it's own services.

[westwardloo]

I do think that developers (really, new property buyers) should pay for new infrastructure needed to support new developments.

This is actually how development has worked for a long time. Taxes should support maintenance of existing properties, but new development should pay for it's own services.

Exactly this!

[ijmorlan]

I do think that developers (really, new property buyers) should pay for new infrastructure needed to support new developments.

This is actually how development has worked for a long time. Taxes should support maintenance of existing properties, but new development should pay for it's own services.

Clearly true. Imagine if the city was built up to the border, and on the other side was a fully rural township with about 200 residents total. Now a developer builds a 2000 house development in the rural township. Who should pay for the parks, recreation centres, arterial roads, sewer pipes, wires, and all the other infrastructure needed? I hope it’s clear that the 200 existing residents not only shouldn’t but literally cannot pay.

It’s no different if there are more existing residents, other than that it actually is possible to hide the unsustainability in a mysteriously expensive city budget in a way that is not possible in the rural township thought experiment.

Coincidentally this happens to give an incentive to build dense walkable developments. The closer everything is together and the less need for vehicles, the less needs to be spent on building it all. Actually, not coincidentally — the reason I like walkable neighbourhoods and other features we associate with urban areas is that they’re better for everybody, not because they sometimes seem foreign to drivers.

[bravado]

I understand paying for the new pipes that go to your development, but we all know that these recently quadrupled park fees are not going towards parks for these new residents - this is a shakedown that’s been going on for a while and will have some real blowback sooner or later.