(02-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: [ -> ]The buildings at 130 and 140 Lincoln Rd in Waterloo have (four I believe) three-bedroom units on every one the 10 floors.
It can be done.
I agree, absolutely it's not impossible. 130/130 Lincoln has a different footprint to most modern buildings, though, as a long and fairly narrow rectangle, so making extra-wide units may be easier.
In the end, though, developers will include them if the demand is there. The current prevalence of 1BR units is because they have the highest demand.
They are the highest demand, they command the highest rents per square foot, they're easier to build, and it's easier to manage buildings with homogeneous demographics. That's why I think that, in this case, it would be appropriate for municipal governments to get involved and encourage some quantity (again, I don't know what, but more than 0) of family units.
(02-09-2018, 08:50 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Excuse my lack of knowledge of the labour market, but given the number of large projects currently underway or expected to start in the next 18 months, will there be enough labour of the right skills to keep all these projects on schedule?
No...generally labourers come from all over. My friend that is a foreman in construction would commute daily to Windsor for a large project there, and he was in Cambridge. Anyone that wants to have steady employment, they'll get it.
(02-09-2018, 08:50 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Excuse my lack of knowledge of the labour market, but given the number of large projects currently underway or expected to start in the next 18 months, will there be enough labour of the right skills to keep all these projects on schedule?
Hundreds of skilled workers drive into Kitchener-Waterloo from Guelph, Hamilton and Toronto daily.
Conversely, hundreds of skilled workers drive to Guelph, Hamilton and Toronto from Kitchener-Waterloo.
Got work will travel ... daily
(02-16-2018, 03:46 PM)dubya Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2018, 04:39 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious about the bedroom ratios. I looked in the City of Toronto zoning documents:
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/upload...Part-1.pdf
I read through section 15 (residential apartment buildings) but I could not find any reference to a bedroom ratio minimum. Could you please point me to the bylaw or regulation for this minimum?
This dates back to 2009:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009...-24366.pdf
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009...-21308.pdf
In essence the city requires that 10% of all dwelling units in larger developments (with 100 or more dwelling units) in the downtown area be built either with three or more bedrooms, or offer the potential to be easily converted to contain three or more bedrooms.
One must only look at any large project being proposed in the city just in the last few weeks to see every single one has a good bedroom mix because every builder knows they won't pass muster unless they do:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/exca...egent-park
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/bazi...and-church
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/pete...l-approval
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/revi...ce-spadina
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/rezo...bloor-west
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/grea...rns-condos
Thanks. Your links are the committee recommendation, though, and it seems it was only partially implemented.
The official plan chapter 7 is here:
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/upload...7-saps.pdf
Area 383 does specify this ("Development of new housing suitable for households with children is encouraged. At least 15 per cent of the total number of dwelling units to be constructed will contain three or more bedrooms, comprised of a mix of publicly-owned replacement rental units and market condominium units.") Subsequently it says condos only need 5% of units. Area 383 is bounded by Queen, Dundas, Cameron and Denison. As far as I could find, none of the other areas have any similar verbiage.
And I still didn't find this in the zoning regulations, which is what the builders need to abide by.
(02-22-2018, 11:24 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]A Kitchener Post article with additional information, love that the project is proposing more than 300 bicycle parking spaces (no clear if this is inside or outside).
https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...east-side/
Good news in terms of the proposed exterior finishes - seems it will be EIFS-free! I will be interested, once the project is built, to see what kind of uptake the "two-storey" retail units have(not to suggest that the King St facade should be anything other than commercial space). It's not exactly prime retail territory at the moment and even 500 apartments won't necessarily change that.
(02-22-2018, 11:34 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2018, 11:24 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]A Kitchener Post article with additional information, love that the project is proposing more than 300 bicycle parking spaces (no clear if this is inside or outside).
https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...east-side/
Good news in terms of the proposed exterior finishes - seems it will be EIFS-free! I will be interested, once the project is built, to see what kind of uptake the "two-storey" retail units have(not to suggest that the King St facade should be anything other than commercial space). It's not exactly prime retail territory at the moment and even 500 apartments won't necessarily change that.
well, two-storey actually means double-height units, which provide with a lot of flexibility for the potential retail tenants, they could build storage space, a mezzanine, etc.
(02-22-2018, 11:39 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2018, 11:37 AM)urbd Wrote: [ -> ]well, two-storey actually means double-height units, which provide with a lot of flexibility for the potential retail tenants, they could build storage space, a mezzanine, etc.
Ahh, that makes sense.
In the article it states that the project would have to go to the Region for approval after the city approves it. Can anyone explain to me why it needs Regional approval if the city approves it?
Awful. It looks like a housing project going up in a suburb of Shanghai or Moscow. Absolutely unfit for downtown Kitchener.
(02-22-2018, 12:53 PM)modernizt Wrote: [ -> ]Awful. It looks like a housing project going up in a suburb of Shanghai or Moscow. Absolutely unfit for downtown Kitchener.
I agree that it lives down to expectations, but given its East End location, I doubt anybody will quibble over the esthetics.
(02-22-2018, 03:46 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2018, 12:53 PM)modernizt Wrote: [ -> ]Awful. It looks like a housing project going up in a suburb of Shanghai or Moscow. Absolutely unfit for downtown Kitchener.
I agree that it lives down to expectations, but given its East End location, I doubt anybody will quibble over the esthetics.
Now that was a blanket statement. Are we saying that people in the east end don't deserve better ?
(02-22-2018, 03:48 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2018, 03:46 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that it lives down to expectations, but given its East End location, I doubt anybody will quibble over the esthetics.
Now that was a blanket statement. Are we saying that people in the east end don't deserve better ?
Not at all. Only that they are unlikely to get better, at least as far as this development is concerned.