City of Kitchener Official Plan
Kitchener’s new planning regulations attempt to strike a balance between high density, existing neighbourhoods
Quote:New planning regulations try to strike a fine balance between encouraging intensification along the LRT and ensuring it doesn't change the character of older neighbourhoods.
Kitchener planners are holding a series of public open houses to get feedback about proposed changes to the city's 10 secondary plans. The plans, which will eventually become part of the city's official plan and have legal weight, provide more detail about how the official plan will be implemented in specific parts of the city.
The plans don't cover all of the city, focusing mainly on areas in the core and along the LRT route. The plans haven't been updated in 25 to 30 years, said senior planner Tina Malone-Wright. "A lot of things have changed."
Planners want to modernize the plans to reflect new policies to protect established neighbourhoods, encourage intensification near the LRT and along major roads, and preserve heritage and natural areas.
...
Meetings have been relatively well attended. People see that the city is changing, and are worried that their neighbourhoods will change in ways they don't want.
A key worry is how the city will regulate the transition between high-density development and the low-rise homes on nearby streets. It's a concern that has dogged a number of recent development proposals, such as the Breithaupt Block Phase 3 project, which will put a five-storey parking garage and a 50-metre office tower close to single-family century homes on Wellington Street. Residents came out in droves to object to the project's height and nearness to homes, but council ultimately approved it.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/917...bourhoods/
Not sure if there's a better place for this...so ...discuss...
I practically live in the shadow of a newer apartment building that went up beside single family homes and here's a huge shocker: it didn't ruin the character of the neighbourhood. I'd argue that rich people that moved in and turned some of the multi-resident houses back into big SFH have changed the character of the neighbourhood more. It seems to me a lot of the most vocal people don't want any changes to their neighbourhoods. I think the city needs to do something more along of the lines of Minneapolis and
rezone the entire city to allow a lot more medium density housing options. Too much focus on just building high density along the LRT and leaving the rest of the city as huge swaths of SFH isn't really gonna make the BANANA people happy since there are many neighbourhoods full of SFH that are pretty close to the LRT. I think if creative developers could buy up a few housesand convert them into tri-plexes and build smaller units above detached garages or things like that it would really help address the "
missing middle" that would really help to ease transitions between those bigger towers and single-house neighbourhoods. I think a good example of how it works well can be seen on the block between Queen and David, the IHT and Schneider Avenue. There's the big tower, smaller condos, a small apartment building and a bunch of single family homes (some of which might have basement aparments, idk) Blocks like this one should be scattered throughout the city, not just along the main streets... and not everyone would have to have a bigger tower in it.
(02-15-2019, 11:43 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I practically live in the shadow of a newer apartment building that went up beside single family homes and here's a huge shocker: it didn't ruin the character of the neighbourhood. I'd argue that rich people that moved in and turned some of the multi-resident houses back into big SFH have changed the character of the neighbourhood more. It seems to me a lot of the most vocal people don't want any changes to their neighbourhoods. I think the city needs to do something more along of the lines of Minneapolis and rezone the entire city to allow a lot more medium density housing options. Too much focus on just building high density along the LRT and leaving the rest of the city as huge swaths of SFH isn't really gonna make the BANANA people happy since there are many neighbourhoods full of SFH that are pretty close to the LRT. I think if creative developers could buy up a few housesand convert them into tri-plexes and build smaller units above detached garages or things like that it would really help address the "missing middle" that would really help to ease transitions between those bigger towers and single-house neighbourhoods. I think a good example of how it works well can be seen on the block between Queen and David, the IHT and Schneider Avenue. There's the big tower, smaller condos, a small apartment building and a bunch of single family homes (some of which might have basement aparments, idk) Blocks like this one should be scattered throughout the city, not just along the main streets... and not everyone would have to have a bigger tower in it.
Yes, yes, and yes! When I was campaigning this past election, I was surprised how many people hated the look of tall towers and didn't want to see more of them built (in their neighbourhood or elsewhere even). But here's the thing, when I suggested that we allow for more duplexes, triplexes, low rise and even secondary suites - they didn't want those either.
Waterloo Region is in a really interesting situation, they're in that in between of a big and small city, but clearly is becoming a big city on it's own. The problem lies in that much of the population has been here since it was a small city and wants it to stay that way. It's not happening. Some people love that, some people hate it, but you can't deny it. At the end of the day, some people will end up unhappy.
It's probably not fair, but my brain automatically replaces "change the character of the neighbourhood" with "keep those undesirable folks out".
I grew up (we moved in in 1985, my parents live there still) in Uptown Waterloo, on Avondale near William. At that time it was an older, mostly blue collar neighbourhood. There are smatterings of moderately dense buildings (lots of houses split into duplexes and triplexes, a couple of 2 or 3 storey buildings with 4 or 8 apartments on each floor) mixed in with quite large single-family dwellings. A lot of 1950s bungalows mixed together with 1900s homes.
When I moved out in the mid-90s there were a lot more young families and a ton of places that had been converted into student housing. In the 20 years since then, there was a period where there were relatively few young kids and my impression is that's been changing again in the past five years, although I think Lourdes (the Catholic K-8 in the area, also where I went to school) has been struggling a bit with population for a while (a former coworker's kids went there). Most of the student housing has been converted back into single-family and a lot of the buildings there have been significantly updated, and some have been replaced.
That rambling is all to demonstrate (in some fashion) how important I think changing neighbourhoods are. People coming in and out, buildings changing, growing, being replaced. There's definitely space for heritage designations (and I delivered the Chronicle and the Record to many in that area) but this notion that people put forward that anything about a neighbourhood should somehow ossify is complete garbage. Neighbourhoods should live.
(02-15-2019, 01:34 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2019, 11:43 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I practically live in the shadow of a newer apartment building that went up beside single family homes and here's a huge shocker: it didn't ruin the character of the neighbourhood. I'd argue that rich people that moved in and turned some of the multi-resident houses back into big SFH have changed the character of the neighbourhood more. It seems to me a lot of the most vocal people don't want any changes to their neighbourhoods. I think the city needs to do something more along of the lines of Minneapolis and rezone the entire city to allow a lot more medium density housing options. Too much focus on just building high density along the LRT and leaving the rest of the city as huge swaths of SFH isn't really gonna make the BANANA people happy since there are many neighbourhoods full of SFH that are pretty close to the LRT. I think if creative developers could buy up a few housesand convert them into tri-plexes and build smaller units above detached garages or things like that it would really help address the "missing middle" that would really help to ease transitions between those bigger towers and single-house neighbourhoods. I think a good example of how it works well can be seen on the block between Queen and David, the IHT and Schneider Avenue. There's the big tower, smaller condos, a small apartment building and a bunch of single family homes (some of which might have basement aparments, idk) Blocks like this one should be scattered throughout the city, not just along the main streets... and not everyone would have to have a bigger tower in it.
Yes, yes, and yes! When I was campaigning this past election, I was surprised how many people hated the look of tall towers and didn't want to see more of them built (in their neighbourhood or elsewhere even). But here's the thing, when I suggested that we allow for more duplexes, triplexes, low rise and even secondary suites - they didn't want those either.
You had my vote, Melissa, and these are the issues I was most keen on. Politicians take flak for not being specific, but this is indeed a reason why city-wide upzoning (for quads, say) and reducing the overall hurdles to making 4- or 6-storey options throughout, is key, so that "my neighbourhood" doesn't become the focus, same as we need to be talking about how do we help a couple who had four kids downsize as empty-nesters, or help to get more families homes, homes near schools and good public assets. I feel like I see endless surveys showing that people generally support the high-level aims we have, and we need to keep them focused on that, and then we more easily accept the on-the-ground reality, of more mid-rise, more plex-ing. I live in a single-family home with four people right now, ones who would gladly also fill up a duplex, triplex, or quad, but we don't have the option to, and so we cram into this single family home together.
Kitchener’s Billion-dollar building boom
Quote:Hang on to your hats. Kitchener's downtown is about to undergo radical transformation, that will transform the look and feel of the region's biggest core forever.
Within the next couple of years, 18 projects worth almost $1 billion will rise in the core.
Within that time, cranes will begin to crowd the city skyline. The tallest tower in the region will start to rise, eventually looming 39 storeys over Frederick and Duke streets.
The record-high Duke Tower Kitchener will be joined by several other tall towers: the 31-storey Charlie West condo, two towers in the east end of 19 and 23 storeys, and 23- and 27-storey towers on Victoria Street, and the 26-storey Young condo next to city hall.
Right now, the tallest building downtown is the 19-storey condo tower at One Victoria.
Almost 2,800 new residential units will come downtown, more than doubling the core's population to 6,000. Three new office buildings, the first the first to be built in the core since 1992, will add 387,000 square feet of office space.
...
The boom will radically change the look and feel of the core, Seiling said. "It's going to drastically change what people have come to see in the past, and it's definitely going to make this a game-changer. We're going to have more people living here, and we're going to have more people working downtown."
More people living in the core will attract more restaurants, retail and entertainment choices, Vrbanovic said. "It's going to help us create a more vibrant downtown."
A livelier downtown makes it easier to attract and retain talent, Vrbanovic said, but also appeals to older residents who want to downsize but be able to walk to shops, parks and libraries.
Once they're built, the many new buildings will contribute substantially to property taxes for the city, region and school boards, Seiling added.
...
The boom will also see major growth in the east end of downtown, with three large residential projects — the 488 units in the two towers at King and Madison, an eight-storey 60-unit building at 387 King. St. E. and an eight-storey, 72-unit building at 388 King E.
...
But it was also spurred by a deadline. Feb. 28 marked the end of a decades-old exemption meant to encourage developers to build downtown — in the area bordered by Cameron, Victoria, Joseph and Weber streets — and increase density in the core.
The exemption meant developments in downtown Kitchener didn't pay regional and city development charges of close to $20,000 per residential unit. By meeting the deadline, the 18 projects saved almost $48 million in fees, Seiling said.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/920...ding-boom/
Thanks, Spokes. This is a good quote from the article:
Quote:Construction cranes have started to stud the skyline, Seiling noted. "You're going to see a lot more cranes in the very near future," as projects must be substantially underway within the next six months.
(And that's Mike Seiling, the city's chief building official, not Ken Seiling)
So that does confirm that there is a construction deadline as well, it was not only a building permit deadline.
Kitchener should have another exemption to encourage more development downtown. But this time the exemption should be for $10,000 per residential unit and it should include development all the way to Ottawa Street and midtown right up to Waterloo.
(03-06-2019, 10:07 AM)jgsz Wrote: [ -> ]Kitchener should have another exemption to encourage more development downtown. But this time the exemption should be for $10,000 per residential unit and it should include development all the way to Ottawa Street and midtown right up to Waterloo.
(03-06-2019, 10:07 AM)jgsz Wrote: [ -> ]Kitchener should have another exemption to encourage more development downtown. But this time the exemption should be for $10,000 per residential unit and it should include development all the way to Ottawa Street and midtown right up to Waterloo.
Seiling said in the article that we should expect a pause. And while I think we want to encourage further urban intensification, I think a gap between the exemptions/rebates would make sense.
For the next time around, I would support providing a development fee rebate (amount TBD) within 200m of the LRT anywhere in Kitchener.
I poked around the online building permit database but did not spot any new building permits issued for major projects at the very end of February.
(03-06-2019, 10:09 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2019, 10:07 AM)jgsz Wrote: [ -> ]Kitchener should have another exemption to encourage more development downtown. But this time the exemption should be for $10,000 per residential unit and it should include development all the way to Ottawa Street and midtown right up to Waterloo.
I've noticed several situations over the past week or two where you post something that's just a quote of someone else's post. Is this intentional? Does it indicate agreement? I'm just not sure how to interpret it.