Waterloo Region Connected

(06-02-2022, 08:09 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-01-2022, 09:47 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]It's not ideal, but speaking as someone currently navigating our nationally lowest vacancy rate for industrial space in the Waterloo Region, this is needed just the same as new housing to enable employment to continue coming to the region. I would much rather see industrial development on lands near the city than having all of our residents need to commute to Milton or Etobicoke for the same.

Now Phase 2 ION missing this employment centre of the region is another discussion I suppose.

Now if only we hadn't rushed to convert all of our prime industrial land into condominium towers, and come up with ways to keep industrial lands close to the other existing infrastructure (eg rails, and other services), maybe the vacancy rate wouldn't be such a problem?  How do other countries manage to keep various uses (residential, service, retail and industrial) all close to each other?  Maybe it's also time to have a conversation about how to make existing industrial zones more dense? Surely there are ways to create multi-story factories that weren't in the middle of a big green space? Didn't we do that once around here? (he asks tongue firmly in cheek)

I'm not sure what "prime industrial land" we converted into condo towers.

Or to put it another way, I don't see any land downtown as "prime industrial land"...it might have been back 100 years ago in a different time and place, but that land doesn't make sense to be industrial anymore.

I am not sure of the solutions to these problems. What I will say is where I have moved in the Netherlands is quite suburban. I am right next to a dozen big box stores and commercial/office buildings including the king of them all, Ikea. These stores (and buildings) are very north american in style, relatively large (not like, Costco or Walmart large, but still larger than any other store I've seen here), they are surrounded by relatively wide roads, with large stormwater drainage ponds. In many ways it feels very north american. And yet even still, none of them have much in the way of surface parking, every single one is stacked on top of a parking garage, possibly even a multi-level garage. And every one is accessible by bike and transit, and you feel, if not the focus, at least equally welcome as if you arrive by car.

Now I do find the whole arrangement a bit strange--every single store has elevators and/or escalators. The grocery store and Ikea both have weird escalators which permit shopping carts. This is true even for single floor stores. I'm sure it drives up cost. And frankly, I think most people do still drive there. But it does give one ideas for what kind of solutions we could look at.

(06-02-2022, 08:09 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-01-2022, 09:47 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]It's not ideal, but speaking as someone currently navigating our nationally lowest vacancy rate for industrial space in the Waterloo Region, this is needed just the same as new housing to enable employment to continue coming to the region. I would much rather see industrial development on lands near the city than having all of our residents need to commute to Milton or Etobicoke for the same.

Now Phase 2 ION missing this employment centre of the region is another discussion I suppose.

Now if only we hadn't rushed to convert all of our prime industrial land into condominium towers, and come up with ways to keep industrial lands close to the other existing infrastructure (eg rails, and other services), maybe the vacancy rate wouldn't be such a problem?  How do other countries manage to keep various uses (residential, service, retail and industrial) all close to each other?  Maybe it's also time to have a conversation about how to make existing industrial zones more dense? Surely there are ways to create multi-story factories that weren't in the middle of a big green space? Didn't we do that once around here? (he asks tongue firmly in cheek)

By not building suburbs and low density residential that push the zoning types (that appropriately should be at the city boundaries or in concentrated zones) further outside the core and require major road infra to move everyone there. There are limitations to inter-mixing based on land value, form factor, and nuisance to residential/commercial areas. We could certainly make our industrial zones denser, but I don't see them (just-in-time logistics of today aside, perhaps) as the primary cause of needing to convert agricultural lands. Our city is growing, but new industrial spaces are not where we're growing our land use by the majority.

In the core, I can't honestly think of any major industrial lands that were recently made condos other than perhaps Schneiders? The reality is most former industrial building areas are parking lots now, not condos. For each condo building, I would be confident estimating an equal if not greater land area has been updated into new employment lands in the last decade (Google, et al). There are many examples of brownfield industrial new builds, such as down at Homer Watson and Bleams. 

I think the vacancy rate now is just the reality of a larger city and one re-turning after a hollowing out that meant a lot of industrial lands became fallow or flattened into parking for commercial conversions.

(06-02-2022, 08:09 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe it's also time to have a conversation about how to make existing industrial zones more dense? Surely there are ways to create multi-story factories that weren't in the middle of a big green space? Didn't we do that once around here? (he asks tongue firmly in cheek)

You're not going to see many/any multi story factories performing the type of manufacturing that occurs in this region. Machines need to be installed on thick concrete slabs if you want to hold any reasonably tight tolerance (such as auto, aerospace, nuclear and medical manufacturing industries). I'm sure it's possible, but it's much cheaper to move somewhere where the factory can sprawl.

Another issue with multi level factories is transporting goods within that factory. Sure, you can install elevators, but factories in the 21st century produce large quantities of goods. Far too many that would make sense to constantly be moving up and down elevators and requiring pump trucks and then forklifts. It's just not really realistic these days in most cases. It worked back in the day, but now industrial production has simply evolved into an entirely different beast.

You also don't find them in city centres anymore because we now know it's noisy and polluting. You wouldn't operate most factories within city centres or near homes.

Getting large numbers of trucks or freight trains to serve industries is also easier in distant areas since they are better served by highways or spur lines.

(06-03-2022, 10:44 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-02-2022, 08:09 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe it's also time to have a conversation about how to make existing industrial zones more dense? Surely there are ways to create multi-story factories that weren't in the middle of a big green space? Didn't we do that once around here? (he asks tongue firmly in cheek)

You're not going to see many/any multi story factories performing the type of manufacturing that occurs in this region. Machines need to be installed on thick concrete slabs if you want to hold any reasonably tight tolerance (such as auto, aerospace, nuclear and medical manufacturing industries). I'm sure it's possible, but it's much cheaper to move somewhere where the factory can sprawl.

Industrial zones could be significantly denser even without stacking the manufacturing. First, they seem to be designed with typical suburban setbacks. What for? As far as I am concerned an industrial area should be 100% building except for the access roads; and even there I don’t see why there needs to be any non-paved space. Of course, depending on what exactly is inside the buildings care would need to be taken to avoid risks such as fires, but some production lines are already big enough on their own that I’m sure their design needs to take into account what can be safely near what.

I’m aware that I’m proposing to make an enormous, totally non-permeable surface, but the alternative is to mix acres of lawn with the non-permeable surfaces. My idea is essentially to collect together all of the lawn and keep it naturalized, which is better for drainage than lawn. So I think managing the runoff is an engineering problem, not a reason to stick to the current designs.

I am reminded of the Apple campus. It is office space, not industrial, but a huge annular building surrounded by (and surrounding) essentially a park replaces many blocks of typical suburban buildings separated by the aforementioned acres of useless grass.

I should add that my idea for designing multi-level manufacturing would be to use inclined conveyor belts to move items up and down. Of course how difficult this is and how much space it needs to take depends on the nature of the production process and the items being moved. And as someone else pointed out, the nature of the foundation needed for the equipment also depends on what is being done.

(06-03-2022, 10:44 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-02-2022, 08:09 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe it's also time to have a conversation about how to make existing industrial zones more dense? Surely there are ways to create multi-story factories that weren't in the middle of a big green space? Didn't we do that once around here? (he asks tongue firmly in cheek)

You're not going to see many/any multi story factories performing the type of manufacturing that occurs in this region. Machines need to be installed on thick concrete slabs if you want to hold any reasonably tight tolerance (such as auto, aerospace, nuclear and medical manufacturing industries). I'm sure it's possible, but it's much cheaper to move somewhere where the factory can sprawl.

It is always cheaper to sprawl because most of the costs of sprawl are borne not by the developer, but instead by the occupants and society at large. This is true for factories, housing, everything.

As for tight tolerance manufacturing, UW Nanotech centre has a nanometer scale silicon chip fabrication facility on some floor (not the ground floor) of the building. The main obstacle for the facility was not the location in the building or even the high number of people in the building, but simply the vehicle traffic on Ring Rd causing vibrations.

(06-03-2022, 01:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 10:44 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: [ -> ]You're not going to see many/any multi story factories performing the type of manufacturing that occurs in this region. Machines need to be installed on thick concrete slabs if you want to hold any reasonably tight tolerance (such as auto, aerospace, nuclear and medical manufacturing industries). I'm sure it's possible, but it's much cheaper to move somewhere where the factory can sprawl.

It is always cheaper to sprawl because most of the costs of sprawl are borne not by the developer, but instead by the occupants and society at large. This is true for factories, housing, everything.

As for tight tolerance manufacturing, UW Nanotech centre has a nanometer scale silicon chip fabrication facility on some floor (not the ground floor) of the building. The main obstacle for the facility was not the location in the building or even the high number of people in the building, but simply the vehicle traffic on Ring Rd causing vibrations.

That is pretty interesting. I can't speak much about semiconductor manufacturing, but I imagine the machines at UW produce a low volume of chips, and the machines themselves wouldn't be the source of vibrations.

That's a different can of worms than the industries you see in this region. Something like this would never be on the second story of a building (Centra Industries in Cambridge). I remember they had to dig down about 10 feet to pour a floating foundation for their waterjet cutter.

(06-03-2022, 02:08 PM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 01:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It is always cheaper to sprawl because most of the costs of sprawl are borne not by the developer, but instead by the occupants and society at large. This is true for factories, housing, everything.

As for tight tolerance manufacturing, UW Nanotech centre has a nanometer scale silicon chip fabrication facility on some floor (not the ground floor) of the building. The main obstacle for the facility was not the location in the building or even the high number of people in the building, but simply the vehicle traffic on Ring Rd causing vibrations.

That is pretty interesting. I can't speak much about semiconductor manufacturing, but I imagine the machines at UW produce a low volume of chips, and the machines themselves wouldn't be the source of vibrations.

That's a different can of worms than the industries you see in this region. Something like this would never be on the second story of a building (Centra Industries in Cambridge). I remember they had to dig down about 10 feet to pour a floating foundation for their waterjet cutter.

Yes, absolutely true that the machinery is less likely to be a source of vibration. But the quantum nano building also had to dig down a huge foundation for their equipment. The building also has a massive cargo elevator, thousands of students, custodial staff working in the building.

I'm sure it's not as cheap as sprawling, but I'm certain it is possible to achieve this.

SmarterEveryDay did a tour of the Kodak factory in Rochester and it was quite interesting to see how the assembly line spans multiple floors there. Of course, it was originally built quite a while ago when multi-floor factories were more common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQKy1KJpSVc

These new crosswalk lines appeared out of nowhere recently, is this actually an approved way to do this? (in Cambridge)

(06-03-2022, 04:58 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]SmarterEveryDay did a tour of the Kodak factory in Rochester and it was quite interesting to see how the assembly line spans multiple floors there. Of course, it was originally built quite a while ago when multi-floor factories were more common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQKy1KJpSVc

The Fiat Lingotto Factory in Turin, Italy was a famous multi-level car factory with a test track on the roof.

(06-03-2022, 06:51 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]These new crosswalk lines appeared out of nowhere recently, is this actually an approved way to do this? (in Cambridge)

It sure looks, uhh, unofficial!

(06-03-2022, 10:10 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 06:51 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]These new crosswalk lines appeared out of nowhere recently, is this actually an approved way to do this? (in Cambridge)

It sure looks, uhh, unofficial!

It does appear to be painted with standard road painting equipment...it isn't a spray paint job.

But the location is bizarre...and the marking is non-standard (double lines aren't a part of our crosswalk markings AFAIK). I really have no idea what is going on there, but I don't think it's a crosswalk.

Is it in front of a school? Trillium PS in Kitchener had a similar crossing that ended in a neighbours driveway apron (for accessibility) before they build a new formalized crossing. I believe the originally moved the existing crossing to move it away from a nearby intersection to make line of sight better.

(06-03-2022, 06:51 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]These new crosswalk lines appeared out of nowhere recently, is this actually an approved way to do this? (in Cambridge)

The Dixon St crossing to the expressway footbridge looked this way when I used it as a kid. So it was a standard, once.

Edit: Back then it was right on the corner and crossed into a driveway. Just looked on Google Street view and it seems they've moved it away from the driveway and humped it now, but the lines are still similar narrow doubles.