Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Station Park (née SIXO) | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Hard not to get really excited about this area.
So this is 2.4 hectares which the article references as being one of the largest development plots.  By comparison, does anyone remember how big City Center was?
(01-23-2017, 01:44 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]So this is 2.4 hectares which the article references as being one of the largest development plots.  By comparison, does anyone remember how big City Center was?

0.95 ha, so substantially smaller.  2.4 ha really is quite big for a downtown property.  

The Schneider's property is almost 8 ha but then it's not quite downtown.
I am also liking the artist's concept of the transit hub.
(01-23-2017, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2017, 01:44 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]So this is 2.4 hectares which the article references as being one of the largest development plots.  By comparison, does anyone remember how big City Center was?

0.95 ha, so substantially smaller.  2.4 ha really is quite big for a downtown property.  

The Schneider's property is almost 8 ha but then it's not quite downtown.

And for comparison the Victoria Commons development was 6.47 hectares.
I'm definitely filled with some reservations. My mind hears "urban village" and all I can think of is...right across the street. Google, where a great deal of excellent work went into their office, but it is indeed an office, and unless you work there, none of its awesomeness means bunk to you. I'm afraid that "urban village" means great things for those who live there, who, if online materials are to be trusted, will be GTA-owned bulk-bought units, but will be closed off and back turned towards the rest of the city. That, I can't properly abide by.
(01-24-2017, 09:59 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm definitely filled with some reservations. My mind hears "urban village" and all I can think of is...right across the street. Google, where a great deal of excellent work went into their office, but it is indeed an office, and unless you work there, none of its awesomeness means bunk to you. I'm afraid that "urban village" means great things for those who live there, who, if online materials are to be trusted, will be GTA-owned bulk-bought units, but will be closed off and back turned towards the rest of the city. That, I can't properly abide by.

Indeed, isn't that often a problem when there's one developer who is building everything in a development?
I disagree that the Breithaupt Block development only benefits those who work there. I live in the neighbourhood, and the uplift (I don’t mean economic- I have no way of knowing about that) is notable. New types of people are coming to the neighbourhood, either to visit or to live. I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s good to have the building being used, period, and having it done so attractively is a plus (maybe in a small way) to everyone who walks by. I do wonder what happened to the rumours of a Charcoal restaurant moving in there, though…

That having been said, your point about the “urban village” at risk of being inward-facing is a very valid one. We should push for a development that will create a more active King Street with space for amenities that can serve everyone, not just residents.
I am talking about benefitting in the outward-facing and usable way. I think it's a benefit to have Communitech, Thalmic, the school of Pharmacy, Netsuite downtown, but were all of downtown to be those kinds of places, it would actually be a terrible office park. Google might indeed be good at bringing new people into the neighbourhood, but a closed-off building like that is not one we want to be replicated en masse in an urban area, it's actually quite horrible when done repeatedly.
(01-23-2017, 11:10 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2017, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]0.95 ha, so substantially smaller.  2.4 ha really is quite big for a downtown property.  

The Schneider's property is almost 8 ha but then it's not quite downtown.

And for comparison the Victoria Commons development was 6.47 hectares.

Thanks for the reference points!
(01-24-2017, 09:59 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid that "urban village" means great things for those who live there, who, if online materials are to be trusted, will be GTA-owned bulk-bought units, but will be closed off and back turned towards the rest of the city.

Why do we care who owns the units in a condo building? And where they happen to live?  Are rentals inherently bad?

My point of view is that I want more people living in downtown core.  We need a mix of buildings that people can buy or rent units in.  If some are bought by people outside the city and rented to people who prefer rental units, that's perfectly fine with me.
(01-24-2017, 11:51 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]I am talking about benefitting in the outward-facing and usable way. I think it's a benefit to have Communitech, Thalmic, the school of Pharmacy, Netsuite downtown, but were all of downtown to be those kinds of places, it would actually be a terrible office park. Google might indeed be good at bringing new people into the neighbourhood, but a closed-off building like that is not one we want to be replicated en masse in an urban area, it's actually quite horrible when done repeatedly.

The earlier renderings show some (small amount of) park space outside, plus retail space (open to non-tenants) inside.  (Yes, there is the question of the King St wall but let's wait for a new render on that.)

Office space is inherently closed (except to employees).  Residential buildings are inherently closed (except to residents).  Retail and public buildings are the only major types not inherently closed.  Yet I don't think we should be turning away either residential or office space development.  Downtown cannot be all retail, that doesn't work, either.
(01-23-2017, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2017, 01:44 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]So this is 2.4 hectares which the article references as being one of the largest development plots.  By comparison, does anyone remember how big City Center was?

0.95 ha, so substantially smaller.  2.4 ha really is quite big for a downtown property.  

The Schneider's property is almost 8 ha but then it's not quite downtown.

Do you happen to know the size of the Barrelyards development in Waterloo? Would it be even comparable in area?
According to a news article The Barrel Yards is 5.1 hectares (12 acres).
(01-24-2017, 09:45 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2017, 09:59 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid that "urban village" means great things for those who live there, who, if online materials are to be trusted, will be GTA-owned bulk-bought units, but will be closed off and back turned towards the rest of the city.

Why do we care who owns the units in a condo building? And where they happen to live?  Are rentals inherently bad?
 


Ditto. In fact, to the contrary, I think some one willing to invest from hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles in RoW is a great vote of confidence in the city.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41