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
The good thing is that none of the complaints are binding, and can be dismissed at the discretion of the council (subject to OMB appeals of course, but I doubt OMB would object to the height.)
Well I look forward to advocating for height. I live in the Mount Hope area and love looking out the back window and seeing part of the google building and 1 Victoria peaking over it. Reminds me I'm in the city, not the burbs.
(02-03-2017, 04:16 PM)C Plus Wrote: [ -> ]Well I look forward to advocating for height. I live in the Mount Hope area and love looking out the back window and seeing part of the google building and 1 Victoria peaking over it. Reminds me I'm in the city, not the burbs.

Ditto.

I live more in the midtown area, and I kind of like the fact that I can see the Sun Life building when sitting on our back patio or in our hot tub. Gives me the feeling of living in a growing, vibrant city.
Viewfromthe42, with respect, statements that include opinions like "even if such development makes sense and fits with the expected density for a site of that magnitude" are subjective. I happen to agree strongly that the transit hub should set the benchmark for density (and height) in the Region, but if someone disagrees with me, I don't think that's illegitimate. We have design charettes for the purpose of getting different viewpoints from neighbours and stakeholders. Their purpose is not to reinforce preconceived notions.

As a Mount Hope resident, I hope to see height at the transit hub, and at Sixo, and everywhere else where it's logical. If some of my neighbours happen to think one site or another should not be granted extra height for some reason, I wish that person would not be labelled "anti-development" or (especially) "NIMBY." None of us is completely laissez-faire when it comes to development, and all of us want to see certain restrictions at least sometimes.
This is also clearly not an example of NIMBYism. NIMBYism is a situation where the need and value is recognized, but the NIMBY doesn't want it in their neighbourhood because of perceived negative externalities. Halfway houses are the classic example. Arguing for a reduction in height, or lower FAR, or something like that is an argument over form, which is perfectly legitimate. Arguing that there isn't a need or no value is also perfectly legitimate. Keep in mind as well that NIMBYs may seem slightly hypocritical, but it's easy for people to self-righteously call someone else a NIMBY when their neighbourhood isn't the one being affected.

I actually think KW would be better served by more mid-rise development in the midtown area so that the density spreads over more of it rather than being concentrated in smaller nodes.
(02-04-2017, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think KW would be better served by more mid-rise development in the midtown area so that the density spreads over more of it rather than being concentrated in smaller nodes.

What's your idea of "mid-rise".

I am also wondering is not the Sixo close enough to "downtown"? Victoria and King, by the looks of it, will probably be the epicentre for Kitchener, for now, and the Sixo is only separated by railway tracks.

I, for one, am hoping that this is approved with minimal complaints.
I guess by midrise, I mean anything around 10 stories +/- 4. I guess that's stretching in to high rise. I'm not opposed to taller towers, but I'm not fretting over shorter ones either.

There are some pretty good arguments about how height limits can influence decisions about the development's form such as parking, or unit size, which I think is important to consider, but all l things being equal, I think having an even density built up along King in midtown at around 6+ stories would be ideal to me.
(02-03-2017, 03:03 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]at what is effectively the most density-friendly and density-deserving location in the entire region. 

Is it? I would think anywhere between Victoria and Cedar street is, this for lack of a better word just seems to be sprawling what is downtown and ignoring the older area of downtown which is becoming more low end.
(02-04-2017, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think KW would be better served by more mid-rise development in the midtown area so that the density spreads over more of it rather than being concentrated in smaller nodes.

The challenge is that since the city isn't actually doing the development, pretty much all it can do is set the zoning parameters to guide the development.  Individual developers then choose whether to buy land and/or build within those parameters.

So if we were to limit King Street to 14 stories (10 +/- 4, as you suggested), would we still get a SIXO?  Would we get a 1 Victoria and 100 Victoria?  Would the region find a developer for the transit hub at max 14 stories?  The city's current intensification strategy (which allows taller towers, though still limits FAR) does appear to be working.  Would a mid-rise intensification strategy result in more properties being developed at lower heights?  There are many questions, but we really don't have the answers. 

At a personal level, I like the current strategy which allows tall buildings (although I would like to ease the FAR limits and the parking minimums); I believe the heights will naturally taper off W of SIXO and Google.  The King/Victoria area is already fairly high (pharmacy, 1 Victoria) with more on the way (transit centre, 100 Victoria) so I think that the SIXO height will work well with that.
(02-04-2017, 11:58 AM)darts Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2017, 03:03 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]at what is effectively the most density-friendly and density-deserving location in the entire region. 

Is it? I would think anywhere between Victoria and Cedar street is, this for lack of a better word just seems to be sprawling what is downtown and ignoring the older area of downtown which is becoming more low end.

Which older area of downtown?
My feelings about King through Midtown are pretty well equivalent to jamincan's: I would find developments of six stories with commercial on the first floor to be ideal. But I won't be annoyed to see a few taller towers go up- the tallest tower in the Region is on this stretch of King, after all.
(02-04-2017, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]This is also clearly not an example of NIMBYism. NIMBYism is a situation where the need and value is recognized, but the NIMBY doesn't want it in their neighbourhood because of perceived negative externalities. Halfway houses are the classic example. Arguing for a reduction in height, or lower FAR, or something like that is an argument over form, which is perfectly legitimate. Arguing that there isn't a need or no value is also perfectly legitimate. Keep in mind as well that NIMBYs may seem slightly hypocritical, but it's easy for people to self-righteously call someone else a NIMBY when their neighbourhood isn't the one being affected.

I actually think KW would be better served by more mid-rise development in the midtown area so that the density spreads over more of it rather than being concentrated in smaller nodes.

Ironically, there's a halfway house on Louisa Street. But you'd never know just by looking at it.
You would not know the halfway house to look at it, but you can guess it based on some of the individuals coming and going from it.
Midtowner, Interestingly, I've had two unrelated friends that have lived in the same house next door. They never seemed to have an issue. Has that changed? (I still plan to move back to my old neighbourhood one day, and that's the exact block I want to be on!)
I've never known any serious issues- the ones I have experienced and heard of are things like loud arguments and the like. Nothing that can't and doesn't happen elsewhere.

I can see why you would want to be on that block- it's a beautiful stretch, great trees.
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