Waterloo Region Connected

Which is less than ideal, but also not the end of the world (contradictory statement?)

That proposal sounds good. Maybe retail storefront could run up Charles up-to the elevated parking lot, taking over that lower-level secondary lot behind St. Matthews. It might take a bit of engineering work to change the elevated parking lot gradient, in order to extend storefront all the way to the corner of Benton. Church-goers could use the underground or podium parking (designated spots?) instead.

Didn't the city do a render a yera or two ago of this property, redeveloped? Mightve been part of PARTS

(01-28-2019, 10:25 AM)kidgibnick Wrote: [ -> ]That proposal sounds good. Maybe retail storefront could run up Charles up-to the elevated parking lot, taking over that lower-level secondary lot behind St. Matthews. It might take a bit of engineering work to change the elevated parking lot gradient, in order to extend storefront all the way to the corner of Benton. Church-goers could use the underground or podium parking (designated spots?) instead.

I'm a little bit confused here, which parking lots are these? The higher-elevated parking lot at Charles/Benton is part of the church property. The lower-elevated parking lot at Charles/Queen (not behind St Matthew's) is a city property.

Are you proposing that the church subdivide their property and sell the parking lot to a developer who has assembled all the other properties? I think that makes the project more challenging yet.

My proposal did not include the upper (church's) lot; I'm not sure what kidgibnick thinks of it.

Ah, I overlooked that point about the lower-lot being city property...wishful thinking haha! Then yes, it would seem plausible contractually for the owners and from an engineering perspective to keep the upper-lot as-is with the Church, and only build up the city-owned lower-lot.

Could someone please remind me... Was there not a recent proposal for a development at the corner of Charles and Queen beside the Benton/Charles parking garage ? I thought we even saw renderings ? Maybe I am mistaken...

There was, and it was quite tall (though a fitting plot for that. The kind of location where I'd almost want to see them propose lower parking requirements by having a direct link to the Benton garage's top floor, so residents could pay for parking when they needed it, and add/subtract it as they go. Would do the same with the Regina/Willis development and adjacent parking garage in UpTown.

(01-29-2019, 12:37 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]There was, and it was quite tall (though a fitting plot for that. The kind of location where I'd almost want to see them propose lower parking requirements by having a direct link to the Benton garage's top floor, so residents could pay for parking when they needed it, and add/subtract it as they go. Would do the same with the Regina/Willis development and adjacent parking garage in UpTown.

Did we have renderings on this site somewhere ?  I cant find it...

I don't remember where they got posted. This thread likely.

I think just more concepts than an actual proposal. What COULD work there.

I think this is the project you are thinking of:

But is that actually a proposal?

(01-29-2019, 10:28 PM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is the project you are thinking of:

why cant i view it ?

I can't seem to view that link over mobile either. 

Try this :
https://www.google.com/search?q=thinkfor...8835908627

(01-29-2019, 10:40 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]But is that actually a proposal?

No, at least not yet.

(01-29-2019, 11:13 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-29-2019, 10:40 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]But is that actually a proposal?

No, at least not yet.

According to their website it is labeled as a proposal. 
http://www.thinkform.ca/185-kehl