The Walter | 24m | 5 fl | Complete - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5) +--- Thread: The Walter | 24m | 5 fl | Complete (/showthread.php?tid=101) |
The Walter | 24m | 5 fl | Complete - rangersfan - 09-10-2014 100, 104, 108 Walter Street
Developer: Vanguard Developments Corporation Architect: ABA Architect Project: 31 multiple dwelling unit building that is five stories at street elevation and six stories at the rear of the site (1 level of structured parking) is proposed Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5fl | Proposed - Spokes - 09-16-2014 Walter Street proposal deferred until after election The development at 108 Walter Street in Kitchener stirred up a lot of discussion at last night's City of Kitchener council meeting. Amongst opposition from residents, councillors have decided to defer the decision until the November 17 council meeting. For Councillor Kelly Galloway, the timing of the deferral was not a coincidence. She seemed to think some members of council were fearful of upsetting residents so close to an election. Galloway was in favour of the development stating “these are the types of developments we need going forward.” Mayor Carl Zehr supported her stating that the density is appropriate. Zyg Janecki and Frank Etherington supported the deferral stating height was the issues. Janecki implied he would support the project if it was reduced by one floor. While the height of the project was an issue, the design got positive reviews from both Bill Ioannidis and Paul Singh. Both supported waiting until November to make a decision. Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 09-16-2014 So if one floor got chopped off this project, is it still a good one? Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 09-16-2014 I don't generally like that kind of building specific tinkering, but given the step-back of the design, I suppose it might mollify the neighbours. The project is next door to an ugly three storey building with a pitched roof. Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 09-18-2014 Council balks at plans to build big September 18, 2014 | Catherine Thompson | Waterloo Region Record | Link Quote:KITCHENER — Plans to encourage higher-density development along the planned LRT route are running into snags at Kitchener council. Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 09-18-2014 "But Coun. Kelly Galloway-Sealock suggested that politics may be at play, in the lead-up up to the Oct. 27 municipal vote. "This development is coming forward at election time, and no-one want to alienate the electorate." " Better to alienate the voters after they've voted.... Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 09-18-2014 I really wonder, when someone has an issue with a development like 100-108 Walter or 100 Victoria, whether that person can be mollified. The owner of the properties on Arthur Place, for instance, is there a setback at which he would be happy? Would five meters satisfy him, or six-point-five? It seems problematic to me for councillors to tweak specific projects after planning staff have recommended them (taking into account public comments). The Region and the municipalities have committed to encouraging intensification, and we are collectively investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a transit system to allow for that- and then we’re going to disallow midrise development within walking distance of that transit system because it is not (in some people’s opinion) in tune with a hundred-year-old neighbourhood? Re: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - mpd618 - 09-18-2014 MidTowner Wrote:I really wonder, when someone has an issue with a development like 100-108 Walter or 100 Victoria, whether that person can be mollified. The owner of the properties on Arthur Place, for instance, is there a setback at which he would be happy? Would five meters satisfy him, or six-point-five? I suppose it's in his financial interest to push as much as the city will let him. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 10-28-2014 This was deferred to be talked about to the Nov 17 meeting. I've got to think that they'll defer again to let the new council decide on it. Sad since that means the new council (even though it's 90% old) will say they need time to get new councillors up to speed on it. I'm guessing no decision until the new year. 100 Victoria is probably in the same boat RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 10-29-2014 (10-28-2014, 02:36 PM)Spokes Wrote: This was deferred to be talked about to the Nov 17 meeting. I've got to think that they'll defer again to let the new council decide on it. Sad since that means the new council (even though it's 90% old) will say they need time to get new councillors up to speed on it. I'm guessing no decision until the new year. Groan. 100 Victoria in particular, but also this project, is a no-brainer. This kind of intensification is exactly the reason we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on rapid transit, and the more projects like these that are developed in advance of 2017, the more successful Ion will be. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - clasher - 10-29-2014 Ugh, the people in this neighbourhood need to grow up or GTFO. Snobby NIMBYism is all this is... don't let more people move into my beautiful neighbourhood. Cities change, especially when you're only a block away from the main drag. They built the Iron Horse towers right beside a few blocks of big beautiful Victorian mansions and guess what, that area is a lot better for it. I can understand worries about traffic but the best solution to that is to cut the parking and let car-free people rent those units. But no one seems to be complaining about anything specific just that it looks too big-city. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - nms - 10-29-2014 (10-29-2014, 08:53 AM)clasher Wrote: Ugh, the people in this neighbourhood need to grow up or GTFO. Snobby NIMBYism is all this is... On the other hand, they were there first. Asking people to "GTFO" if they don't like it is not the right way to build community. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - clasher - 10-29-2014 I know, but thankfully I'm not in any sort of position to do anything about much of anything. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 10-30-2014 (10-29-2014, 03:57 PM)nms Wrote:(10-29-2014, 08:53 AM)clasher Wrote: Ugh, the people in this neighbourhood need to grow up or GTFO. Snobby NIMBYism is all this is... It's obviously a delicate balance in every case, accommodating new development while respecting the existing neighbourhood. In this case, though, we are talking about a mid-rise building in a neighbourhood that already has multi-unit residential, and is one block from King Street. Developments like these are how we fully leverage Ion. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - Viewfromthe42 - 10-30-2014 (10-30-2014, 08:27 AM)MidTowner Wrote:(10-29-2014, 03:57 PM)nms Wrote: On the other hand, they were there first. Asking people to "GTFO" if they don't like it is not the right way to build community. Balance is a tricky question. Is it balanced to go into a place like beechwood or laurelwood and expect to pop in a development the size of the barrel yards? Is it balanced for a bunch of bungalows, a retirement home, a funeral home, to set up right next to the busiest street in the region at the busiest point in the city, and expect that nothing larger/busier/different than them should be allowed? Context is important. If respecting the existing means that next to a two-storey building you can only have a 2 or 1 storey building, irrespective of context, you will quickly have a monoculture, descent into bungalows and 1 storey only. Not the real case example, but it is important to remember the context of these changes, developments, through the lens of a growing region. |