+- 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: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 50 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=38)
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
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
RE: SIXO Midtown | 25? + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 12:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: What MidTowner says is absolutely correct. How many bankrupt homeowners in the US would have preferred to have been better off renting.
On the other hand, the whole "you're paying someone else's mortgage" argument should not carry any weight. Who cares?! Why do you care what someone else is doing. Why do you care that your housing choices are enriching someone else? Is the name of the game (of life) to prevent others from succeeding? Does that help you in any way? This makes no sense to me. If you prefer to rent, if that's the best option for you financially, for your priorities, for your risk tolerance, then what do you care what anyone else does. If buying is an option for you, and fits your goals, plans, and abilities, then do that. Suggesting that someone should do one or the other, because otherwise someone else owns property should not be convincing. People seem far too concerned with what others are doing or living.
Exactly...who cares who owns and who rents...Still people living in the core, and that is the ultimate goal !!!
RE: SIXO Midtown | 25? + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 01-26-2017
I couldn't agree more with that last sentiment!
RE: SIXO Midtown | 25? + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - rangersfan - 01-26-2017
interestingly I can no longer see the renders on the architects website http://humphreys.com/projects-by-state/#canada-2.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 25? + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - jordan2423 - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 09:08 PM)rangersfan Wrote: interestingly I can no longer see the renders on the architects website http://humphreys.com/projects-by-state/#canada-2.
lol. If it ends up being the same renderings we saw earlier, I will be kind of disappointed. And this whole unveiling in March wouldn't mean as much..
RE: SIXO Midtown | 25? + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - jordan2423 - 02-01-2017
"As it stands, Zehr said 28 storeys is the highest tower currently being proposed, but it will likely be scaled back."
http://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/7094804-building-up-midtown/
Guess we won't be breaking 30...
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - rangersfan - 02-01-2017
Like most of us here I have been waiting for a project to break 30 stories. I hope the 28 floor tower isn`t scaled back.
That article states that there will be 4 residential towers, the previous renders showed 3, this offers some hope that the new renders will bring something new.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - jordan2423 - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 06:27 PM)rangersfan Wrote: Like most of us here I have been waiting for a project to break 30 stories. I hope the 28 floor tower isn`t scaled back.
That article states that there will be 4 residential towers, the previous renders showed 3, this offers some hope that the new renders will bring something new.
True. Also why build 4 towers when you can build 3 larger towers?
Don't understand why.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - Viewfromthe42 - 02-01-2017
Four towers means you can phase it more easily, get financing and break ground more quickly. Probably also lowers the tallest towers somewhat, which might help with approvals.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - jordan2423 - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 06:32 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Four towers means you can phase it more easily, get financing and break ground more quickly. Probably also lowers the tallest towers somewhat, which might help with approvals.
But why are taller towers looked down upon? Especially downtown?
I thought the whole purpose was to build up.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 02-01-2017
And four smaller towers will not necessarily be any lower FAR than three taller ones.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 02-01-2017
This isn't downtown for planning (or other) purposes. I think this site doesn't have a lot of potential for neighbour push-back, but 28 stories would obviously be many times the height of any of the neighbouring properties. So there's always the possibility that a taller tower will face more headwinds than shorter ones.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - Pheidippides - 02-01-2017
The heritage impact assessment talks about maintaining the sightlines from the original Kaufman house to the Kaufman factory:
http://kitchener.ca/en/Calendar/Download.ashx?Id=2c5e74ab-da28-4dce-92d4-33cd44f30c86
That may give some clue to the final layout of the development.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - Viewfromthe42 - 02-02-2017
People in the Breithaupt neighbourhood complained to me at a consultation session about the Google building and 1Vic (all lived Northeast of Waterloo and Breithaupt). It ruined their sightlines, were ugly and always there, etc. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone advocating for height, especially when adjacent to them (see the mothballed tower by the school at King and Central in Waterloo, where council is going to make it impossible to build anything there, or the proposals for the Brick site and pushback from Catalina residents). Thankfully, the neighbours shouldn't be as big a factor in this location, but expect the Breithaupt residents to come out in force.
Why does 4 towers make it less problematic than 3? If you needed 112 floors, you could either have three towers of 37 floors, or four towers of 28 floors, almost a ten storey reduction. To opponents, this feels like progress.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 02-02-2017
And with four towers there is less space at ground level for retail or green space, which some of us do like in a new development.
Really, if you are looking from the ground level (maybe from about 500m away), whether a tower is 90m or 110m tall isn't going to look a whole lot different.
RE: SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 10:46 AM)tomh009 Wrote: And with four towers there is less space at ground level for retail or green space, which some of us do like in a new development.
Really, if you are looking from the ground level (maybe from about 500m away), whether a tower is 90m or 110m tall isn't going to look a whole lot different.
Exactly..... Every other city manages with taller buildings, I am sure can too...