Post your pictures of Waterloo Region!

[DHLawrence]

And that office block in the south end of the mall looks taller than three stories.

[clasher]

The 3 storey limit is silly considering that tall building on Erb & Albert and the Bauer/ 144 park just south of uptown. The parkade is also taller than 3 storeys. It really doesn't make any sense to me.

[Markster]

Okay, I've had it.

Can we please get a citation for the oft-repeated "Only 3 storeys allowed in Uptown?
Because looking at the zoning map, it looks like most of it is C8-25 to me, which allows 75m in height.
   

Okay, let's break out the Official Plan. (page 47)

(4)      It is a policy of this Plan to encourage, reinforce and improve the
architectural integrity of buildings within the Uptown Waterloo Urban
Growth Centre, particularly those fronting onto King Street through such
means as urban design guidelines and the Zoning By-Law. In order to
maintain and enhance the character of King Street as the City’s
mainstreet, for buildings that immediately abut King Street within the
Uptown Urban Growth Centre, the Zoning By-Law will contain provisions that require:
(a)  a minimum height of 6 metres, being 2 full storeys; and,
(b)  a maximum height of 16 metres for buildings that immediately abut
King Street between William Street and Young Street.
(i) For properties within the Main Street height limit on Schedule
‘B1’ – Height and Density, minor increases in height beyond
16 metres may be considered by way of an Amendment to the
Zoning By-Law, subject to the applicant demonstrating to the
City’s satisfaction that the four storey built form character and
massing of the streetscape is maintained through an appropriate
upper storey façade setback and other massing and supporting
design strategies. Applications for Zoning By-Law Amendments
and Site Plan approval that seek to exceed 16 metres shall be
accompanied by an urban design study, as identified through the
pre-consultation meeting process and through the Site Plan
review and approval process, justifying how the proposed height
addresses the City’s primary urban design objectives, design
guidelines and standards to the satisfaction of the City.

If you want to build more than 4 storeys (16m), specifically fronting on King St, you have to go through design review to maintain the character of the neighbourhood.

You want to know what kinds of developments are held to that standard?
Literally every condo development in downtown Toronto.

You want to know what happens when you allow development without this kind of design review?
The King St N student canyon.

You want to know what a development can look like that, through setbacks and massing, can preserve the 4-storey character of a main street, while still providing high density?

Five St. Joseph
   

In this case, the half of the block fronting Yonge is retained, while the half of the block fronting St. Nicholas has a condo tower.  While I don't see Waterloo approving a 48-storey tower in Uptown, I see no reason to think that a similar development that is within the 75m height in the zoning map could not eventually be approved, subject to design review that maintains the character of King St.

The development process is always a give-and-take.  This is why Zoning exists. So that if you want to push the envelope, that there are checks, balances, and leverage to make sure that you do it well.

Can we please stop bitching and moaning about how development in Uptown is impossible, and accept that development fronting King St is simply held to a higher standard?

[Viewfromthe42]

We will probably be less frustrated with it when it is seen as to have been handled, and a development approved and moved on. As it is, the proximity between King and its adjacent streets is such that these types of developments have much less depth from frontage to work with. Until something actually gets built, the impression and its current results remain.

[BuildingScout]

Okay, I've had it.

Can we please get a citation for the oft-repeated "Only 3 storeys allowed in Uptown?

I see you answered your own question by finding the restriction. That was the point to say "gee I guess they are right, there is such a restriction". Instead you focused on the possibility that rules can be overridden which we already know is the case for anywhere in the city.

(i) For properties within the Main Street height limit on Schedule

‘B1’ – Height and Density, minor increases in height beyond
16 metres may be considered by way of an Amendment to the
Zoning By-Law, subject to the applicant demonstrating to the
City’s satisfaction that the four storey built form character and
massing of the streetscape is maintained through an appropriate
upper storey façade setback and other massing and supporting
design strategies.

So how realistic is that prescription? well not long ago the HSBC developer asked for four stories and his request was denied.

You want to know what happens when you allow development without this kind of design review?

The King St N student canyon.

Right, because mankind hasn't yet invented anything between 3 stories and 25 stories. The people who know about this have computed what is the ideal height for the width of a street in terms of aesthetics and human dimensions. King St. clocks around five to six stories.

You want to know what a development can look like that, through setbacks and massing, can preserve the 4-storey character of a main street, while still providing high density?

First, it's three story not four. Second you are doing circular reasoning here, we want to preserve three story because??  I can see preserving a nice unified street front such as downtown Stratford, but what three-story character are we preserving in Uptown Waterloo. The character of that part of the street is contained in exactly three old buildings: Waterloo Hotel, Time Square, Huether Hotel. Anything else is unremarkable.

In this case, the half of the block fronting Yonge is retained, while the half of the block fronting St. Nicholas has a condo tower.  While I don't see Waterloo approving a 48-storey tower in Uptown, I see no reason to think that a similar development that is within the 75m height in the zoning map could not eventually be approved, subject to design review that maintains the character of King St.

Well you are wrong on this count too as I pointed out already.

The development process is always a give-and-take.  This is why Zoning exists. So that if you want to push the envelope, that there are checks, balances, and leverage to make sure that you do it well.

Building a five story high building in downtown is not pushing the envelope in any sense of the word. The parkade, the Waterloo Hotel, the Huether Hotel are almost already there and they don't stand out in any way.

Can we please stop bitching and moaning about how development in Uptown is impossible, and accept that development fronting King St is simply held to a higher standard?

I won't dignify with a response the bitching and moaning part. As to the second, you got it exactly backwards King St. development is held to a lower standard. For one, demanding a maximum three storey when the ideal is four to six means that structures built will be inferior by default. For another, and this is what brought the whole discussion up, City council was happy to authorize the demolition of nice two and three storey brick buildings and replace them with a parking lot, as shown in the picture posted. So where is this "higher standard" you talk about?

[Markster]

I would be happy to continue debate, though I would request that a moderator first split the relevant posts into a new thread in perhaps the Urban Design forum so that we can focus discussion properly on Uptown Design Guidelines. I've helped derail the photography thread enough as it is.

[Lens]

Back to photos:

Waterloo by Matt M S, on Flickr

Town Square Winter by Matt M S, on Flickr

Winter Woes by Matt M S, on Flickr

Grand River Hospital - Kaufman Building by Matt M S, on Flickr

GO by Matt M S, on Flickr

Seagram Distillery by Matt M S, on Flickr

Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics by Matt M S, on Flickr

Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery by Matt M S, on Flickr

[Lens]

Kitchener Spring Skyline by Matt M S, on Flickr

Belmont Village by Matt M S, on Flickr

Backalley Bear by Matt M S, on Flickr

Airboss by Matt M S, on Flickr

72 Victoria by Matt M S, on Flickr

City Hall in Winter by Matt M S, on Flickr

[Lens]

City Hall in Spring by Matt M S, on Flickr

Loading Dock by Matt M S, on Flickr

Electrohome Plant 4 by Matt M S, on Flickr

King West by Matt M S, on Flickr

City Center Phase 1 by Matt M S, on Flickr

Cinema by Matt M S, on Flickr
The new marquee looks awesome

41 King West by Matt M S, on Flickr
41 King W refreshed

Out of Time by Matt M S, on Flickr

Sunset City by Matt M S, on Flickr

Refraction by Matt M S, on Flickr

[rangersfan]

April 29, 2015 - View from Research and Technology Park. When travelling this stretch on the iXpress it is really starting to look dense.

[Lens]

Dense, but not particularly pretty.

Main Street by Matt M S, on Flickr

Towers by Matt M S, on Flickr

University of Waterloo School of Architecture by Matt M S, on Flickr

Arch and Steeple by Matt M S, on Flickr

Golden Hour at The Tannery by Matt M S, on Flickr

Hillside Skyline by Matt M S, on Flickr

Crystal by Matt M S, on Flickr

72 Victoria Street by Matt M S, on Flickr

Young Street by Matt M S, on Flickr

[DHLawrence]

Dense, but not particularly pretty.

A little scrubbing will make a world of difference. Looks good through your camera at any rate!

[Spokes]

Downtown Galt has a TON of potential, but needs time and money invested in it.

[DHLawrence]

There already has been a lot of time and money invested. Main Street used to look a lot deader.

[Spokes]

That there has. I'm excited to see that corner building get fixed up by Perimeter Development