Strata | 16 & 22 fl | Proposed

[Anthomas]

Interesting... I guess I'm alone on this one! I thought the tower balconies being angled every which way was a little odd but maybe it'll grow on me. Looks like there's an informal public meeting on the 28th. Even if I think the old one looked more unique, I'll just be happy if this spot gets developed at all. We need more towers Uptown!

[Spokes]

Definitely an improvement

[westwardloo]

I can get behind this proposal. It is has a very 60's vibe to it with the angled balconies. I was not a huge fan of the previous version. The podium will make or break this tower though. Hopefully the paneling they use on the Bridgeport side of the podium looks good and matched the Regina curtain wall somehow. Also would like to see them do some sort of mural or art installation along the big blank white section of the podium. Hard to gage what the king side of the podium will look like.

[Bjays93]

Big improvement over the original proposal. Rare a second version gets better not worse. I'm on board with this.

[cherrypark]

Continued lack of engagement along Bridgeport is a little lame, but co-signed on thinking this will be better and probably more likely to be executed closer to design than that other podium was.

[Kodra24]

Looks fantastic!

[Rainrider22]

In the news

https://www.thereìcord.com/news/waterloo...oject.html

Waterloo again shows its true colours with respect to affordable housing....

"No three-bedroom condos are planned. Higgins figures they would cost too much. There is no plan for subsidized units. “It’s still a very high-end product,” he said. "

Affordable housing is an issue for Kitchener and Cambridge, so it seems.

[Acitta]

In the news

https://www.thereìcord.com/news/waterloo...oject.html

Waterloo again shows its true colours with respect to affordable housing....

"No three-bedroom condos are planned. Higgins figures they would cost too much. There is no plan for subsidized units. “It’s still a very high-end product,” he said. "

Affordable housing is an issue for Kitchener and Cambridge, so it seems.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...oject.html

[panamaniac]

In the news

https://www.thereìcord.com/news/waterloo...oject.html

Waterloo again shows its true colours with respect to affordable housing....

"No three-bedroom condos are planned. Higgins figures they would cost too much. There is no plan for subsidized units. “It’s still a very high-end product,” he said. "

Affordable housing is an issue for Kitchener and Cambridge, so it seems.

Did the earlier proposal include an affordable component?

[Rainrider22]

Likely not...

[nms]

Until we end up with a general zoning variance than mandates affordable housing components in all new residential developments, and not just a paltry sum into a "to be built elsewhere" pot, it will be very difficult for cities to see new affordable housing units in new construction.

[bravado]

Until we end up with a general zoning variance than mandates affordable housing components in all new residential developments, and not just a paltry sum into a "to be built elsewhere" pot, it will be very difficult for cities to see new affordable housing units in new construction.

Isn't the current plan "make enough units so that the market becomes cheaper"? Losing 1 tower from this plan is not good in that regards. I still think that forcing developers to add "affordable units" will only increase the costs for everyone else, making "non-affordable units" even further out of reach.

[tomh009]

Until we end up with a general zoning variance than mandates affordable housing components in all new residential developments, and not just a paltry sum into a "to be built elsewhere" pot, it will be very difficult for cities to see new affordable housing units in new construction.

Elsewhere can make sense at times as high-end condos have expensive land and expensive construction costs. Far too often that contribution is pitifully small, though, maybe enough to build one unit or something.

And then there is Waterloo, where they won't even bother with a contribution.

[tomh009]

Until we end up with a general zoning variance than mandates affordable housing components in all new residential developments, and not just a paltry sum into a "to be built elsewhere" pot, it will be very difficult for cities to see new affordable housing units in new construction.

Isn't the current plan "make enough units so that the market becomes cheaper"? Losing 1 tower from this plan is not good in that regards. I still think that forcing developers to add "affordable units" will only increase the costs for everyone else, making "non-affordable units" even further out of reach.

So, give the developers the option of either making 3% of the units affordable (eight in this case) or paying a 3% affordable housing surcharge to the city/region ($5M or so in this case). It needs to be substantial enough that we can start making some headway with this issue.

And, no, paying an extra 3% on a high-end condo is not going to seriously impact that condo's affordability.

[taylortbb]

And, no, paying an extra 3% on a high-end condo is not going to seriously impact that condo's affordability.

I don't think there's anything high end about most of these units. They're marketed as high end, but only a few penthouse units are actually high end.

For a lot of first time buyers, a condo is the new starter home. They're not the group we should be pushing additional costs on. In current market dynamics, any increase in costs to developers will just be passed on to buyers. Leaving those who already have wealth (existing homeowners) unaffected by the costs of affordable housing will worsen inequality.

It should be done through taxation, where we can apply it fairly based on income. Or revise property taxes to be a graduated system.