Circa 1877 (née Brick Brewery) | 20 fl | Complete

[urbd]

Are those cars inside the Brick building? It looks like headlights. I think that kind of reuse would definitely irk a lot of people.

very good catch... and as usual, parking will be a big issue with this development

[Viewfromthe42]

Issues with this development will be:
-Doesn't use the heritage building well enough
-Too tall (between Bauer and the 144/155 developments, this loses its muster)
-Too much lot coverage (Will need incredibly good street fronting active uses, namely businesses, to make this better, lest they be forced to scale back the footprint)
-Too many cars (Site is right at an LRT stop, should be eligible for less parking. I'd buy a parking-free unit, if no parking costs were passed on to me)
-People will look into my backyards (144/155/Bauer already do, but they may push for no Caroline-facing units, or solariums instead of balconies)
-Doesn't fit with character (Character changes, we can't always try to freeze the character of an area to be 1930-style)
-Shadow impacts (Shadows will primarily fall on the funeral home and narrow side of the retirement residence, shouldn't be the worst)
-And more, until something sticks...

[Spokes]

Wow.  Love it.

But I mean.  Catalina townhomes.  Think of the children!!!

OMG Spokes hahhahahaha 



But seriously the building is gorgeous.

Glad someone got the reference!

[MidTowner]

Issues with this development will be:
-Doesn't use the heritage building well enough
-Too tall (between Bauer and the 144/155 developments, this loses its muster)
-Too much lot coverage (Will need incredibly good street fronting active uses, namely businesses, to make this better, lest they be forced to scale back the footprint)
-Too many cars (Site is right at an LRT stop, should be eligible for less parking. I'd buy a parking-free unit, if no parking costs were passed on to me)
-People will look into my backyards (144/155/Bauer already do, but they may push for no Caroline-facing units, or solariums instead of balconies)
-Doesn't fit with character (Character changes, we can't always try to freeze the character of an area to be 1930-style)
-Shadow impacts (Shadows will primarily fall on the funeral home and narrow side of the retirement residence, shouldn't be the worst)
-And more, until something sticks...

Heh. Yeah, until something sticks.

I think I can empathize with the mindset of some of the people living nearby who might oppose the development on one or more of those grounds. I can understand why, having lived in a single-family dwelling for potentially many years, one might not want a wall of balconies going up within view of the backyard. There are ways to mitigate concerns like that.

The problem is that some of those in opposition will be very disingenuous, and throw every issue they can think of at the wall, hoping they'll stick, whether each is truly an issue for them or not. Then how are staff and the developer supposed to realistically adjust the development to make it fit better?

[danbrotherston]

....
The problem is that some of those in opposition will be very disingenuous, and throw every issue they can think of at the wall, hoping they'll stick, whether each is truly an issue for them or not. ....

This and so much this. I cannot stand disingenuous complaints.

[Markster]

The problem is that some of those in opposition will be very disingenuous, and throw every issue they can think of at the wall, hoping they'll stick, whether each is truly an issue for them or not. Then how are staff and the developer supposed to realistically adjust the development to make it fit better?

Yeah, when the goal is to stop the development from happening at all, this tactic basically throws out any fine-grained adjustments for things that truly matter.

Ultimately, what happens is that the development will proceed anyway, after several revisions to things that don't actually matter, but were easier to "fix", in the name of looking like they are "addressing issues".  Meanwhile, the revisions may have the effect of worsening the subject of other complaints.

A common "sticky" complaint is parking, because parking requirements are high, and written in plain language in the zoning bylaw.

1. The development asks for relief on parking requirements.
   
2. Neighbours complain there will be nuisance parking in their neighbourhood, and too much traffic.  
   
3. Staff find it easy to agree with the complaint, and don't reduce parking requirements.
   
4. The building has to incorporate more parking in redesign.  
   
5. This increases the number of cars the development supports, increasing traffic. The redesign means more blank walls hiding a larger parking garage.  Units cost more to build/rent/own.
   
6. The development is approved anyway.
   

Meanwhile, the neighbourhood is still angry because what they really cared about was the parklet that has been replaced with an uninviting concrete alley. But all attention was on parking, because that stuck. The outcome is worse for all.

[panamaniac]

Parklet?

[Markster]

I'm describing a hypothetical scenario, so specifics may not correlate to the Brick redevelopment.

Parklet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parklet
Though, I think I actually meant Parkette, which doesn't have a wikipedia page, but is basically just a "small park". Or really really, I think I mean something between them.

[Viewfromthe42]

It sounded a lot like you were describing 144/155, where we focused on so many cars, and wound up with a bad Iron Horse Trail alignment on a host of counts.

I'm still waiting for my no-parking condo unit to buy.

[ac3r]

If what is shown in the render is what ends up getting built, this will be one of the most beautiful buildings in the region. Stunning mix of historical and contemporary architecture.

[dubya]

If what is shown in the render is what ends up getting built, this will be one of the most beautiful buildings in the region. Stunning mix of historical and contemporary architecture.

The local standard is pretty low so that isn't saying much... The wind effect off this structure will be something to behold... especially in that alley they are creating. 

Push the tower inside of the podium by several feet on all sides to avoid that. Then while at it eliminate the entire portion of the tower to the left of the curtain wall section, wrap that curtain wall around that corner, add 10 stories, move parking entrance off Caroline and into the alley, use that space to animate Caroline by putting town-homes/commercial along there, reduce parking space in the process, sell parking as a $20,000 extra as 100 Victoria is doing and assure multiple commercial units (not one megalithic one) are created along King. 

Then, this would be not only the "most beautiful" in the Region but be contender for a great modern high-rise anywhere.

[ijmorlan]

… add 10 stories …

You just killed the proposal!

[dubya]

… add 10 stories …

You just killed the proposal!

I was describing how to turn this into a well executed high-rise project in the way any world class city would have it built. Given the proposal calls for a given density and the builder has a profitability target, you can't cut away half the building without making it up somewhere. This is a giant Lego block and calling it good design because it has spandrel in droves doesn't sit well with me. I was not allowing the way Waterloo's small minded, protective bumpkins and their antiquated city council would like to build it influence my description.

[ijmorlan]

You just killed the proposal!

I was describing how to turn this into a well executed high-rise project in the way any world class city would have it built. Given the proposal calls for a given density and the builder has a profitability target, you can't cut away half the building without making it up somewhere. This is a giant Lego block and calling it good design because it has spandrel in droves doesn't sit well with me. I was not allowing the way Waterloo's small minded, protective bumpkins and their antiquated city council would like to build it influence my description.

Oh yes, you’re right, no argument here. I just saw “more floors” and saw headlines in the Record right away. I agree that often a taller thinner tower is actually better for the neighbourhood than a lower wider one … if only it would be allowed to be built. It’s weird what is prohibited, allowed, and mandated under modern zoning regimes.

[MidTowner]

ijmorlan, your post made me laugh out loud when I read it!

dubya, I think your improvements (particularly charging for parking...) are great and would make for a better development. If you can spare the time, go and speak to them when this is reviewed. I would recommend against calling anyone "bumpkins"...