Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Inclusive on Courtland | 38, 34, 30 & 29 fl | Proposed
(08-31-2017, 07:55 AM)panamaniac Wrote: A very mild set of neighbourhood concerns, it would seem, if the report is accurate.

This article posted by the record did not capture the concerns and issues raised by those invited to the meeting. The primary issues raised from the neighbourhood community members were overall design and renderings, height of the towers, noise, traffic impact, privacy, access, change in sun/shade/wind etc. This article was clearly written in conjunction with the city and Virerra and did NOT summarize in any way what was really discussed at this meeting.
Reply


(09-01-2017, 09:49 PM)mcparkhill Wrote:
(06-18-2017, 07:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: With that photo, you can tell that there is plenty of room for that project. Much wider than I thought.  Will be good use of that land.

The photo taken only makes the space look large because whoever owns the land now spent a lot of time manicuring the landscape and removing all the natural vegetation that was there, when you look at the distance between the train track, ION track and Courtland, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

So ... do you think no one should be allowed to build there at all?  Or if it should be allowed, what should they be able to build?
Reply
(09-01-2017, 09:34 PM)mcparkhill Wrote:
(06-02-2017, 02:50 AM)rangersfan Wrote: Very some exciting proposals have come out in the past few weeks Charlie West, Sixo, the proposed tower on Regina and Virerra Village.

Would love to see a 35 story tower in the region.

There are no buildings 35 story towers anywhere in Kitchener, nor does it make sense to make this location the first. There is not enough space and it is right in the middle of two train tracks. Someones's lost their mind with this design and proposal.

There is a time and place for these types of buildings to go in. That is, buildings that are 25, 30, 35 story or more. It's a good spot because it's on the LRT. I think every city at some point has made the decision to allow taller condo's, apartments, etc. We can't stay at "19-floor maximum" forever, as it seems to be the case.

As for location, I think it's fine. Close to the Expressway, and relatively close enough to Homer Watson to be close to the 401.

Kitchener isn't a baby town anymore. Time is now, especially with the LRT, to start building up rather than out.

I think you're going to see more of this at other LRT stops to, in particular, the King/Ottawa Street stop, and the other one that is close to Cameron Heights, although arguably, both are close enough to DTKitchener to be considered DT.

Let it happen, and it will be the new norm.

And I really do hope they max it out at the 38 stories they were talking about.
Reply
(09-01-2017, 09:49 PM)mcparkhill Wrote:
(06-18-2017, 07:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: With that photo, you can tell that there is plenty of room for that project. Much wider than I thought.  Will be good use of that land.

BTW: Who owns that land? The railway? Region or city? Or some private company?

The photo taken only makes the space look large because whoever owns the land now spent a lot of time manicuring the landscape and removing all the natural vegetation that was there, when you look at the distance between the train track, ION track and Courtland, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

My house only looks like a good place to live because previous owners of the land have cleared the forest, smoothed the ground, built roads, connected to the sewer, water, electricity, and gas supplies, constructed a building, installed a furnace… without any of those things, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

Anyway, if you’re right, they won’t be able to fill the towers at the intended sale/rental price and they will (eventually) go bankrupt.
Reply
(09-01-2017, 11:44 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(09-01-2017, 09:34 PM)mcparkhill Wrote: There are no buildings 35 story towers anywhere in Kitchener, nor does it make sense to make this location the first. There is not enough space and it is right in the middle of two train tracks. Someones's lost their mind with this design and proposal.

There is a time and place for these types of buildings to go in.  That is, buildings that are 25, 30, 35 story or more. It's a good spot because it's on the LRT.  I think every city at some point has made the decision to allow taller condo's, apartments, etc.  We can't stay at "19-floor maximum" forever, as it seems to be the case.

As for location, I think it's fine. Close to the Expressway, and relatively close enough to Homer Watson to be close to the 401.

Kitchener isn't a baby town anymore. Time is now, especially with the LRT, to start building up rather than out.

I think you're going to see more of this at other LRT stops to, in particular, the King/Ottawa Street stop, and the other one that is close to Cameron Heights, although arguably, both are close enough to DTKitchener to be considered DT.

Let it happen, and it will be the new norm.

And I really do hope they max it out at the 38 stories they were talking about.

It really is an ideal location. The nearest neighbours are across Courtland; it’s at an LRT stop; and it’s right on a major road that leads to an expressway interchange just a few blocks away (which also provides a route to the 401). So the only traffic impact worth discussing will be a slight increase on major roads that are intended for heavy traffic anyway. The idea that there is not enough space between the tracks is just silly and in any case is the business of the people who might consider moving there, not of the neighbours. That something like that has been mentioned makes me question how serious the other objections really are.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 09:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-01-2017, 09:49 PM)mcparkhill Wrote: The photo taken only makes the space look large because whoever owns the land now spent a lot of time manicuring the landscape and removing all the natural vegetation that was there, when you look at the distance between the train track, ION track and Courtland, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

My house only looks like a good place to live because previous owners of the land have cleared the forest, smoothed the ground, built roads, connected to the sewer, water, electricity, and gas supplies, constructed a building, installed a furnace… without any of those things, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

Anyway, if you’re right, they won’t be able to fill the towers at the intended sale/rental price and they will (eventually) go bankrupt.

I am curious as to what statistical, and or quantifiable data you are able to make this determination.  Development companies  do not typically adhoc spend millions of dollars oh a major project based on a whim or hope.
Reply
I can't wait for this project to be built, I think it will be fantastic to watch/follow and add walkable amenities for residents once it is done.
Reply


(09-02-2017, 09:42 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 09:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: My house only looks like a good place to live because previous owners of the land have cleared the forest, smoothed the ground, built roads, connected to the sewer, water, electricity, and gas supplies, constructed a building, installed a furnace… without any of those things, you can see that clearly it is not an ideal spot for anyone to live.

Anyway, if you’re right, they won’t be able to fill the towers at the intended sale/rental price and they will (eventually) go bankrupt.

I am curious as to what statistical, and or quantifiable data you are able to make this determination.  Development companies  do not typically adhoc spend millions of dollars oh a major project based on a whim or hope.

I believe that's exactly ijmorlan's point.  The development company believes it can successfully develop the property.  mcparkhill's claims to the contrary aren't supported by anything more than his own opinion, but even if he was right, it's the development company who's taking the risk, so why does it matter.
Reply
(08-31-2017, 01:54 PM)Markster Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 01:45 PM)urbd Wrote: It will be funny, ironic, and sad that the tallest buildings in the Region (by A LOT) will be in such a suburban location. I recently heard that even the multimodal hub won't be over 10-12 storeys in height!

That is not strictly correct.
The RFQ for the Hub requested a team capable of building a project ranging from 6 storeys on the low end, to over 20 storeys on the high end.  Height to be determined based on market conditions.

This is the key point. I heard from someone in the development industry (and involved in the bidding process) that the latest market analysis supports a 10-12 storey building at most. This is due to everything that is coming in the pipeline: SIXO, Charlie West, 345 King, 100 Vic, and a number of other Downtown projects that haven't been announced.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 10:56 AM)urbd Wrote:
(08-31-2017, 01:54 PM)Markster Wrote: That is not strictly correct.
The RFQ for the Hub requested a team capable of building a project ranging from 6 storeys on the low end, to over 20 storeys on the high end.  Height to be determined based on market conditions.

This is the key point. I heard from someone in the development industry (and involved in the bidding process) that the latest market analysis supports a 10-12 storey building at most. This is due to everything that is coming in the pipeline: SIXO, Charlie West, 345 King, 100 Vic, and a number of other Downtown projects that haven't been announced.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the scale/height of the bolded projects will also be subject to market conditions, including whatever develops at the Hub.  Time will tell, but even with a lengthy staging period, I'm sceptical that SIXO's towers, for example, will be of the height originally suggested.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 10:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 09:42 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I am curious as to what statistical, and or quantifiable data you are able to make this determination.  Development companies  do not typically adhoc spend millions of dollars oh a major project based on a whim or hope.

I believe that's exactly ijmorlan's point.  The development company believes it can successfully develop the property.  mcparkhill's claims to the contrary aren't supported by anything more than his own opinion, but even if he was right, it's the development company who's taking the risk, so why does it matter.

Thanks, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I think that when people have only weak objections to something, they tend to try to come up with all sorts of other objections to try to strengthen the case, and some of those end up being completely off point or irrelevant. In this case, traffic, privacy, or view are considerations that could give rise to legitimate complaints; but with this specific development they are actually quite weak, and I think on some level the existing residents understand that these are actually weak objections. So they add in other totally irrelevant stuff like whether the complainant would want to live there.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 10:09 AM)rangersfan Wrote: I can't wait for this project to be built, I think it will be fantastic to watch/follow and add walkable amenities for residents once it is done.

Looking at the map, there are some interesting re-development opportunities. In particular, the 4-5 houses on Parkhill Ct. that back on Courtland could be replaced by commercial properties facing on Courtland. Put up medium-rise residential with commercial on the ground floor, all facing Courtland, and you could have something very convenient and compatible with the Virerra towers.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 11:11 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 10:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I believe that's exactly ijmorlan's point.  The development company believes it can successfully develop the property.  mcparkhill's claims to the contrary aren't supported by anything more than his own opinion, but even if he was right, it's the development company who's taking the risk, so why does it matter.

Thanks, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I think that when people have only weak objections to something, they tend to try to come up with all sorts of other objections to try to strengthen the case, and some of those end up being completely off point or irrelevant. In this case, traffic, privacy, or view are considerations that could give rise to legitimate complaints; but with this specific development they are actually quite weak, and I think on some level the existing residents understand that these are actually weak objections. So they add in other totally irrelevant stuff like whether the complainant would want to live there.
Sorry Ijmorlan, my comment was meant to be directed at mcparkhil, not you....
Reply


(09-02-2017, 11:43 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 11:11 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Thanks, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I think that when people have only weak objections to something, they tend to try to come up with all sorts of other objections to try to strengthen the case, and some of those end up being completely off point or irrelevant. In this case, traffic, privacy, or view are considerations that could give rise to legitimate complaints; but with this specific development they are actually quite weak, and I think on some level the existing residents understand that these are actually weak objections. So they add in other totally irrelevant stuff like whether the complainant would want to live there.
Sorry Ijmorlan, my comment was meant to be directed at mcparkhil, not you....

No problem! I wasn’t sure what you were getting at, but now I understand. Just to be clear I was talking about the same person. You’re right to ask for some sort of factual backup for the concerns raised. For myself there are locations near me that I expect will see some significant redevelopment over the next few years and decades, and mostly I’m looking forward to seeing how the city evolves, even if some of what happens is not my personal top choice.
Reply
(09-02-2017, 02:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 11:43 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Sorry Ijmorlan, my comment was meant to be directed at mcparkhil, not you....

No problem! I wasn’t sure what you were getting at, but now I understand. Just to be clear I was talking about the same person. You’re right to ask for some sort of factual backup for the concerns raised. For myself there are locations near me that I expect will see some significant redevelopment over the next few years and decades, and mostly I’m looking forward to seeing how the city evolves, even if some of what happens is not my personal top choice.

Just figured out that Mcparkhill likely lives on Parkhill Crt which will have a direct line of site to this development, if it goes ahead as planned. I'm guessing no one there wants a skyscraper built in their area.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links