Viva Towns (19-41 Mill St) | 4 + 3fl | U/C

[Rainrider22]

I don't doubt that he'll make a profit, just not as much profit as would have been expected when there was a larger project with more units to sell.

As for the 'baking in' of variances to the process overall, to the general citizen in the neighbourhood, the perception is that developers are forever pushing the limits in order to maximize their investment. The tradeoff for the neighbours is the potential for adverse affects to their immediate future.  This could include things like reducing setbacks to zero so a neighbour will now see a blank wall at the edge of their property, or having their sidewalks reduced to narrow wind tunnels when a building is pushed right to the sidewalk rather than leaving a setback that leaves the option for wider sidewalks or multiuse trails.

Yes, there is a housing crisis.  But removing all barriers and suggesting that cities must accept whatever is proposed simply for the sake of making more space is a huge loss to the community.  If every developer were to come forward and commit to 20% of all their future buildings to be targeted to geared-to-income or other forms of affordable housing, then that might make their excuses for variances more palatable. If every existing landlord committed to converting 20% of their existing stock as affordable housing sprinkled among the existing buildings would be another great start.  Even, at the very least, committing to maintaining the same number of affordable housing units that their new construction is displacing would be a great start. Accepting a variance that commits to moving affordable housing (or any other kind of municipal goals) elsewhere than the proposed development site does nothing more than leave the existing neighbourhood poorer for the loss.

That is the perception, because that is the narrative being pushed, rather than what is actually happened, which is developers are working through the process we have setup.

Perhaps I should not have implied all barriers should be removed. We shouldn't compromise on fire safety and such. But we are quickly losing the ability to care about setbacks and that type of thing. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for some *SOME* of these restrictions, but those benefits are a luxury which we are quickly squandering on other bullshit like "I don't want a tower".

You'll note that none of those objections existed here, the developer wasn't asking for unreasonable setbacks. There were a few who objected to losing the affordable housing, but that was nothing more than an excuse, those who made that objection didn't ask for more affordable housing, they asked for less total housing (which they have now achieved, in addition to removing any affordable housing concession, and they are happy with that result).

To me, the highlighted comment says the most about the process and is bang on.  Too often the resistance doesn't offer solutions, just an all out no.  I agree with Dan that we need to enable developers to get through the approval process quicker and more efficiently, we still need some checks and balances.  There must be a better way.  I don't think this solution is a win for any of the parties, or addressing the best interest of the City as a whole.  We are after all a City, not a plot of land with individuals.

[Spokes]

While my instinct is to say, NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, the massing does feel a bit chunky for this location.

Right Now.

I think however in 20 years it would fit in perfectly with how this part of DTK will scale. So get started

Why do you feel that it's a bit chunky?

The other side of queen (like 50 meters away) has the gigantic Drewlo Iron Horse Tower.

I didn't mean it in the sense that it's too big, but for some reason the massing just felt bulky.  Not sure why.

That being said, I'm not at all opposed to this project.

[Spokes]

Where were these concerned neighbours from?

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

 
but but but....high rises....we'll turn into Toronto!!

[Bjays93]

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

 
but but but....high rises....we'll turn into Toronto!!

People seem to fail to understand that the cities population remaining stagnant isnt possible. Its either up or out

[Spokes]

You don't have to tell me, friend.

[Acitta]

Last night's CTV news report with interviews pro and con.
Kitchener high rise project changes to townhouses

[dtkmelissa]

About 11 of the apartments in the subdivided houses along there that were to be demolished are considered to be affordable housing, but in Polocorp's plan they only offered to make 5 of the units as affordable.

Yes. Five isn't much, and I really would have hoped that the city would have pushed for more, at least 11 to make up for the ones that will be lost. (Note: it's unclear whether those new units would have been for sale or for rent.) But, as things went, there will be none at all.

I am still mystified how the neighbourhood character would have been impacted, when there are only half a dozen residential houses within 100m of this project. Mostly it's bounded by Queen St S (commercial), Mill St (a few residential houses, most were recently donated by the region for affordable housing) and the IHT (which has a railway and a commercial facility on its other side). Where were these concerned neighbours from?

This touches on some of my issues with all of this. I think there's value in encouraging developers to improve/adapt their proposals - but I so wish those conversations were less about height and traffic and more about affordability, a robust plan for displaced neighbours, etc. How wonderful it would be to have neighbourhood character mean we care about current and future neighbours so let's make sure the developer has a plan to support existing neighbours who will be displaced and ensure affordable options for future neighbours moving in to the area.

[dtkmelissa]

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

That's on the opposite side of the city! So wait...which neighbourhood association is he from?

Yeah...honestly, these folks are self defeating. You could argue there are reasonable objections that could be raised, but the reliability which certain groups oppose ANY development whatsoever makes it impossible to take ANY objections seriously, it's easy to dismiss them all, because they're usually anti-progress bullshit.

Assholes like that harm ALL of our ability to raise legitimate issues. So even if you don't care about affordable housing, or any serious issues, and just want front porches or something like that (a legitimate, but in my opinion minor objection), he's still screwing us over.

I definitely get this argument, but I also think it's valid for all residents' voices to be heard on these issues. As a member of WR YIMBY, I have spoken at numerous council meetings, including Waterloo, even though I live in Kitchener. I have had other delegations tell me that I should not be allowed to speak because only neighbours voices should be heard. That seems problematic to me (Also, I suspect that if I was against the development, I may have been welcomed to speak even though I didn't live nearby

[danbrotherston]

That's on the opposite side of the city! So wait...which neighbourhood association is he from?

Yeah...honestly, these folks are self defeating. You could argue there are reasonable objections that could be raised, but the reliability which certain groups oppose ANY development whatsoever makes it impossible to take ANY objections seriously, it's easy to dismiss them all, because they're usually anti-progress bullshit.

Assholes like that harm ALL of our ability to raise legitimate issues. So even if you don't care about affordable housing, or any serious issues, and just want front porches or something like that (a legitimate, but in my opinion minor objection), he's still screwing us over.

I definitely get this argument, but I also think it's valid for all residents' voices to be heard on these issues. As a member of WR YIMBY, I have spoken at numerous council meetings, including Waterloo, even though I live in Kitchener. I have had other delegations tell me that I should not be allowed to speak because only neighbours voices should be heard. That seems problematic to me (Also, I suspect that if I was against the development, I may have been welcomed to speak even though I didn't live nearby

I mean, I think there is a difference between speaking at a council meeting in favour of a development on behalf of the people who might want to live there, and speaking at a council meeting (and to a newspaper) pretending to object to the character of your neighbourhood being changed (whatever that means, we all have our theories), when you don't even live there.

If these folks want to come and say "I don't think this should be built because I think the city I'm living in shouldn't have neighbourhoods like that"...sure...if they come and say "I don't want MY neighbourhood changed" and they don't live there, they're lying or at least significantly misrepresenting the facts.

But ultimately, I don't think they should be silenced, I just think our council should grow a pair and stop coddling entitled property owners no matter where in the city they are. Politically, I'm sure they feel that's unwise, and that Guelphs Mayor is crazy when he says stuff like that, but ultimately, I have more disagreement with Guelphs Mayor's policies than our councils, but I have WAY more respect for him as politician.  (And to be clear, many on council are far better than others...but I was disappointed by the positioning of this decision as a win win from all who spoke about it).

[nms]

But ultimately, I don't think they should be silenced, I just think our council should grow a pair and stop coddling entitled property owners no matter where in the city they are. Politically, I'm sure they feel that's unwise, and that Guelphs Mayor is crazy when he says stuff like that, but ultimately, I have more disagreement with Guelphs Mayor's policies than our councils, but I have WAY more respect for him as politician.  (And to be clear, many on council are far better than others...but I was disappointed by the positioning of this decision as a win win from all who spoke about it).

 
Would this include entitled property owners who demand to be able to exceed the existing height limits and setbacks in order for them to maximize their profit on the property?

[danbrotherston]

But ultimately, I don't think they should be silenced, I just think our council should grow a pair and stop coddling entitled property owners no matter where in the city they are. Politically, I'm sure they feel that's unwise, and that Guelphs Mayor is crazy when he says stuff like that, but ultimately, I have more disagreement with Guelphs Mayor's policies than our councils, but I have WAY more respect for him as politician.  (And to be clear, many on council are far better than others...but I was disappointed by the positioning of this decision as a win win from all who spoke about it).

 
Would this include entitled property owners who demand to be able to exceed the existing height limits and setbacks in order for them to maximize their profit on the property?

No, this includes entitled property owners who seek to keep people out of their neighbourhood.

Again, developers aren't "demanding" to "exceed" anything, they are working within our framework for density bonusing.  This is WHY there was affordable housing. It was an example of the system working (albeit entirely inadequately), but that's off the table now. The system intends for buildings of that size to be built, it just has a specific process which gives property owners the impression developers are cheating, and worse, it gives the wealthy options for preventing development where they live.

[ac3r]

While we knew this was coming, this project in its reduced size has been officially approved, with a loss of 100 potential homes including all 5 affordable units: https://outline.com/pzZmea

It seriously pisses me off that we let NIMBYs have this much sway over an entire development intended to provide housing to tens of people...but this is also kind of our fault for not speaking out in favour of projects we support. Council meetings are only ever attended by two groups of people: the developers/city staff and people vehemently against a project. Almost no one ever really goes to a meeting to argue for a project. All the complaints people like us make on WRC, Reddit, Twitter or whatever else don't get heard by those sitting in the council chamber.

[danbrotherston]

While we knew this was coming, this project in its reduced size has been officially approved, with a loss of 100 potential homes including all 5 affordable units: https://outline.com/pzZmea

It seriously pisses me off that we let NIMBYs have this much sway over an entire development intended to provide housing to tens of people...but this is also kind of our fault for not speaking out in favour of projects we support. Council meetings are only ever attended by two groups of people: the developers/city staff and people vehemently against a project. Almost no one ever really goes to a meeting to argue for a project. All the complaints people like us make on WRC, Reddit, Twitter or whatever else don't get heard by those sitting in the council chamber.

I think it's even worse than that, this wasn't a decision made directly by council...it was the developers. Yes, they listen to who they think council will listen to, but they engaged with the "neighbourhood"...who in the "neighbourhood". Did they engage with the hundreds of people living in the highrise building across the street? Or did they engage with the half dozen wealthy property owners on the street?

I got to say, I hate agreeing with Davey, but he is on point here. I'm disappointed by other councillors calling this a win.  This is only a win if you are on the side of more homelessness in the region.

[ac3r]

That's true, it was a decision by the developer. But I would guess that they were really wanting to get something rather than nothing built, so they went the easy route and chose to shrink the size of this particular development rather than drag things out over the course of even more weeks/months.

It definitely seems like it was a small minority of voices that made them submit, since according to this article, there was a meeting last month attended by "18 delegations" repeatedly complaining that it was too big. I'm sure that if there were 18 people in that meeting speaking in favour of this development, the developer would likely have not bent over so fast and shrunk the size of this but I would be willing to bet there was no more than 1 or 2 people there who were in approval of it.

NIMBYs win again and now the region is out 100 new homes in the middle of a terrible housing crisis...

[danbrotherston]

That's true, it was a decision by the developer. But I would guess that they were really wanting to get something rather than nothing built, so they went the easy route and chose to shrink the size of this particular development rather than drag things out over the course of even more weeks/months.

It definitely seems like it was a small minority of voices that made them submit, since according to this article, there was a meeting last month attended by "18 delegations" repeatedly complaining that it was too big. I'm sure that if there were 18 people in that meeting speaking in favour of this development, the developer would likely have not bent over so fast and shrunk the size of this but I would be willing to bet there was no more than 1 or 2 people there who were in approval of it.

NIMBYs win again and now the region is out 100 new homes in the middle of a terrible housing crisis...

The thing that gets me is that there are not even 18 single family homes on that section of Mill St. What "neighbourhood" are these people from?!

I am quite certain that they are not all from that street, many will not be affected by the development in ANY way. I've even heard rumors that some of the delegations were from clear across town.

At a certain point it isn't even about NIMBYism, they are literally on the side of preventing people from living in the city.

Of course, I wonder if these folks also come out and protest suburban developments, I'm guessing not.