Downtown project directory

[jamincan]

So the region spent hundreds of millions of dollars all in the goal of enriching developers. You might actually want to read up on the history of its development, because your take is pretty offensive toward the city builders who got it off the ground and awfully dismissive of their accomplishment.

[robdrimmie]

I know most of this forum disagrees with me since you like to see big buildings, bike lanes and such stuff, but that's really the anthesis of urban planning.

If you were making this inflammatory assertion in good faith you would provide supporting evidence. You've demonstrated your expertise in several ways so I don't doubt you have something to back this up, but I genuinely do not understand what is being achieved by your being dismissive of "most of this forum" in this way.

[ac3r]

So the region spent hundreds of millions of dollars all in the goal of enriching developers. You might actually want to read up on the history of its development, because your take is pretty offensive toward the city builders who got it off the ground and awfully dismissive of their accomplishment.

Lol. This is the usual response I get here. In fact, I was quite involved in the development! I've spent years working for the Region of Waterloo and still do so. My home office is currently covered in CAD drawings and tens of pages of tracing paper on top of them to study this thing to judge potential development. My job is to explore urban development and architecture. I promise I'm not the only one who said things like "why are we not burying this so it can move thousands of more people each day?" but alas budget prevailed and now you have a train that takes longer to turn a corner than a crawling baby would take. I guess it's a resounding success if you think 3-4 developers making a handful of condos nearby is a huge win for the fastest growing city in all of Canada...but to anyone with a brain it's a failure. Momentum, Perimeter, Auburn, Drewlo cash in and investors buy units up. Is that good in your opinion? I don't think so.

In terms of transit, I often point to the city of Nürnberg, Germany as an example of what could have be done. They are the exact same size as we are in all regards (population, physical size) yet they have 3 subway lines (!!!), 5 trams, 5 s-bahn lines, countless buses and high speed rail lines. We spent close to 1 billion dollars on an LRT that basically services nothing but potential real estate for developers to cash in on.

Anyway I don't wish to derail this thread any longer...

[nms]

Thank you ac3r for calling out the emperor's lack of clothing. It was clear that this project was about development over anything else when decisions were made to ignore the needs of those who might benefit from riding transit. If this was about moving people, then there would have been a station put at the Albert McCormick Arena which is surrounded by medium density development. If the engineers had not been so focused on the shiny things, there would have been less crossings on the UW south campus and a crossing built in the Traynor/Vanier neighbourhood. If the plan was for ridership, the platforms would be have been built large enough to accommodate the anticipated crowds.

I notice that Nürnberg, Germany also has a high speed rail connection to Munich with a similar travel distance than that as between Waterloo and Toronto. They also have a much denser urban area and from what I can tell from the satellite view, not a single really tall building. And lots of built heritage.

[ijmorlan]

Thank you ac3r for calling out the emperor's lack of clothing.  It was clear that this project was about development over anything else when decisions were made to ignore the needs of those who might benefit from riding transit.  If this was about moving people, then there would have been a station put at the Albert McCormick Arena which is surrounded by medium density development. If the engineers had not been so focused on the shiny things, there would have been less crossings on the UW south campus and a crossing built in the Traynor/Vanier neighbourhood. If the plan was for ridership, the platforms would be have been built large enough to accommodate the anticipated crowds.

Fewer crossings on the UW south campus? Which crossing do you think could reasonably have been left out?

(actually there is one but I’m interested to see if you even know enough about the situation there to identify it)

Also, while the LRT is a city-building project, not just a way of moving existing crowds, the only way it can function as a city-building project is if it moves people. People aren’t moving into condo towers next to the tracks because they like looking at railway tracks but because they anticipate making at least some of their trips by LRT. So this whole “it wasn’t built to move people” thing is just asinine. If cities want to build something that doesn’t actually do anything but puts the city on the map they don’t built a $1G LRT; they build an entrance archway or a giant statue of Paul Bunyan or whatever for a lot less.

[danbrotherston]

Thank you ac3r for calling out the emperor's lack of clothing.  It was clear that this project was about development over anything else when decisions were made to ignore the needs of those who might benefit from riding transit.  If this was about moving people, then there would have been a station put at the Albert McCormick Arena which is surrounded by medium density development. If the engineers had not been so focused on the shiny things, there would have been less crossings on the UW south campus and a crossing built in the Traynor/Vanier neighbourhood. If the plan was for ridership, the platforms would be have been built large enough to accommodate the anticipated crowds.

Fewer crossings on the UW south campus? Which crossing do you think could reasonably have been left out?

(actually there is one but I’m interested to see if you even know enough about the situation there to identify it)

Also, while the LRT is a city-building project, not just a way of moving existing crowds, the only way it can function as a city-building project is if it moves people. People aren’t moving into condo towers next to the tracks because they like looking at railway tracks but because they anticipate making at least some of their trips by LRT. So this whole “it wasn’t built to move people” thing is just asinine. If cities want to build something that doesn’t actually do anything but puts the city on the map they don’t built a $1G LRT; they build an entrance archway or a giant statue of Paul Bunyan or whatever for a lot less.

I'm not sure which crossing you feel is superfluous, but what is clear is that the whole area is poorly designed...in many respects. The lack of a direct access to the east side of campus from the station is unforgiveable--but also entirely typical for our LRT.

This thread is definitely treading the line between projects and trains though. It's almost as if these things are inextricably linked.

[ijmorlan]

Fewer crossings on the UW south campus? Which crossing do you think could reasonably have been left out?

(actually there is one but I’m interested to see if you even know enough about the situation there to identify it)

Also, while the LRT is a city-building project, not just a way of moving existing crowds, the only way it can function as a city-building project is if it moves people. People aren’t moving into condo towers next to the tracks because they like looking at railway tracks but because they anticipate making at least some of their trips by LRT. So this whole “it wasn’t built to move people” thing is just asinine. If cities want to build something that doesn’t actually do anything but puts the city on the map they don’t built a $1G LRT; they build an entrance archway or a giant statue of Paul Bunyan or whatever for a lot less.

I'm not sure which crossing you feel is superfluous, but what is clear is that the whole area is poorly designed...in many respects. The lack of a direct access to the east side of campus from the station is unforgiveable--but also entirely typical for our LRT.

This thread is definitely treading the line between projects and trains though. It's almost as if these things are inextricably linked.

I don’t want to give it away yet — I’m hoping nms will have a chance to figure it out themselves, although I don’t actually expect them to have enough local knowledge to even know what I’m talking about. I will say that it’s not so much that the crossing in question is entirely superfluous, but that a different solution could and should have been built instead.

[nms]

I have more than enough local knowledge of the University of Waterloo campus, thank you. The two crossings that flank the University Shops Plaza come to mind as the most superfluous. Given that there is a sidewalk crossing twenty metres south at University Ave, and another one 40 m north (the entrance to E5/6/7) that would have eliminated two crossings. For that matter, and if the University had planned ahead, E5/6/7 could have been shifted north of East Campus Hall to funnel all pedestrian traffic across the William Tutte Way pathway. Coincidentally, 40m appears to be the distance that major east-west pathway through Waterloo Park was shifted in order to connect to the WLU-Seagram station. A convenient path of travel, particularly if you weren't connecting to the LRT station was moved so you had to connect to the LRT station. If it could be done in Waterloo Park, which not on the UW campus? I also wonder what will happen to the E5/6/7 crossing when the LRT platform is lengthened. I seem to recall seeing elsewhere that the platforms would be eventually doubled in length.

Pulling this back to Downtown projects, how much shorter would the various towers be if we removed out-of-town investors (or for that matter in-town investors) who have no interest in renting their units, but rather plan to flip their units for a higher price in short order, unoccupied, and further cutting local residents out of the market? Surely the number of vacant units in the Region must be getting close to taking a significant chunk out of the affordable housing backlog.

[ijmorlan]

I have more than enough local knowledge of the University of Waterloo campus, thank you. The two crossings that flank the University Shops Plaza come to mind as the most superfluous.  Given that there is a sidewalk crossing twenty metres south at University Ave, and another one 40 m north (the entrance to E5/6/7) that would have eliminated two crossings. For that matter, and if the University had planned ahead, E5/6/7 could have been shifted north of East Campus Hall to funnel all pedestrian traffic across the William Tutte Way pathway.  Coincidentally, 40m appears to be the distance that major east-west pathway through Waterloo Park was shifted in order to connect to the WLU-Seagram station.  A convenient path of travel, particularly if you weren't connecting to the LRT station was moved so you had to connect to the LRT station. If it could be done in Waterloo Park, which not on the UW campus?  I also wonder what will happen to the E5/6/7 crossing when the LRT platform is lengthened.  I seem to recall seeing elsewhere that the platforms would be eventually doubled in length.

Incorrect. The superfluous crossing is the half-crossing from the platform to the bike path. A path should have connected the end of the platform to the E5 crossing. This would keep traffic to and from the platform off the bike path while avoiding the need for people accessing E5 to cross the southbound track twice.

Given the pedestrian volumes involved, the idea that the crossing just north of the mall would be closed is entirely inappropriate. The one just south of the mall isn’t quite as essential, but even there there really is no justification for making thousands of pedestrians every day detour down to University Ave.

I agree that a better job might have been possible if the University’s campus plans had been coordinated with the LRT. In particular, I think it’s pretty ridiculous that the station isn’t essentially built into a University building (nor is there a foreseeable route to that ever happening). As far as I’m concerned I should be able to go to Conestoga Mall for lunch in the middle of Winter without bringing my coat.

As to the platforms, they are already built doubled. When we start running two car trains the only change that will be needed is to install more of the black sections of flooring at the doorways, and extend the shelter structures and possibly other platform facilities.

[danbrotherston]

I have more than enough local knowledge of the University of Waterloo campus, thank you. The two crossings that flank the University Shops Plaza come to mind as the most superfluous.  Given that there is a sidewalk crossing twenty metres south at University Ave, and another one 40 m north (the entrance to E5/6/7) that would have eliminated two crossings. For that matter, and if the University had planned ahead, E5/6/7 could have been shifted north of East Campus Hall to funnel all pedestrian traffic across the William Tutte Way pathway.  Coincidentally, 40m appears to be the distance that major east-west pathway through Waterloo Park was shifted in order to connect to the WLU-Seagram station.  A convenient path of travel, particularly if you weren't connecting to the LRT station was moved so you had to connect to the LRT station. If it could be done in Waterloo Park, which not on the UW campus?  I also wonder what will happen to the E5/6/7 crossing when the LRT platform is lengthened.  I seem to recall seeing elsewhere that the platforms would be eventually doubled in length.

Pulling this back to Downtown projects, how much shorter would the various towers be if we removed out-of-town investors (or for that matter in-town investors) who have no interest in renting their units, but rather plan to flip their units for a higher price in short order, unoccupied, and further cutting local residents out of the market? Surely the number of vacant units in the Region must be getting close to taking a significant chunk out of the affordable housing backlog.

Both crossings to the UW Plaza are directly in line with the route the UW students walk to the plaza. Closing either would add much more than 20 m to the route. Building routes along those pedestrian desire lines is one of the few things they got right here.

The sections around the station are the real problem. Leaving aside the design was not even started when the buildings on campus were planned, the university is not interested in accomodating transit on campus, they are generally an obstacle, not a willing partner. But alos, the LRT design included better connections which were not included in the final construction.

As for platform doubling, the platforms are already the full size, the "doubling" is simply the structures on the platform, like the shelter, benches, TVMs etc. Reconstructing the actual platforms would be a vastly expensive exercise that is unlikely to occur in our lifetimes.

[ktmbtsmrt]

So the region spent hundreds of millions of dollars all in the goal of enriching developers. You might actually want to read up on the history of its development, because your take is pretty offensive toward the city builders who got it off the ground and awfully dismissive of their accomplishment.

Lol. This is the usual response I get here. In fact, I was quite involved in the development! I've spent years working for the Region of Waterloo and still do so. My home office is currently covered in CAD drawings and tens of pages of tracing paper on top of them to study this thing to judge potential development. My job is to explore urban development and architecture. I promise I'm not the only one who said things like "why are we not burying this so it can move thousands of more people each day?" but alas budget prevailed and now you have a train that takes longer to turn a corner than a crawling baby would take. I guess it's a resounding success if you think 3-4 developers making a handful of condos nearby is a huge win for the fastest growing city in all of Canada...but to anyone with a brain it's a failure. Momentum, Perimeter, Auburn, Drewlo cash in and investors buy units up. Is that good in your opinion? I don't think so.

In terms of transit, I often point to the city of Nürnberg, Germany as an example of what could have be done. They are the exact same size as we are in all regards (population, physical size) yet they have 3 subway lines (!!!), 5 trams, 5 s-bahn lines, countless buses and high speed rail lines. We spent close to 1 billion dollars on an LRT that basically services nothing but potential real estate for developers to cash in on.

Anyway I don't wish to derail this thread any longer...

I appreciate a good comparison to a European city, especially for its tram/pre-metro/stadhbanh/etc. infrastructure. But what's frustrating is that you're focusing all your attention on this singular project here, and don't acknowledge that the first trams in Nuremberg were built in 1881! It's not the sole fault of people today for our situation, but the countless before us. Also, Nuremberg was largely re-built after the war, like much of Germany, I imagine allowing for 'easier' decisions to be made about things like a future U-Bahn. I'm not saying we shouldn't look to other places, but the contexts are different! We were starting from 'scratch', and it didn't work flawlessly, but rarely do major projects like this. Hopefully lessons are learned and we can make better choices in the future. But a 1 to 1 comparison is only so helpful when the foundations for the current network/way of life in one city have been in place for 130 years

[ac3r]

Well we had the interurban Preston and Berlin Railway in 1857. By 1904 we had the Preston and Berlin Street Railway, our version of trams. 1888 we had the downtown Kitchener and Waterloo Street Railway, another tram network. The old villages of Cambridge had a tram network. 1914 we had the interurban Grand River Railway.

We have plenty of experience and history building train based public transit in Waterloo Region. As you say, the context is now different. We abandoned all these great railroads and embraced the car, destroying our city in the process. We never fixed it up until, I'd argue, the early 2000s with streetscape improvements downtown. A lot more also happened, but that is one visual catalyst you can use to see the change. Then a few lofts came. We knew we had a broken city but could change it with transit oriented development. That's great, I support it, but I simply believe the LRT was a very mediocre effort for a region of our size. We need to make sure to improve it as we evolve. When it comes time to build another line, spend more and make it truly rapid so it can fulfill the needs of people as much as it can. As it is, the ION is slow and weirdly engineered. It's like it was some beginner playing City Skylines trying to desperately build an LRT with little money.

[taylortbb]

When it comes time to build another line, spend more and make it truly rapid so it can fulfill the needs of people as much as it can. As it is, the ION is slow and weirdly engineered. It's like it was some beginner playing City Skylines trying to desperately build an LRT with little money.

As someone that was really deeply involved in the approval process for ION I think another $50M in cost would have killed it, and $100M certainly would have.

The options weren't ION vs a better designed LRT, the options were ION or some vague improvements to the 200 iXpress (a true BRT was never going to happen either).

I'm not happy about it, if I was dictator we'd have done better, but a decade ago Waterloo Region was a VERY different place. We got all that was politically feasible at the time. Every other Canadian of our size that's considered LRT has ended up with nothing.

[ktmbtsmrt]

Well we had the interurban Preston and Berlin Railway in 1857. By 1904 we had the Preston and Berlin Street Railway, our version of trams. 1888 we had the downtown Kitchener and Waterloo Street Railway, another tram network. The old villages of Cambridge had a tram network. 1914 we had the interurban Grand River Railway.

We have plenty of experience and history building train based public transit in Waterloo Region. As you say, the context is now different. We abandoned all these great railroads and embraced the car, destroying our city in the process. We never fixed it up until, I'd argue, the early 2000s with streetscape improvements downtown. A lot more also happened, but that is one visual catalyst you can use to see the change. Then a few lofts came. We knew we had a broken city but could change it with transit oriented development. That's great, I support it, but I simply believe the LRT was a very mediocre effort for a region of our size. We need to make sure to improve it as we evolve. When it comes time to build another line, spend more and make it truly rapid so it can fulfill the needs of people as much as it can. As it is, the ION is slow and weirdly engineered. It's like it was some beginner playing City Skylines trying to desperately build an LRT with little money.

well who knows...Hamilton is getting some funding, so maybe an additional line or three can be built here too. I think we have the population and spatial supports, just not the political and societal will. Which is why I think context is so important. It's a lot easier to suggest an expansion in a city that already has a well-functioning system. Anywho, hope things get better here!

[danbrotherston]

When it comes time to build another line, spend more and make it truly rapid so it can fulfill the needs of people as much as it can. As it is, the ION is slow and weirdly engineered. It's like it was some beginner playing City Skylines trying to desperately build an LRT with little money.

As someone that was really deeply involved in the approval process for ION I think another $50M in cost would have killed it, and $100M certainly would have.

The options weren't ION vs a better designed LRT, the options were ION or some vague improvements to the 200 iXpress (a true BRT was never going to happen either).

I'm not happy about it, if I was dictator we'd have done better, but a decade ago Waterloo Region was a VERY different place. We got all that was politically feasible at the time. Every other Canadian of our size that's considered LRT has ended up with nothing.

In many cases the problem was not cost, but priority and competence. Most of my issues with the LRT could or even can be solved without spending much money, and most of those aren't even problems that would have cost any more to build the right way to start. A few of the issues would have added to the cost, I'm not sure how much, but at that point, it's an opinion how close it was to approval.

The point is well taken however, that political feasibility is a driving force.