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:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Viva Towns (19-41 Mill St) | 4 + 3fl | U/C
#16
(11-07-2019, 10:14 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Issues regarding heritage houses.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/968...roup-says/

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand they are old houses that have a bit of regional cultural significance. On  the other hand the houses a just split into a bunch of rental units. I think the region has an issue with heritage due to our poor record (cough... city hall... cough... Forsyth factory.... cough). We go crazy with any type of potential heritage aspect.

I'm not sure that the current use of the property is a consideration (although, sadly, we lost the Lyric Theatre over it's possible use).  I've certainly never noticed the City "go crazy" wrt heritage - the record is one of far more losses than saves, istm.
Reply


#17
(11-07-2019, 10:54 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think a revised proposal that preserves the house would be nice, the argument for its heritage isn't unreasonable. However, they say that any tall buildings near the iron horse trail are problematic because it's a heritage landscape, that I strongly disagree with. A future with more active transportation is going to involve more people living near the iron horse trail, and that's good.

Is there some basis for the IHT as a "heritage landscape" (ie. is it so designated?) or was somebody just trying out an advocacy argument?  It seems a stretch to me.
Reply
#18
(11-07-2019, 11:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(11-07-2019, 10:54 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think a revised proposal that preserves the house would be nice, the argument for its heritage isn't unreasonable. However, they say that any tall buildings near the iron horse trail are problematic because it's a heritage landscape, that I strongly disagree with. A future with more active transportation is going to involve more people living near the iron horse trail, and that's good.

Is there some basis for the IHT as a "heritage landscape" (ie. is it so designated?) or was somebody just trying out an advocacy argument?  It seems a stretch to me.

It is one of a number of them, so it is a formal designation. How construction that's adjacent to it affects that is the real question here.
Reply
#19
(11-07-2019, 11:48 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(11-07-2019, 11:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is there some basis for the IHT as a "heritage landscape" (ie. is it so designated?) or was somebody just trying out an advocacy argument?  It seems a stretch to me.

It is one of a number of them, so it is a formal designation. How construction that's adjacent to it affects that is the real question here.

That's interesting.  Given the exceptions that have already been made, I have trouble believing the City would oblige unless neighbourhood oppostion were absolutely relentless (and that could only come from across Queen St, as it would be unlikely from the immediate neighbourhood).
Reply
#20
The idea that building density along the IHT would ruin it for users is absurd and rooted in the faulty notion of active transportation corridors like the IHT being primarily for recreation instead of transportation. I feel conflicted, though. I think there is heritage value in the houses on that site, and it would be a shame to have them destroyed. Without them being designated, though, it seems they're trying to make an argument on the basis of protection of the IHT, which I am strongly opposed to. Setting some sort of precedent that the IHT needs protection from tall buildings would be very harmful for the development of the city.
Reply
#21
I am reminded of a recent controversy in Ottawa wrt a condo proposal (six storeys, attached to a church) that had to be reduced in height by a meter of so because it would be visible from the Rideau Canal. The advocates based their objections on the Canal's status as a UNESCO world heritage site. I confess that I never "got it", as there are all kinds of buildings, old and new, visible from the Canal.
Reply
#22
Mill Street highrise ‘out of sync’, Kitchener committee says
Reply


#23
(12-07-2019, 09:37 PM)Acitta Wrote: Mill Street highrise ‘out of sync’, Kitchener committee says
Seems like the record has been posting a lot of stories against development. There was one earlier this week about the 10 story on fredrick and Lancaster. 

I understand the concerns people may have with this one. But the other one is on an abandoned tim hortons. Which I believe is currently acting as a winter shelter for homeless. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I just wish they wouldn't write a article about 2 people that appose a development. It's crazy the voice the vocal minority has when it comes to these projects. I live in the neighborhood, maybe I should find one more person in central fredrick that approves of it. Call the record up and see if they write an article about us. 

I actually wrote the city planner and my counselor as soon as I read it to express my support.
Reply
#24
You can literally see the 15 storey tower in the background in the picture the article has
Reply
#25
It's interesting that there are three or four "NiMBY" cases potentially arising in town at the same time - I guess it's inevitable when our oldest (and gentrified/gentrifying) SFH neighbourhoods abut the core areas most appropriate for densification.  It will be interesting to see how/whether any or all of the proposed projects are altered to respond to neighbourhood concerns (if they are in fact true neighbourhood concerns and not random NIMBYs).  And, if they are, whether the altered project represents an aesthetic improvement over the original project (which is not always the case).  Time will tell, but I suspect the projects will be approved by the City with, at most, modest adjustments to their height.
Reply
#26
(12-09-2019, 11:00 AM)Spokes Wrote: You can literally see the 15 storey tower in the background in the picture the article has

It's pretty much across the street on the other side of Queen. The Barra building, while not as tall, is essentially just on the other side of Schneider Creek as well. So these NIMBYs are literally NIMBYing.
Reply
#27
I can't believe that they're seriously worried about what this will do to the character of the Iron Horse Trail. That's one of my least favourite sections of it because the backyard of 41 Mill is practically a wrecking yard. Flatten it and build this already...
...K
Reply
#28
The developer (which turns out to be Polocorp, who also developed Barra) is now at the next step, requesting zoning variations to allow up to 10 storeys and down to 1.1 parking spaces per unit. There are two new renders, with alternative elevations.

   

   
Reply


#29
Meh. Looks like a Raddison or Holiday Inn you would find 3 blocks from a big airport.

I would probably go with the first.
Reply
#30
And I with the second, for the warmer Mill St frontage. Hard to tell from those renders - is the Mill St frontage still staggered?
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