Welcome Guest!
WIn 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
SIXO Midtown | 28 + 20? + 12? + ? fl | Proposed
(01-06-2016, 09:38 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(01-06-2016, 08:41 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Seconded. It looks very nice, but it would be terrible to have that kind of wall (lack thereof) along King.

Is a wall of some sort not inevitable as part of the underpass, at least on the eastern half of the site?

Yes and no. If there was a spot where a retaining wall would be necessary, it would be on the eastern half, before Moore. But as the render seems to indicate, there's an access road there, so it's possible that not even that is necessary (though it would have to be included in the current construction, which is not likely). 

The grade is supposed to be at it's normal level again once it reaches about Moore, so the retaining wall from thereon is not necessary. That's my gripe.
Reply
That was one of the proposals and easily one of the largest. IMO, from working in this field, you definitely won't be seeing anything like that in Kitchener anytime soon. The other proposals are a lot smaller and more realistic at this point in time.

After a few years of the ION being around and the transit hub being redeveloped, you'll see bigger projects like this (that is, that proposal) go up. The economic projections are wild. Waterloo Region will be like another Mississauga in terms of residential and office development with the industries we have here. Lots of changes ahead.
Reply
Unlike the Albert/Columbia site that Waterloo refused to bankroll the development charges of, this location does not have hostile zoning as an excuse for making retail/interaction inward facing. Within itself, sure, it seems neat, but as is, you've written off the ability of anyone to walk into Kitchener on that side of the tracks without much detouring around the site, especially the vehicular access. On one hand, I like the open space, and I could be convinced that a single, car-focused entrance that doesn't have any pedestrian conflicts is good. But without the ability to walk parallel to King Street without detouring, without real interaction and interest for people making that walk, it feels as closed off and exclusionary (without explicitly being so) as Kitchener's Tame the Lane party last summer.
Reply
A huge market for this development will be the Breithaupt Block, and the small/house offices that're proposed to be on the other side of the street. If the crosswalk can't be used because it's in the middle of a retaining wall, and thus you would need to either backtrack, or take an uninviting/unsafe/non-accessible stairway down to it, this will be considered a failure. I expect the re-grading is meant to bury parking, but there has to be a better way, yes?
Reply
What density is allowed? And how far off are the proposals from what is allowed?
Reply
It will be nice when all the information is out in the open. Re density, why would there be any concern about density at this site?
Reply
(01-07-2016, 11:17 AM)Spokes Wrote: What density is allowed?  And how far off are the proposals from what is allowed?

(01-07-2016, 11:20 AM)panamaniac Wrote: It will be nice when all the information is out in the open.  Re density, why would there be any concern about density at this site?

Can't remember the exact density allowed...

There's no concern about density, but there are rules about what is allowed (Floor area ratio, zoning, etc)... I think the FAR for this site is 4, but not really sure.
Reply
It would be nice to see what the street wall is anticipated to look like.  It looks a bit cold to me.....
Reply
(01-06-2016, 09:38 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is a wall of some sort not inevitable as part of the underpass, at least on the eastern half of the site?

Yeah, I'd go for a commercial ‘street front’ above the retaining wall, integrating with a future rail platform and platform-to-street (Ion) access at the east end.

   

(Disclaimer: I is not an archimatect.)
Reply
(01-07-2016, 11:27 AM)insider Wrote:
(01-07-2016, 11:17 AM)Spokes Wrote: What density is allowed?  And how far off are the proposals from what is allowed?

(01-07-2016, 11:20 AM)panamaniac Wrote: It will be nice when all the information is out in the open.  Re density, why would there be any concern about density at this site?

Can't remember the exact density allowed...

There's no concern about density, but there are rules about what is allowed (Floor area ratio, zoning, etc)... I think the FAR for this site is 4, but not really sure.

The site is MU-3. FAR is 4.0, ground floor retail not exceeding 1000 square metres, rear yard of 14m if the building exceeds 42m.
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