Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


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. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: WOW! Our fourth "birthday"! We've grown so much over the past four years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover some of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Schneiders Site Redevelopment
(02-12-2018, 07:44 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(02-12-2018, 05:42 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

OK, but I don’t think that has anything to do with heritage preservation.

Heritage preservation does sometimes mean preserving inaccessibility of some buildings, but it in no way preserves racist or otherwise problematic zoning: there is nothing wrong with the buildings that makes them unusable by black people, for example, even if the zoning regime under which they were built was explicitly racist (and just to be clear, I know very little of the history of zoning and even less of the history of zoning specifically in this city so I haven’t a clue what influence racism might have had on our zoning).

I guess I’m saying I think you’re raising two separate issues, both of which are reasonable topics for discussion, but it’s probably best to keep them separate as they both may be contentious and combining them together isn’t going to improve the situation.

I think it is a valid point that, today, lack of affordable housing affects some groups more than others (with the majority group being the least affected), whether or not this is the *intent*, it is still worth keeping in mind.

Hard to say whether advocating for zoning which makes housing unaffordable is racist is another question, it is absolutely classist which is bad enough on it's own.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 07:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(02-12-2018, 07:44 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: OK, but I don’t think that has anything to do with heritage preservation.

Heritage preservation does sometimes mean preserving inaccessibility of some buildings, but it in no way preserves racist or otherwise problematic zoning: there is nothing wrong with the buildings that makes them unusable by black people, for example, even if the zoning regime under which they were built was explicitly racist (and just to be clear, I know very little of the history of zoning and even less of the history of zoning specifically in this city so I haven’t a clue what influence racism might have had on our zoning).

I guess I’m saying I think you’re raising two separate issues, both of which are reasonable topics for discussion, but it’s probably best to keep them separate as they both may be contentious and combining them together isn’t going to improve the situation.

I think it is a valid point that, today, lack of affordable housing affects some groups more than others (with the majority group being the least affected), whether or not this is the *intent*, it is still worth keeping in mind.

Hard to say whether advocating for zoning which makes housing unaffordable is racist is another question, it is absolutely classist which is bad enough on it's own.

I am not a developer, however, if I was,  I am sure I would want to maximize my profits.  It is easy to advocate for social justice when you dont have any skin in the game...   That being said, yes there should be some social conscience in mind when developing properties however, the reality is this... likely many people wont invest in properties that are adding low income assets.  We dont have to look any further than this site to acknowledge it.  How many times have people that our pro Waterloo wanted to distance themselves from Kitchener because there is a sense of "we are better than them"   I am not saying i have the answers, I have been following this site for a long time, and I have seen the bias... I am not judging,  just pointing out the realities..

A good discussion non the less though...
Reply
(02-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.

When their is a major renovation done to a building the law states that it must become accessible. Older buildings in the cores aren't accessible, and will never be accessible, as long as major renovations don't take place.

I used to do work for this restaurant in Waterloo. They wanted to do some renovations to the place, but it required that the place become accessible, which is isn't for either employee's or customers. This restaurant is split level, with bathrooms on the basement, and main customer area upstairs and that was also where the kitchen was. The costs to make the restaurant properly accessible was way too expensive, would have required removal of a huge section of customer spaces and installation of an elevator. I thought with creative design it could have been done, but at the same time, I'm not writing the cheques.

Older buildings. and for example, a place to look at is Crabby Joes on King in Kitchener, were not designed for people with mobility issues.
Reply
(02-12-2018, 09:21 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(02-12-2018, 04:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.

When their is a major renovation done to a building the law states that it must become accessible. Older buildings in the cores aren't accessible, and will never be accessible, as long as major renovations don't take place.  

I used to do work for this restaurant in Waterloo. They wanted to do some renovations to the place, but it required that the place become accessible, which is isn't for either employee's or customers.  This restaurant is split level, with bathrooms on the basement, and main customer area upstairs and that was also where the kitchen was.  The costs to make the restaurant properly accessible was way too expensive, would have required removal of a huge section of customer spaces and installation of an elevator.  I thought with creative design it could have been done, but at the same time, I'm not writing the cheques.

Older buildings. and for example, a place to look at is Crabby Joes on King in Kitchener, were not designed for people with mobility issues.
Elevators are expensive PITA
Reply
(02-12-2018, 09:25 PM)darts Wrote:
(02-12-2018, 09:21 PM)jeffster Wrote: When their is a major renovation done to a building the law states that it must become accessible. Older buildings in the cores aren't accessible, and will never be accessible, as long as major renovations don't take place.  

I used to do work for this restaurant in Waterloo. They wanted to do some renovations to the place, but it required that the place become accessible, which is isn't for either employee's or customers.  This restaurant is split level, with bathrooms on the basement, and main customer area upstairs and that was also where the kitchen was.  The costs to make the restaurant properly accessible was way too expensive, would have required removal of a huge section of customer spaces and installation of an elevator.  I thought with creative design it could have been done, but at the same time, I'm not writing the cheques.

Older buildings. and for example, a place to look at is Crabby Joes on King in Kitchener, were not designed for people with mobility issues.
Elevators are expensive PITA

Yes, I’m glad I’m not responsible for paying for any Smile

One thing I think we should do better at is making a distinction between existing and new construction. I’ve seen new construction that I consider unacceptable from an accessibility standpoint which is perfectly up to code. Canonical example: E5 at the University of Waterloo, which took a flat parking lot and put a massive outdoor staircase up to a 2nd-floor main entrance. The “accessible” accommodation is a huge ramp that goes halfway to the mall and back. I consider it an entirely unacceptable solution that should not have been used by the University or accepted by building officials, even though technically people in wheelchairs “can” get into the building.

By contrast, I happen to think that if a business is operating in an old building, it may be entirely reasonable to continue operating without full accessibility. They should still make whatever efforts are feasible (e.g.: I don’t want to see single steps at the entrance), but a two-story business shouldn’t be prevented from renovating just because they would have to install an elevator.
Reply
(02-09-2018, 12:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

Some of the old/newer factory buildings have two foot thick concrete floors ... probably a factor in how many units will fit or the integrity of the building if you start chopping which is also engineering and profit. I'm sure there are 20 other reasons probably more accurate.
Reply
(02-13-2018, 11:34 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(02-09-2018, 12:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

Some of the old/newer factory buildings have two foot thick concrete floors ... probably a factor in how many units will fit or the integrity of the building if you start chopping which is also engineering and profit. I'm sure there are 20 other reasons probably more accurate.

I am guessing too that the internal design of the plant is a lot different than what we saw with the Tannery or Kaufman or Arrow, for example. I think those 3 were all pretty open concept factories. Schneiders is a food processing plant, and perhaps layout isn't contusive of conversation to usable living suites.

Easier to put up a few walls then to tare down a how bunch.
Reply
Heavy demolition equipment showing up in the back lot of Schneider's plant!
Reply
Demolition has started in the rear yard
Reply
(04-27-2018, 02:59 PM)white_brian Wrote: Demolition has started in the rear yard

A story (well, at least a photo) in the Record:
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/859...ming-down/
Reply
Demolition work was ongoing all weekend. This is not a small demolition project but they are working hard at it.

   

   
Reply
I'm a bit disappointed that that particular building couldn't have been saved. It might have made for a more interesting development, istm.
Reply
Demolition continues …

   
Reply
I wonder if the first development on the site might not be renovation of the office building on Courtland? Seems like the low-hanging fruit.
Reply
(08-16-2018, 09:17 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I wonder if the first development on the site might not be renovation of the office building on Courtland?  Seems like the low-hanging fruit.

I think that'll happen in parallel with the construction of the first residential tower. Will try to find out some more details on this, though.
Reply


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

              Advertise