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.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontario Die Company (119 Roger St.)
#16
I'm astonished that MPAC could/would give that kind of "pre-project" property valuation opinion.
Reply
#17
What's interesting about this is how progressive the post author, Juanita Metzger, is, and yet how quickly she reverts to opposition to nearly the gentlest of densities. I'm curious if she misstated things to MPAC to get a more negative response. Based on the proposal, the 6-storey buildings would be created behind the three-storey townhomes, and it would not be surprising if they were separated enough that onlookers from across the street couldn't see the 6-storey buildings, much as the frontage of Huether Hotel/Cafe1842 makes the surprisingly tall Princess Condos very well hidden from those on the east side of King. But back to the point, her 5% decrease in property value was based on having a 6-storey building built next to her property, but based on this proposal, construction of this would largely yield trading a light industrial property across the street into a 3-storey building across the street (I'd be surprised if MPAC saw any negative value prediction for this), and with 6-storey buildings being built behind that, with parking/green space separation between the two. Then we add this to the concept that Waterloo region has seen a year over year house price increase of ~30%, completely undeserved, and a 5% reduction is the most unacceptable thing to have happened to anyone.  Dodgy
Reply
#18
(04-20-2017, 07:19 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I'm astonished that MPAC could/would give that kind of "pre-project" property valuation opinion.

To be fair, we don't know what response they gave.

I'm not inclined to believe MPAC anyway.  5% is well within their margin of error on my house.
Reply
#19
Just to clarify, Juanita posted that for a resident, she didn't write it herself. The person who wrote it lives on Roger, and submitted it to Juanita to publish.

I was pretty surprised that MPAC would give any kind of information to a query like that. I think that Viewfromthe42's point is a good one: homeowners on paper have made huge gains on their properties recently, so it's hard to understand why their equity should be protected from possible impact by sound intensification.
Reply
#20
The conceptual drawings at the open house this afternoon looked pretty good. I was pretty impressed with the zoning changes they are requesting:

-Up to around 300 units
-10 meter height to a setback of 55 meters from Roger Street, and 20 meters beyond that- so Roger Street residents won't have any chance of being adjacent to a building of any height
-1.05 parking spaces per unit
-Up to 930 square meters of commercial

That last bit is exciting. No commercial is shown in the conceptual render, but leaving it open as a possibility for a buyer is great.
Reply
#21
When I lived on Roger St, I distinctly remember an apartment tower in my backyard.

Sounds like the type of neighbourhood is one with a mix of density.
Reply
#22
Can the commercial space include office/studio, or would it strictly be retail/service? This is currently an employment property that is being taken offline at a time when there is pressure to create neighbourhoods that include live/work/play. It would be interesting if something like this could include a variety of commercial/light industrial uses as options for the space. I'm not sure what that would be, but principally something that produced a tangible product rather simply selling something that was made elsewhere.
Reply
#23
(04-20-2017, 10:06 PM)nms Wrote: Can the commercial space include office/studio, or would it strictly be retail/service?  This is currently an employment property that is being taken offline at a time when there is pressure to create neighbourhoods that include live/work/play.  It would be interesting if something like this could include a variety of commercial/light industrial uses as options for the space.  I'm not sure what that would be, but principally something that produced a tangible product rather simply selling something that was made elsewhere.

I think proposing continued industrial use is 1) interesting and worth considering, and 2) is an excellent strategy to provide an alternative that neighbours will hate even more.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)