[urbd]

I don't think I'll ever fully understand why having parking is so frowned upon here.

do you know anything about urban design theory?

[jamincan]

I don't think I'll ever fully understand why having parking is so frowned upon here.

do you know anything about urban design theory?

Would you care to elaborate?

[Viewfromthe42]

We can say that the density/pedestrianization of Ottawa and Sydney is very different than Queen and Joseph.

[BuildingScout]

I don't think I'll ever fully understand why having parking is so frowned upon here.

do you know anything about urban design theory?

Do you know anything about urban design practice?  

[Viewfromthe42]

Parking can be great, parking can be horrible. The Shoppers Drug Mart Parking in downtown is a great deployment of parking, IMO. The continued encapsulation of the south lot Waterloo Town Square parking, which will soon only be visible from Caroline, is great.

[tomh009]

I don't think I'll ever fully understand why having parking is so frowned upon here.

Since that was my comment ... I'll say that surface parking is simply the enemy of intensification and higher density.

[CTGal1011]

And parking is definitely preferred to 4 way flashers and cars impeding the sidewalk because they are "just gonna be a minute". Ugh.

[Canard]

Forgive me if there's already a thread for it, but there are four properties up for sale on the East side of Lancaster, roughly here (between Weber and Guelph), with the same giant red "FOR SALE" developerish-looking sign up in their yards.  I can't figure out what's going on here - it almost looks like they're a "set" that are all going to be removed for some larger structure.  But why would they be "For Sale"? The signs are so huge I can't imagine that people are currently living in these homes - it's almost like someone bought them with a project in mind, couldn't do it, so now they have their corporate sign up in all 4 properties for someone else to have a go at it.  I can't remember what the signs say on them, I only ever get a glimpse as I drive past but I think about it every time I do.

Anyone know more?

Edit - So, after doing a bit of digging on MLS, I found this:

This redevelopment/infill site is to be sold together with 134 Lancaster St. W., 138 Lancaster St. W. and 146 Lancaster St. W. The total land area of the 4 properties equals 1.01 acres and the sale price is $2,415,000. Please do not approach or walk the property without consent from the Listing Agent. Close proximity to the new transit hub and the Google offices. Ideal development site for stacked town homes and or walk up brownstones.

Interesting... I still wonder what the whole story here is.

[MidTowner]

tomh009 brought this parcel up about a month ago when we were talking about infill development in Kitchener, and there was a bit of conversation about the site and the price. That's a few pages back.

It's possible that someone assembled the properties with a project in mind and then for whatever reason couldn't go ahead.

At least one of those is a legal duplex, so my bet would be it was a landlord who over time acquired a few of the neighbouring properties (which is not uncommon), and is now selling out, and hoping a developer will see value in land already assembled.

[rangersfan]

After years of contemplating redevelopment Trinity United Church has hired a real estate professional.


http://m.therecord.com/news-story/707570...find-buyer

[JJTL]

Checking out the old Schlichters property.  The render in the signs is basically just cladding, and presumably only on the Queen St side -- Ontario St might remain as is, given that it already has tenants?

The current state of the building.  Cleaned up, but neither beautiful nor heritage.


The render.  Very different.  Still it will look a bit odd downtown, with a large parking lot in front of the building.  


Interior shot 1: the interior columns actually look quite good, and after the clean-up it looks decent and bright enough, with the large windows on the N side.


Interior shot 2: further away from those side windows, it's much less bright, but the skylights for help somewhat

Finally, some external work being completed on the 132 Queen St S building (previously Schlichters). Thought I read somewhere this work was expected to be completed last fall? Anyways, they have crews out this morning removing the old exterior cladding (in the none brick areas), and they have had crews this week hooking up the new roof AC units.

[DHLawrence]

After years of contemplating redevelopment Trinity United Church has hired a real estate professional.


http://m.therecord.com/news-story/707570...find-buyer

It's a shame to see the old church go, but it's good to see they plan to keep a presence there.

[Viewfromthe42]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7085...-activist/

"Next month, the region is considering proposals for 100 one-bedroom units. The subsidized housing could be built by spring of 2018."

Now, will people get behind this, or will we see a massive NIMBY outpouring?

Relating to the SIXO thread on affordable housing, there are a few kinds. One, which I think and hope the above statement refers to, is heavily subsidized, very basic features. Would hopefully be the kind available as transitional housing, the lowest end of affordability, but close enough to the cores to fit with renters likely being non-car users, needing short trips to social assistance sites and transit nodes.

There's also the affordable housing that's decidedly between a place like 1Vic and these 100 beds. Years ago, I rented in the short red brick buildings at Laurel and Bridgeport, and for a 2 bed 1 bath ground floor unit it was only $800/month, far more reasonable than most options out there for couples, small families, and many others who can't make $1600+/month work in short or long term.

[tomh009]

There's also the affordable housing that's decidedly between a place like 1Vic and these 100 beds. Years ago, I rented in the short red brick buildings at Laurel and Bridgeport, and for a 2 bed 1 bath ground floor unit it was only $800/month, far more reasonable than most options out there for couples, small families, and many others who can't make $1600+/month work in short or long term.

Recent UK terminology: JAM (Just About Managing), describing families struggling to make ends meet but not destitute.

[Rainrider22]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7085...-activist/

"Next month, the region is considering proposals for 100 one-bedroom units. The subsidized housing could be built by spring of 2018."

Now, will people get behind this, or will we see a massive NIMBY outpouring?

Relating to the SIXO thread on affordable housing, there are a few kinds. One, which I think and hope the above statement refers to, is heavily subsidized, very basic features. Would hopefully be the kind available as transitional housing, the lowest end of affordability, but close enough to the cores to fit with renters likely being non-car users, needing short trips to social assistance sites and transit nodes.

There's also the affordable housing that's decidedly between a place like 1Vic and these 100 beds. Years ago, I rented in the short red brick buildings at Laurel and Bridgeport, and for a 2 bed 1 bath ground floor unit it was only $800/month, far more reasonable than most options out there for couples, small families, and many others who can't make $1600+/month work in short or long term.

The only Nimby you will see is if it is proposed in Waterloo.....  Kitchener will once again take on it's more than fair share of social responsibility while the people in Waterloo continue to advocate social conscience as long as it is not in their city....