Waterloo Region Connected

I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.

(07-25-2017, 01:20 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

Perfect; I love it. That's how it should be!

(07-25-2017, 01:20 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.

Like poor old Edith Macefield.

[attachment=4014]

Coke

(07-25-2017, 01:00 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]

Great video! Your embedded version didn't work for me (video is here if others have the same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1o0myj_YXY)

I guess their PR folks decided it was best not to include a shot of the dome

(07-25-2017, 01:20 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I feel for both sides - I want to see redevelopment that brings out an area's potential, a the same time that I want to see established locals have control over their fate.

Ideally when we see property values rise until the current usage is underutilizing the space, the current owners get more than compensated for a move if they desire it and free it up; while those that don't wish it, don't have to.

It's also best to see that development organic and smooth, so we don't get a 'house from Up' scenario.

This is sometimes prevented by zoning. For example, in Northdale, the market clearly was pushing to increase the density, but doing so by building significantly was illegal. As a result, dodgy landlords moved in and packed family houses full of students. Then when the city finally noticed that they had massively screwed up, almost every house got demolished and replaced by apartment buildings over the course of just a few years.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if there were no density limits in zoning. It’s not appropriate to suggest that people would then randomly have 60-story towers going up next to them — it’s not generally worth the increased building costs to build tall towers like that unless the land is expensive. But putting additions of various sizes onto houses would be possible, which would allow some additional density without making a sudden change in the character of the neighbourhood. The actual built density would track the “market” density and most likely increase gradually. Of course eventually some areas would end up with highrises but they would usually be a more natural evolution from what was there before.

A lot of zoning is like this — if, without zoning, a small number of something would move in, it won’t have much effect, so why forbid it? If on the other hand lots of something would move in, that should tell you the zoning is economically inappropriate, so forbidding it will probably have even worse effects. Uses like professional offices and even retail are like this.

A very interesting development in the mystery around platform crossings!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hi Iain, these crossings aren't completed yet, there are stills curbs to be cut and signage to be installed - crews are aware</p>&mdash; ION (@rideIONrt) <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt/status/890188125514985472">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>

And an interesting development in the mystery around sidewalk pouring!

[attachment=4017]

(07-26-2017, 09:48 AM)kps Wrote: [ -> ]And an interesting development in the mystery around sidewalk pouring!

That is interesting, I thought they would do the sidewalk on the other side first.  They were compacting it earlier and had already filled under the bridge.

Nice to see it coming together! I meant to say, in case anyone didn't know, that it would be a concrete MUT.

(07-26-2017, 09:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]That is interesting, I thought they would do the sidewalk on the other side first.  They were compacting it earlier and had already filled under the bridge.

The south (west) sidewalk requires some earthworks on the west (north) side of the rail line, so I'm not surprised to see the north (east) sidewalk get prioritized this week.

(07-26-2017, 09:19 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]A very interesting development in the mystery around platform crossings!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hi Iain, these crossings aren't completed yet, there are stills curbs to be cut and signage to be installed - crews are aware</p>&mdash; ION (@rideIONrt) <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt/status/890188125514985472">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>

In your second photo, even if they cut the curbs the crossing would be straight into a pole

My thoughts re: displaced businesses: not everybody can afford to move. For them, closing is the only option. For some the cost is going to be bigger than others, especially the aforementioned lumber yard. Won't be the only one; Gillies Lumber will have to move to accommodate the eventual LRT route - they get all their deliveries by rail but their siding is going to be cut off. And that is a big site.

The question becomes, should there be a moving assistance program for businesses that have to relocate? Especially local businesses.

(07-26-2017, 12:34 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: [ -> ]My thoughts re: displaced businesses: not everybody can afford to move. For them, closing is the only option. For some the cost is going to be bigger than others, especially the aforementioned lumber yard. Won't be the only one; Gillies Lumber will have to move to accommodate the eventual LRT route - they get all their deliveries by rail but their siding is going to be cut off. And that is a big site.

The question becomes, should there be a moving assistance program for businesses that have to relocate? Especially local businesses.

If they are forced to move this might be the case, but I think the original position was more of when they get priced out of the area, then moving costs are not an issue because selling their property will fund a move very easily (the whole point being to move to more suitable, probably much cheaper land).  Unless they're leasing, and then I don't know.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Facing the storm - Metrolinx Pilot vehicle #1 back in Kingston after successfully completing its climactic testing at the <a href="https://twitter.com/NRC_CNRC">@NRC_CNRC</a> facility <a href="https://t.co/TX6uyped9B">pic.twitter.com/TX6uyped9B</a></p>&mdash; BombardierRail (@BombardierRail) <a href="https://twitter.com/BombardierRail/status/890288761241829377">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>

Metrolinx Pilot LRV 1 back in Millhaven. Can't wait to see it out on the high-speed test track!