Waterloo Region Connected

(11-18-2021, 02:13 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]On that note, it's interesting that our local media only every focuses on the NIMBYs. Rarely do you read an article suggesting we should build something. I write the cities and region very often and at most get back a generic response: yeah thanks, we'll put this in the public record. I know media likes to post provocative bullshit to generate revenue, but it'd be nice to see them publish things that are pro-development.

Surprised they aren't lurking this forum for stories, though I'm sure at least a couple reporters do so. They definitely use Reddit for material.

I would agree with you in general, but I think two perspectives missed at time are: (1) the reporters are going to write what they hear because its a report on community dialogue and not a technical assessment of any of those arguments' merits; and (2) those voices can be seen as harmful to amplify, but they are often the ones speaking up most (and naturally, reporting is looking for the eye catching quotes).

On the other hand, as Melissa said here, more effort to provide a counteracting voice can help and is helping. I think they have provided a notably more balanced coverage of developments in the last few weeks - even if its not necessarily in the same article - including Liz (who has been the by-line on most of them) somewhat evidently writing the Park & Victoria + YIMBY article in response to feedback.

Just need to remove them needing to lurk for stories

(12-16-2021, 09:38 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]Wow,  great perspective from someone I often don't agree with.  Well said Luisa...

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...llage.html

I sent an indignant letter to the editor saying exactly this.

Residents and tourists are attracted by quaint, cute human-scale retro elements," said delegate Bard Trotter. "Nobody says 'let's go visit that charming skyscraper.'" Yeah that's right, a skyscraper. At 11 floors it is a barley a cloud tickler...

And there is a cluster of tall buildings already there, not more than a few hundred metres away.

So much opposition to a new building that will bring more restaurant and retail, to a street that is focused on restaurants and retail, in place of a tire shop…

(02-08-2022, 09:42 AM)CP42 Wrote: [ -> ]So much opposition to a new building that will bring more restaurant and retail, to a street that is focused on restaurants and retail, in place of a tire shop…

It really just extends what is already there, just with new residents on top instead of being just a couple of floors.

Anyway, the bottom couple of floors can be designed with “human scale” features; the fact that there is a tower on top is irrelevant to the question of whether it interacts with the street in a positive fashion.

I think it's kind of funny they're acting like Belmont Village is similar to St.Jacobs all of a sudden. What's Touristy about Belmont Village?

I live close by and enjoy the businesses there but I have never thought of Belmont Village as touristy.

In my opinion, I think one of the biggest issues is that many of those who would be in favour of a development like this, wouldn’t know they want to live here until this is built 2-3 years down the road. Lots of people 2-3 years down the road will want more housing options, but likely don’t know or think about advocating for it today. On the other side, those opposing currently live in the area and know they will be living there in the future. There is much more certainty for the few people that oppose versus the hundreds that would benefit, and therefore they are the ones who come out to these meetings/hearings. (if that makes sense)

(02-08-2022, 10:28 AM)TMKM94 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's kind of funny they're acting like Belmont Village is similar to St.Jacobs all of a sudden. What's Touristy about Belmont Village?

I live close by and enjoy the businesses there but I have never thought of Belmont Village as touristy.

Those people make it seem that we have tourists from around the world coming to visit “The Village”. It’s a nice part of town, but it’s not tourist trap.

The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

Listening in on the delegation last night, though it was a parade of opposition, I was pleased to see representation from a few pro- voices including:

- A local downsizing resident who spoke of a retrospective disappointment of having been in the converted farmland suburbia for so many years and appreciating the ability to downsize while keeping in the walkable, urban community they now live in.
- Miovision CEO Curtis McBride who, conflicts of interest in owning Catalyst137 aside, spoke well of the new employment class working steps away and the 1200 staff in that development patronizing Belmont Village.
- Delegate from Menno Homes talking about the potential impact of a cash donation vs. affordable unit carve outs within the development.

Also appreciated the councillors who posed a few not that tough but still revealing questions of some of the most vociferous anti- delegates about what "development, but not this" should look like. Including a few that revealed they don't even live in the surrounding wards.

And hearty wtf to the guy who lives on Rock Ave and "sometimes drives to park on Belmont Ln to go to Tim Hortons".

(02-08-2022, 02:39 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]And hearty wtf to the guy who lives on Rock Ave and "sometimes drives to park on Belmont Ln to go to Tim Hortons".

That's a weird objection. He's going to miss the tiny Tim's? He has no real reason to oppose it so he took his time to present that to council?

I have to think he drives the block to Tim's on his way to do more errands further away?

The more I think about this the more I find it comical.

(02-08-2022, 09:42 AM)CP42 Wrote: [ -> ]So much opposition to a new building that will bring more restaurant and retail, to a street that is focused on restaurants and retail, in place of a tire shop…

Rather unbelievable but given things these days, the obvious apparently isn't too obvious to people.

Belmont Village has potential, but its definitely not a destination for the Region. This development should bring more businesses that make it closer to being that destination. The added residents will only improve things for the local businesses as well. Hopefully Council will see this.

Not to divert the conversation too far, but since the Tire Shop was brought up, it brings to mind Winnipeg's Gas Station Arts Centre, located in Osborne Village. Osborne Village is about 231 acres. and home to about 12,700 people (so says Wikipedia). The land used in the following ways:

• 29% residential (including about half single-family housing)
  
• 12% commercial
  
• 4.5% parkland
  
• 54.5 % everything else (Wikipedia wouldn't say)
  

As a thought exercise, how does 231 acres map onto Belmont Village and the surrounding areas? Could Belmont Village be allowed to "grow up" without knocking everything down and putting up 11+ storey towers?