+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: University Area (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=1388)
239 Albert St | 12 fl | U/C - Watdot - 03-11-2019
239 Albert Street
Location: 229, 231, 235, 239 & 249 Albert St.
The proposed development will include 2-12 storey residential apartment towers and 74 square metres of commercial space on the ground floor.
Applicant: GSP Group
Zone Change Application
![[Image: ZVk3V3E.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/ZVk3V3E.jpg)
Location: 229, 231, 235, 239 & 249 Albert St.
The proposed development will include 2-12 storey residential apartment towers and 74 square metres of commercial space on the ground floor.
Applicant: GSP Group
Zone Change Application
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 03-11-2019
74 sq m of commercial space? Hardly worth the effort, considering the size of the project.
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - urbd - 03-11-2019
(03-11-2019, 11:10 AM)panamaniac Wrote: 74 sq m of commercial space? Hardly worth the effort, considering the size of the project.
??? it's something... have you seen the businesses in Northdale? they struggle - not every single building needs a ton of ground floor retail.
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 03-11-2019
It does seem very small given the footprint of the project. I'm curious what else occupies the ground floor
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 03-12-2019
(03-11-2019, 11:15 AM)urbd Wrote:(03-11-2019, 11:10 AM)panamaniac Wrote: 74 sq m of commercial space? Hardly worth the effort, considering the size of the project.
??? it's something... have you seen the businesses in Northdale? they struggle - not every single building needs a ton of ground floor retail.
And it seems that in a lot of buildings the space is vacant. Of course it does depend on the rental rates, too.
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - Tony_Plow - 03-28-2019
What's going on with the house to the right of this project? I read this article in The Record where the homeowner was complaining about the construction behind his property:
https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/8391273-d-amato-the-mayor-would-not-tolerate-this-in-his-backyard-/
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 03-28-2019
(03-28-2019, 12:03 PM)Tony_Plow Wrote: What's going on with the house to the right of this project? I read this article in The Record where the homeowner was complaining about the construction behind his property:
https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/8391273-d-amato-the-mayor-would-not-tolerate-this-in-his-backyard-/
I think they have a valid complaint. Instead of enforcement the city gave them an exemption ?!?! Brutal. Not the residents problem that the developer needs to work long hours to get the build done in time to start collecting money in September. They should have planned better. If the city is going to make an exemption for this company, then who and what next. If they do make an exemption then the residents should be compensated financially at a minimum by the developer. Sorry, a normal residential project would not get this preferential treatment. If I am putting an addition on my home, I should be able to work on it till 11 pm as long as I warn my neighbors... Gee I wonder how that would work out....
Terrible leadership by the city. They are advocating for a developer and not the residents they serve...
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - jamincan - 03-28-2019
The exemptions do seem to be misused for broad sweeping exemptions where the intent of the by-law seems to be that the exemption is for a specific activity. I would be curious to see how many, if any, applications were refused. There are a number of guidelines in issuing exemptions and it appears that Prica fails to meet a number of them. Also, several of the exemptions listed (including Prica's) clearly don't comply with the by-law as they are longer than 6 months. If they didn't refuse this one, which ones would they refuse?
List of City of Waterloo Exemptions (note several for longer than 6 mos)
City of Waterloo Noise By-law
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 04-02-2019
(03-28-2019, 01:13 PM)jamincan Wrote: The exemptions do seem to be misused for broad sweeping exemptions where the intent of the by-law seems to be that the exemption is for a specific activity. I would be curious to see how many, if any, applications were refused. There are a number of guidelines in issuing exemptions and it appears that Prica fails to meet a number of them. Also, several of the exemptions listed (including Prica's) clearly don't comply with the by-law as they are longer than 6 months. If they didn't refuse this one, which ones would they refuse?
List of City of Waterloo Exemptions (note several for longer than 6 mos)
City of Waterloo Noise By-law
Schedule 3 doesn't even include "normal" construction activities, unless there is a road closure involved. Or am I missing something?
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - jamincan - 04-02-2019
Schedule 3 lists activities that are always exempt from the by-law (Section 6). Section 7 covers case-by-case exemptions that require approval from the City.
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 04-02-2019
Duh, I did misread it!
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - GtwoK - 12-04-2019
Demolition fencing is up around all of these buildings now
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 03-11-2020
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - urbd - 03-13-2020
Thanks for the photo updates but why are they always sideways?
RE: 239 Albert St | 12 fl | Proposed - jwilliamson - 03-13-2020
(03-13-2020, 11:16 AM)urbd Wrote: Thanks for the photo updates but why are they always sideways?
I'm not sure. They orient correctly if I select "View Image" in the browser, but not embedded in the page. I've read there's a myBB bug about mobile pictures appearing sideways.