+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Eureka (534 Charles St E) | 32, 27, 15 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=1503)
Eureka (534 Charles St E) | 32, 27, 15 fl | U/C - westwardloo - 09-23-2020
Story in the record today about a "gateway" development in East kitchener. It will be a 3 phased development starting with a 32 storey tower. It will be a whole city block bordering borden, Charles, king and Ottawa. Developer is Vive and they will be submitting plans in the fall with hopes to start construction in 2021. They also criticized the city for parking minimums that will add significant costs to the project when it is right beside an LRT stop. Don't have the link but worth a read.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - DK519 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 10:56 AM)westwardloo Wrote: Story in the record today about a "gateway" development in East kitchener. It will be a 3 phased development starting with a 32 storey tower. It will be a whole city block bordering borden, Charles, king and Ottawa. Developer is Vive and they will be submitting plans in the fall with hopes to start construction in 2021. They also criticized the city for parking minimums that will add significant costs to the project when it is right beside an LRT stop. Don't have the link but worth a read.
Oooooo...this excites me...
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2020/09/23/eastern-gateway-to-city-core-up-for-massive-redevelopment.html
In case you're paywalled:
KITCHENER — The ION train rolls past Stephen Litt as he stands beside an empty factory that he plans to demolish, making room for a 32-floor apartment building.
“The first tower goes right here, from Charles to King Street,” said Litt, who is standing next to 534 Charles St. East.
Litt and his partner Heather are principals in Vive Development, that assembled the land for the development three years ago. Vive now owns all but six properties on the block bounded by King Street East, Borden Avenue, and Ottawa and Charles Streets.
While the block includes two car-repair businesses, a fish and chip restaurant, massage parlour and tattoo shop, it is dominated by empty and derelict buildings.
“It’s really rough,” said Litt.
“There were pieces of land in the middle of the block not owned by anyone, and that took months to resolve,” said Litt.
They renovated a pair of abandoned houses and rented them as single-family homes while they obtain planning approvals from the City of Kitchener for the first apartment building with 360 suites, with an estimated cost of $145 million.
The application for the three-phased development will be filed later this fall. Construction could begin in November 2021.
The first phase will see a 32-storey building straddling the middle of the block. The ground-floor units will be larger than most apartments, and have much higher ceilings. Those units can be marketed as residential, but can easily be converted to commercial in the future.
“The challenge in building something on this site is how much parking do we provide?” said Litt.
A development of this size — the biggest one ever proposed in the central part of the city — calls for 1,200 parking spaces. Each space in a multi-level parking garage costs about $50,000.
The parking garage for this development will cost $60 million and contain five acres of parking spaces on several floors. It will sit metres away from the ION tracks.
“Parking really drives the cost of a project,” said Litt.
After completing a number of projects in and around the city centre during the past 10 years, Litt has come to believe Kitchener should follow the lead of other cities such as Edmonton. In June, the Alberta capital repealed its minimum parking requirements for new developments.
Vive is a partner in two old apartment buildings in the Kitchener core it bought and renovated years ago — one on Weber, the other on College Street. There is no parking for either building. The units are always rented.
“It is never an issue,” he said.
The elimination or reduction of minimum-parking requirements along the ION tracks would help lower rents, he said.
When combined with other initiatives, like a provincial program that helps cover the construction of affordable housing, the city and region would see more affordable units built within a short walk of the ION, said Litt.
Vive Developments used a provincial program called Investment in Affordable Housing to complete a 31-unit project at 25 Linwood Dr. in Cambridge. The province provided a loan to convert the former retirement home into a residential building. If Vive keeps the rents at below market rates for 25 years the loan is forgiven.
Vive’s application for the development, branded “Lower Kitchener,” moves the downtown building boom further east along King Street.
The car lots, repair shops, drive-thrus and gas stations remaining along this part of King are the car-dependent businesses the City of Kitchener has long planned on phasing out.
Years ago the city rezoned both King and Victoria streets a mixed-use corridors: high-density, mixed-use, transit-supported developments are in — car-related businesses are out. Existing business can stay as long as there is no interruption in ownership or operations.
“This used to be Crosby Volkswagen, this is where the Volkswagen Beetle was first sold in Kitchener-Waterloo,” said Litt.
“This area blossomed when the automobile became widely accessible.”
Now, it needs a balanced approach between cars and transit. It is beside the LRT line and close to Highway 8.
“This corner is the gateway,” said Litt, looking at King Street East and Ottawa. “Coming into the downtown this way, it is not very inviting right now.”
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 09-23-2020
Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - DK519 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?
I'd imagine it would.
It's in decent shape still and they should be able to repurpose it fairly easily.
Not sure if there are many details released yet though.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?
Too early to tell, I think. But this project, if it comes to fruition, is exactly what we need. The block is derelict, as the article says, and there is an LRT stop one block away. I do expect the city will reduce the parking minimums.
I am also curious as to which properties they do not own yet.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 09-23-2020
Yes, the block must be redeveloped, and at density. To lose yet another piece of industrial heritage in the process would be very unfortunate.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 09-23-2020
Quote:“This corner is the gateway,” said Litt, looking at King Street East and Ottawa. “Coming into the downtown this way, it is not very inviting right now.”
This is so true. I can't think of any worse way to approach downtown Kitchener than to go from this end of the city. Both Ottawa and King are arterial roads that feed people in from South Kitchener and Cambridge as well as the highways. I can see this project getting approval with few problems. It's similar to what the area getting developed around Victoria and King is like: old industry, parking that rarely gets used, grass lots, disused buildings. This proposal, combined with the Schneiders project, could really start to transform this area. There is so much land between Mill Station and Borden Station that would be great for developing over the years. With the golf course, Rockway Gardens, Kaufman Park and Iron Horse Trail bordering it all, it could be completely transformed.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Acitta - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 09-23-2020
There is nothing architecturally unique about it that's for sure.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - DK519 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote:(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
It IS a non-designated heritage property which (from the city's website) means:
Once a property is on the register, local planning decisions can be affected in a couple of ways:
- The municipality would have more time to process demolition applications made under the Ontario Building Code. Typically, a demolition application must be processed within 10 business days; in the case of a non-designated property, the municipality would have 60 business days - a sufficient amount of time to determine if the property should be protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. If protection is deemed to be warranted, a separate formal legal process would be required.
- Planning Act applications, such as site plans and plans of subdivision, may need to be accompanied by a heritage impact assessment and/or conservation plan.
So, yea, you're right that they intend to demolish it but how much trouble they run into doing that remains to be seen.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote:(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
The heritage value is in the unusual landmark front of the building:
https://goo.gl/maps/gqkrndH8eGsqMnDU9
The only reason that looks unattractive is due to being worn out, something that could be easily fixed by a restoration. In this case I agree the back is just some random industrial building, at least to a casual look.
I agree that we should use discretion in choosing heritage buildings and elements for preservation, but the choice should not be based on a casual glance and the observation that it’s old and worn out. Sometimes the most unusual and valuable items are hidden under decades of renovations and a myriad uses over time.
That being said, especially with the heritage component being so far back from the street, keeping it would give an outsized constraint on the overall development in this particular case. I would be quite surprised if it were retained.
On a different note, clearly there should be no parking minimum on this site. That close to an LRT stop the concept is absurd and offensive. I wonder how much parking the developers would like to provide? And what happens if they offer to replace a floor or two of parking with affordable housing?
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - jgsz - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 10:56 AM)westwardloo Wrote: Story in the record today about a "gateway" development in East kitchener. It will be a 3 phased development starting with a 32 storey tower. It will be a whole city block bordering borden, Charles, king and Ottawa. Developer is Vive and they will be submitting plans in the fall with hopes to start construction in 2021. They also criticized the city for parking minimums that will add significant costs to the project when it is right beside an LRT stop. Don't have the link but worth a read.
Another Vive Development? Hmmm. Colour me very sceptical.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 11:32 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I am also curious as to which properties they do not own yet.
21 separate properties on this block!
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 11:53 AM)ac3r Wrote:Quote:“This corner is the gateway,” said Litt, looking at King Street East and Ottawa. “Coming into the downtown this way, it is not very inviting right now.”
This is so true. I can't think of any worse way to approach downtown Kitchener than to go from this end of the city. Both Ottawa and King are arterial roads that feed people in from South Kitchener and Cambridge as well as the highways. I can see this project getting approval with few problems. It's similar to what the area getting developed around Victoria and King is like: old industry, parking that rarely gets used, grass lots, disused buildings. This proposal, combined with the Schneiders project, could really start to transform this area. There is so much land between Mill Station and Borden Station that would be great for developing over the years. With the golf course, Rockway Gardens, Kaufman Park and Iron Horse Trail bordering it all, it could be completely transformed.
(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote:(09-23-2020, 11:18 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Does the proposal preserve the heritage elements of the Onward Mfg building?Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
(09-23-2020, 12:38 PM)DK519 Wrote:(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote: Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
It IS a non-designated heritage property which (from the city's website) means:
Once a property is on the register, local planning decisions can be affected in a couple of ways:
- The municipality would have more time to process demolition applications made under the Ontario Building Code. Typically, a demolition application must be processed within 10 business days; in the case of a non-designated property, the municipality would have 60 business days - a sufficient amount of time to determine if the property should be protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. If protection is deemed to be warranted, a separate formal legal process would be required.
- Planning Act applications, such as site plans and plans of subdivision, may need to be accompanied by a heritage impact assessment and/or conservation plan.
So, yea, you're right that they intend to demolish it but how much trouble they run into doing that remains to be seen.
How did you conclude that they intend to demolish it? The material posted only indicates that they COULD, potentially, demolish it. In any event, Kitchener's track record gives a pretty clear indication of the likely outcome.
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 12:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote: Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
The heritage value is in the unusual landmark front of the building:
https://goo.gl/maps/gqkrndH8eGsqMnDU9
The only reason that looks unattractive is due to being worn out, something that could be easily fixed by a restoration. In this case I agree the back is just some random industrial building, at least to a casual look.
I agree that we should use discretion in choosing heritage buildings and elements for preservation, but the choice should not be based on a casual glance and the observation that it’s old and worn out. Sometimes the most unusual and valuable items are hidden under decades of renovations and a myriad uses over time.
That being said, especially with the heritage component being so far back from the street, keeping it would give an outsized constraint on the overall development in this particular case. I would be quite surprised if it were retained.
On a different note, clearly there should be no parking minimum on this site. That close to an LRT stop the concept is absurd and offensive. I wonder how much parking the developers would like to provide? And what happens if they offer to replace a floor or two of parking with affordable housing?
I would have thought this would be a strong point of a creative proposal - use that space to create a small plaza, since a development of this size would be, one would hope, required to include public amenities and/or green space.