General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Printable Version +- 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: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=8) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
|
RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that? Because if there is going to be a new project in a neighbourhood, it's important to consult with existing neighbours. There are often legitimate concerns or questions about things and often there are good suggestions people have that can be implemented in a project. I mean...when it comes to things like bike lanes, I think all of us here would agree that we would love to see the cities and region in particular more involved because they often design really asinine bike infrastructure that is very dangerous. Usually the public just has nonsensical opposition to a project (it's too tall, the shadows will be problematic, there will be too much traffic, they can't have "poor people" living near them which we often hear when it comes to affordable housing projects, "we're becoming like Toronto"...I even remember one guy quoted in The Record as saying we're becoming like Manhattan lmao) but if they are fair in their complaints, a developer can go back to the drawing board to make alterations to things such as adding setbacks to upper levels to mitigate things like shadows or adding lots of trees surrounding the project so neighbours don't see a massive building when they look out their windows. They can also suggest great ideas such as adding park spaces, better lighting for the streets, artistic features (think Charlie West where they added a place to hang artworks as well as leasing out a portion of the windows at ground level to KWAG for small art exhibitions though I don't believe that was added due to public suggestions), improved sidewalks, public benches, safety features (i.e. signage/lights/alarms for parking exits), things like improved drainage features...with an office building I helped designed in Montréal, I once had a person point out that a certain part of the building could cause problems with ice buildup on the sidewalk and so we implemented a way to mitigate that - a totally minor and overlooked thing on our part. On another project I worked on in Berlin, some people suggested the developer include the green roof I had designed which would help with the heat island effect, so with some discussions I managed to convince the developer to include that despite the additional costs. Allowing the public to participate in the process is a great thing and in most cases, it is beneficial in getting things approved if they know their concerns are being considered. And it's also beneficial in demonstrating to the residents of your city that their concerns can be taken into account, which in the long term is good if people know that things won't be blindly approved with no consultation. If this often annoying and unfortunate process didn't occur, you'd have people getting progressively more upset with choices that are made which can snowball into a larger annoyance, which can then influence things come election time or result in cities making drastic changes to what is and is not allowed. That said, there is really no reason a project like Victoria and Park should not have been approved. Sure, it would have cast shadows on neighbouring houses but the benefits of the project far outweigh that minor inconvenience. Now I just hope NIMBYs don't cause another uproar and get 26 Charles and 88 Queen cancelled. However, I have some confidence they'll go ahead without any issue. The article in The Record seems like the usual worthless clickbait rage article that Luisa D’Amato gets paid to write. There aren't any quotes from residents raising any concerns (though I'm sure some people do have some), but rather Queen NIMBY Debbie Chapman being "flabbergasted" and anti-progress as usual. They probably have each other on speed dial so they can complain about stuff haha. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-27-2022 (06-26-2022, 06:22 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(06-26-2022, 05:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, I agree with you completely. But like I said, we should stop listening to these people, we should start calling them on their bullshit. That's a fair alternative interpretation of jaminicans statement, perhaps I missinterpreted. That being said, I do think some broad statements are possible about groups of people. For example, all people opposing a development are opposing those specific houses being built. In my opinion, in the current crisis, those people are increasing the housing crisis and causing harm, regardless of the validity of their particular motivation. I think that is fairly unambiguously true. For me to assign specific motives and to argue their grievances are ridiculous and bullshit and made out of fear of change and generally dishonest to themselves (i.e., they've invented reasons to cover their true motives which are less palatable) is obviously a much more generalising and..."risky"...statement to make. That being said, given what I've heard said online and in public meetings...I'm still willing to make and stand behind such a statement. I'm sure it's not true of everyone but it's true often enough that I find it a safe enough bet for me. I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement. On an issue where people are objecting to housing being built, I don't have any agreement with them. I very rarely ever see "reasonable" issues raised, certainly not 99 out of 100 times. And...I've said it before, and I haven't changed my mind...we are past the point of having the luxury to discuss or debate or compromise on "legitimate" issues. We need more housing, we need more affordable housing. I no longer care if it is aesthetically pleasing my friends need a place to live and they don't care if their home is ugly anymore. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-27-2022 (06-26-2022, 09:05 PM)ac3r Wrote:(06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that? See...the problem is this is NOT true. I DON'T want to have to explain to engineers why they're bad at their job. Leaving aside the fact that they don't listen to me, they're paid to do this...they shouldn't be bad it. I shouldn't have to explain what they're doing wrong. I DO because I HAVE to. Technical issues shouldn't be up to the public, we should have experts who are actually good at their jobs building the things the public says we want. I.e., if the public wants safe places to bike (which they do) or equivalently if an effective leader convinces the public to want safe places to bike, then it should be up to experts to implement good infrastructure for safe biking. We SHOULDN'T know more than those experts, we should just be setting the overall goals. How this translates into building development is through policy...we should communicate to our governments what we want (intensification, active streetscapes, artwork, etc.) and they--being or hiring experts in governing should develop policies which result in this type of development happening. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - jamincan - 06-27-2022 Just to clarify, my point was that individuals don't have to have a coherent vision about zoning, or urban planning or whatever when it comes to public consultation. In my view, it should be enough that they like it or don't like it. I also don't begrudge them for trying to strengthen their arguments however they feel they can. No one believes a NIMBY's opposition to a project is born out of a view that zoning by-laws should be sacrosanct, after all. It's the shadows, or new, unknown people, or just a general resistance to change. I do, however, expect more from city decision makers, or newspaper editors, who I do expect to have a clearer vision for the city. d'Amato shouldn't argue one week that zoning by-laws are sacrosanct and then the next be miffed when a development follows the by-laws. Speaking directly to d'Amato's article, there was public consultation and lots of it... back when the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws were approved. If she has a problem with that, then she should also have a problem than any development at all, from your backyard pool, to a 40 story building, doesn't involve public consultation. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - dtkvictim - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 06:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-26-2022, 06:22 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Bolding the first line of jamincan's post because it can be interpreted two different ways (not sure how he intended), but I read it a little differently than I think you did. The public doesn't collectively form a coherent opinion because such a collective opinion doesn't really exist, it's the sum of thousands of opinions each of which are far more valid than the sum of their parts. Regarding the bolded part 1) I did try to clarify I was being more generous, for the sake of example, than I believe the situation actually is 2) I didn't suggest that 99 out of 100 issues are reasonable. In fact, in my example 100 out of 100 could be unreasonable, without changing the point of the argument. For what it's worth, I do agree with you that there is a certain amount of anti-development people who can be painted with broad strokes of the anti-development brush. However, I would consider them to be "extremists", and would disagree on the scale of their existence. I think their outsized influence comes in part from painting everyone else with the same brush, so council thinks the much more moderate population is taking the extreme anti-development position. All of this is to say, I think huge inroads can be made by 1) education, 2) non-compromising compromises (i.e. build the housing, but throw the community a bone), 3) ignoring the loud extremist opinions. With this the moderate population will come away feeling much better, and the extremists will be as unhappy as always. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - dtkvictim - 06-27-2022 (06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that? It's probably not so black and white, as the answers you've gotten already show. But I can help but wonder if the extreme friction of public consultation is caused by grossly inadequate zoning? We know our population is going to increase by X amount, if our zoning doesn't have room for this growth with a signification amount of buffer space (allowing the market to decide which plots to develop, and allowing for unpredicted growth) then the issues of public consultation are inevitable. If the public consultation was reframed as "We are going to upzone the city to meet the next 15 years of growth" then the consultation could be a productive discussion of how people want to see the city grow. But critically there could be no discussion of compromising that original goal. Any development that follows is not up for discussion. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - plam - 06-27-2022 At some level, I think local consultation is useful. Experts have been known to say in the distant and not so distant past that we should just have highways everywhere. Stopping those experts was useful. I also don't expect people to necessarily have good arguments for feeling the way they do. I've read that even judges form an opinion and then backfill arguments to support that argument. If they do it we should probably expect average people to do it too. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - bravado - 06-27-2022 I was being a bit over the top with my original question and I have asked it before, but there is a reason that inspirational and ambitious things don't come from committees. Practical and compromised things come from committees... On the flip side, local engineers and planners get their directions from the top. And I think it's clear that our elected leaders have no inspiration or ambition in them at all. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 08:01 PM)bravado Wrote: On the flip side, local engineers and planners get their directions from the top. And I think it's clear that our elected leaders have no inspiration or ambition in them at all. Very true. It's election time come October as well and I doubt we'll see much change in leadership. I'm pretty sure Chapman is running unopposed even...not sure if there's any others. Turnout in local elections are also pretty low so we'll probably get many of the same faces we've had for many years. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-28-2022 (06-27-2022, 03:15 PM)plam Wrote: At some level, I think local consultation is useful. Experts have been known to say in the distant and not so distant past that we should just have highways everywhere. Stopping those experts was useful. But that is a policy decision, not a technical one. It is exactly what should be consulted on. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 06-28-2022 (06-27-2022, 08:01 PM)bravado Wrote: I was being a bit over the top with my original question and I have asked it before, but there is a reason that inspirational and ambitious things don't come from committees. Practical and compromised things come from committees... I wouldn't say none of them do...Waterloo clearly does (of course a lot of them are not running again :'( ) And there are a handful in Kitchener and the Region who do as well. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - DK519 - 07-07-2022 The development at 276 King E. was approved on June 20th. [b]Status Update:[/b] This application has been approved by Kitchener City Council agenda on June 20, 2022. If you have any questions or require further clarification regarding appeals, please see https://olt.gov.on.ca/ or connect with the listed City Planning Contact. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the City of Kitchener with respect to these applications, you must make a written request to City Clerk, Legislative Services, 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4G7. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ac3r - 07-07-2022 Good news. I thought we had a thread for that project but I guess not. RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Lebronj23 - 07-08-2022 Interesting article in the record regarding above ground parking for new condos in the City and how it affects street activation https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecord.com%2Fnews%2Fwaterloo-region%2F2022%2F07%2F08%2Fthe-condo-boom-bringing-more-parking-garages-to-kitchener-core-which-can-kill-street-life.html RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - CP42 - 07-08-2022 Is there a plan for the site where the former District Nightclub is? It has Melloul Blamey construction fencing around the site. |