+- 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: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1836)
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - taylortbb - 04-04-2024
(04-04-2024, 02:14 PM)ac3r Wrote: They built a brand new office across from the LCBO downtown and only one tenant moved in over the course of a year (not including the bank). It's more a problem of nobody wanting to move in.
Some of that is also a policy problem. One of the main reasons that buildings like that struggle to attract tenants is that parking is paid, while the competition (suburbia) offers free parking. We don't have to allow suburban office parks to be built. Calgary didn't have to end up with a big dense downtown, most cities built in their era didn't, but they restricted suburban office development and downtown parking construction while building out an LRT. The end result was very high LRT ridership and a dense downtown. We've built our LRT, we just need to make the planning choices that support it.
Obviously right now all office space is struggling to find tenants, downtown and suburban. But we've known the LRT was coming for more than a decade, why in the 2010s were we allowing the construction of new suburban office parks?
The suburban office parks all seem to be in Waterloo, so I think the answer relates to the City of Waterloo wanting uptown to have a "small town feel", but also wanting the tax revenue of office development. Pushing office development to Kitchener wouldn't have been an acceptable option, because then the city wouldn't get the tax revenue. I'm not sure how I feel about amalgamation overall, but I think this situation is one point in favour.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - westwardloo - 04-04-2024
(04-04-2024, 03:12 PM)taylortbb Wrote:Thank you for the well put explanation of why urban office space has struggled in the Region. Just another example of why we need to amalgamate.(04-04-2024, 02:14 PM)ac3r Wrote: They built a brand new office across from the LCBO downtown and only one tenant moved in over the course of a year (not including the bank). It's more a problem of nobody wanting to move in.
Some of that is also a policy problem. One of the main reasons that buildings like that struggle to attract tenants is that parking is paid, while the competition (suburbia) offers free parking. We don't have to allow suburban office parks to be built. Calgary didn't have to end up with a big dense downtown, most cities built in their era didn't, but they restricted suburban office development and downtown parking construction while building out an LRT. The end result was very high LRT ridership and a dense downtown. We've built our LRT, we just need to make the planning choices that support it.
Obviously right now all office space is struggling to find tenants, downtown and suburban. But we've known the LRT was coming for more than a decade, why in the 2010s were we allowing the construction of new suburban office parks?
The suburban office parks all seem to be in Waterloo, so I think the answer relates to the City of Waterloo wanting uptown to have a "small town feel", but also wanting the tax revenue of office development. Pushing office development to Kitchener wouldn't have been an acceptable option, because then the city wouldn't get the tax revenue. I'm not sure how I feel about amalgamation overall, but I think this situation is one point in favour.
Hopefully with all the people starting to live DTK we will see a few businesses choose to set up shop in the core rather than at the Boardwalk.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - CP42 - 04-04-2024
(04-04-2024, 12:56 PM)westwardloo Wrote:(04-04-2024, 12:21 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: Staff are recommending approval at Monday's Planning and Strategic Initiatives meeting.
Concerns from the public were generally about height/density, shadows, and then the GRR situation.
For the GRR situation this is what staff has to say:
"the existing land use designation and zoning permits a fitness centre and the proposed land use designation and zoning will continue to permit a fitness centre. Staff understand that Grand River Rocks has recently relocated from 50 Borden Avenue South (which is also subject to a development application) and understand the concern of the business operator and members. The owner of the subject lands has not disclosed a timeline for reconstruction and staff understand that they have communicated to the current tenants that they do not plan on ending the current 5 year lease early, regardless of the outcome of any decision on these applications. Staff understand that Grand River Rocks has a five year lease for the former LA Fitness building. No new commercial tenants or leases have been identified at this time for the mixed used development. The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications propose new residential permissions. All matters regarding the current commercial lease are between the Owner and Grand River Rocks. Lease arrangements are outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener. The proposed land use designation and zoning would continue to permit a fitness centre as a permitted use and would not impact current operations or lease arrangements."
For height/density:
"The City of Kitchener’s Urban Growth Centre and PMTSA’s consists of numerous high-rises that are built or approved to be built ranging from 10 storeys to 50 storeys. Comparable high-rise buildings in height that are built, under construction or proposed include the following developments:
DTK (60 Frederick St) - 39 Storeys (built)
Charlie West (60 Charles St W) - 31 Storeys (built)
20 Queen Street - 34 Storeys (planned)
Station Park (607 King St W), 18 (built), 28 (built), 36 (under construction), 40 and 50 storeys (planned)
417 King Street West – 55 Storeys (planned, construction starting in 2024)
10 Duke Street – 45 Storeys (final site plan approval issued, construction starting in 2024)
30 Francis Street – 45 Storeys (under construction)
88 Queen Street – 45 Storeys (planned) 50 Borden – 51 and 57 Storeys (under review)"
I will be pleasantly surprised if both 10 Duke and 417 King start construction this year. Those 2 towers are going to look really good compared to DTK. The kitchener skyline is going to look drastically different in 5 years. I wish we could attract "AAA" office in the downtown, but the City of Waterloo has done their best to make sure that only suburban office parks are built in the Region.
I’m surprised they mentioned 10 Duke and 417 King starting construction in 2024 given they haven’t started sales nor even hinted at anything yet.
Also curious how a developer markets these projects along with Station Park at once given they are in relatively close proximity.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - ZEBuilder - 04-04-2024
(04-04-2024, 07:31 PM)CP42 Wrote: I’m surprised they mentioned 10 Duke and 417 King starting construction in 2024 given they haven’t started sales nor even hinted at anything yet.
Also curious how a developer markets these projects along with Station Park at once given they are in relatively close proximity.
The only one of the projects on the cities list that could conceivably start in 2024 is Station Park D (They have permit applications and have sold units) anything else seems highly unlikely unless they start selling units really soon, maybe Q condos but they've been selling forever now, the only way 10 Duke or 417 King could start is if VanMar has decided to go the rental route or is building entirely on spec.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - nms - 04-05-2024
I can't say much about when things were developed but here is a quick overview that are mainly back of the envelope scratches. I've excluded the downtowns since I wanted to look at space that might be considered 'suburban' where parking was likely free for employees and customers. I don't think the City of Waterloo can be blamed for attracting suburban office workers since they have the smallest footprint. If someone has better measurements, feel free to make corrections:
City of Waterloo
No 'heavy' industry. Light industry mixed with 'office park' commercial is largely in the the northeast of the City, roughly bounded by Weber, Bridge St and Northfield Drive. ~1400 acres
R+T Park/Phillip St 280 acres
Boardwalk ~90acres
This does not include Uptown Waterloo nor the commercial areas along Weber south of University Ave.
Total: 1770 acres
City of Kitchener (excluding downtown)
Huron Park + Trillium Industrial Park: ~1500 acres
North Ward/Victoria St: ~840 acres
Pioneer Tower: ~170 acres
Total: 2500 acres
Cambridge:
Maple Grove ~1878 acres
Hespeler Rd/Sheldon ~2891 acres
East Galt: ~300 acres
Total: 5069 acres
On a related note, Grand River Rocks has a location on Lodge St in Waterloo.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 04-05-2024
(04-04-2024, 07:46 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote:(04-04-2024, 07:31 PM)CP42 Wrote: I’m surprised they mentioned 10 Duke and 417 King starting construction in 2024 given they haven’t started sales nor even hinted at anything yet.
Also curious how a developer markets these projects along with Station Park at once given they are in relatively close proximity.
The only one of the projects on the cities list that could conceivably start in 2024 is Station Park D (They have permit applications and have sold units) anything else seems highly unlikely unless they start selling units really soon, maybe Q condos but they've been selling forever now, the only way 10 Duke or 417 King could start is if VanMar has decided to go the rental route or is building entirely on spec.
However, if they have decided to build a rental building instead of a condo, no pre-sales will be needed ...
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - plam - 04-05-2024
(04-05-2024, 02:33 PM)nms Wrote: On a related note, Grand River Rocks has a location on Lodge St in Waterloo.
Yes, it's bouldering and not roped climbed, so a pretty different style of climbing overall.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - ZEBuilder - 04-09-2024
Councillor Ioannidis was absolutely pissed about this last night, he wasn't mad about the height or anything in particular but he was mainly mad about the lease between GRR and the developer, which isn't in the control of council let alone within the jurisdiction of planning staff. He went on for a long enough time that you could tell staff were starting to get annoyed with him. He was basically of the view that it should out right be rejected even if it goes against staff and that it should be deferred to a later date, a deferral has the potential to require the city to return OPA/ZBA fees and potentially the project going to the OLT where the city would inevitably lose.
Chapman had her usually height shenanigans since its 40 floors that's so much higher than is allowed in the official plan/zoning bylaw, staff use to this at this point came back to her and effectively said we know that's not what it says but when the official plan and zoning bylaw were passed we had bonusing provisions in place for developers to exceed the as of right zoning meaning the property was intended to have more density however under Bill 23 the province removed that thus it has to get a OPA/ZBA.
After effectively no debate this has been deferred to a new special council meeting sometime next week meaning it is still within the 120 days of the planning act so the fees will not be returned unless council wants to defer it again. Between the planning meeting and the council meeting the developer agreed that construction won't start for at least 5 years allowing GRR to at least make some money (we already know this is gonna be an up zone and flip situation), and committed 32 affordable housing units (3%), they also made agreements to have talks about potentially including GRR in the podium, this was to the satisfaction of Singh, Davey, Schnider, and Owodunni who wanted to have further debate and pass the ZBA/OPA yesterday, however to everyone else around the horse shoe it wasn't sufficient so it got deferred.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 04-09-2024
It's insane that we're even entertaining the GRR shit and potentially delaying or not approving a desperately needed project with hundreds of new residential units...for fucking indoor rock climbing. No other city in the entire universe would even take the time to worry about a failed rock climbing business, but this region is full of idiots who somehow feel that this takes priority.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - westwardloo - 04-09-2024
I think this will ultimately pass with the usual suspects voting against.
If it doesn't pass the developer will just go to the OLT and it will pass.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 04-09-2024
One can only hope but it's still ridiculous we waste the time on something like this. Just goes to show that this region is having growing pains. We continue to lack the executive function to make choices that have the greatest benefit for all people. A naive, small town mentality continues to persist and it handicaps us.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - plam - 04-09-2024
I'm going to again say, why are we building housing? It's super important that people have things that they can do in the places they live. Preferably without having to drive out to the suburbs. Having reachable climbing gyms really helps making a place more worthwhile to actually live in. I definitely prefer having an actual climbing gym to an upzone, flip, and no construction situation.
Toronto has had an explosion of bouldering gyms, but far fewer roped climbing options. It's hard to have structures that are tall enough.
GRR has been far better at actually running a gym than the previous place, Higher Ground, which did used to be at Sportsworld, and which closed before I moved to Waterloo.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 04-10-2024
Such are the perils of operating a business that has these kinds of expensive and complex leasehold improvements while not owning the property. I am a bit surprised GRR being evicted from one location ended up with such a short lease term on this new location, or lack of terms for compensation to offset an early break if that is the case.
The councillors trying to force this developer to presumably do more than they are obligated in the lease is a bit crazy to me. Appealing for them to include it in the design would be fine, but the bottom line is that the reason GRR is there is because it was a lower quality, dated building with few other uses and the rent in a new development was always going to be too much for this kind of business. Its correct we need things to do in the places we live but might as well focus on some productive compromise than delaying bylaw amendment to protect a business... if its a public good, council has other funding avenues to make that recreation available in a space that is not fully viable for a private business.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - bravado - 04-10-2024
Either way, there’s no world in which city councillors are mediators or arbitrators for commercial leases. True incompetence and lack of leadership focus.
RE: 236 Victoria St N | 40 & 35 fl | Proposed - the_conestoga_guy - 04-10-2024
I don't think we should read too much into council poking their noses into lease contracts. I'm sure they were flooded with emails asking them to save the climbing gym, and now they're just paying lip service to appear sympathetic.
One detail I did find interesting was that the gym is on a 5 year lease. I'm not incredibly familiar with how these sorts of real estate deals are handled, but 5 years seems super short. The gym would have projected their income against the up front costs of setting up the new space and would have realized that the payback period was fairly long (I'm assuming years). I wouldn't be surprised if they're only breaking even after this 5 year lease ends. And if they were only offered a 5 year lease option, wouldn't that have been a red flag? Especially considering they're being forced out of their existing space for the exact same reason? I know I'm rambling here, but it certainly appears that the gym weren't totally diligent when signing to take over this space.