+- 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: 200 Victoria St S | 50 fl | Proposed (/showthread.php?tid=1764)
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - plam - 06-06-2023
(06-06-2023, 05:47 PM)CP42 Wrote: Is it ever questioned whether it is a conflict of interest that Debbie and her husband’s primary goal is to limit housing affordability and protect the value of their own real estate? How does she bring an unbiased view to any vote that may benefit future residents? She can’t.
Indeed, someone just mentioned that point in NZ following the now-ex-Transport Minister forgetting to sell his shares in the Auckland Airport.
https://twitter.com/LewSOS/status/1666179298590621697
Quote:Imagine if any MP who owned more than a family home and one other property were obliged to recuse themselves from housing policy discussions. Parliament would be practically inquorate and no housing policy would ever get made, for better or worse, because none would touch it
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - bravado - 06-06-2023
That literally just happened in the Cambridge committee of adjustments and council voted unanimously to do nothing about it. Recommendation of the integrity commissioner was for the chair to be fired.
https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2023/05/30/no-penalty-for-cambridge-committee-chair-after-significant-breach-of-code-of-conduct.html
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 06-06-2023
Politicians are scum.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - CP42 - 06-06-2023
(06-06-2023, 06:29 PM)bravado Wrote: That literally just happened in the Cambridge committee of adjustments and council voted unanimously to do nothing about it. Recommendation of the integrity commissioner was for the chair to be fired.
https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2023/05/30/no-penalty-for-cambridge-committee-chair-after-significant-breach-of-code-of-conduct.html
And nobody bats an eye…
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - cherrypark - 06-08-2023
(06-06-2023, 05:12 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Get a load of Chapmans husband appearing as a delegate for this if you want a good laugh.,
At 39 min mark
https://pub-kitchener.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=b680bb8e-b40c-4e4a-9433-ea4938ae37da&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English
Ah yes, his usual "towers are anti-social" tirade. NYC and Hong Kong: known anti-social capitals of the world.
If these people spent even 50% of the time they do preparing for and delegating to these review meetings, which council once again spent summarizing their lack of power with the OLT, perhaps we might get some actual policy reform so min/max-ing tower developments weren't the most favourable option to add housing in the city.
You can be assured anything even 4-6 stories in Cherry Park would have the same screaming opposition because there is absolutely zero recognition that the existing of these downtown SFH wards are the reason the towers have a market.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - Acitta - 06-27-2023
At Monday's council meeting, a representative said that the owner has proposed to add 30 affordable units with no increase in parking. Council approved the amendments.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 06-27-2023
thanks
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-27-2023
(06-27-2023, 03:34 PM)Acitta Wrote: At Monday's council meeting, a representative said that the owner has proposed to add 30 affordable units with no increase in parking. Council approved the amendments.
So this proposal is now fully approved?
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - Acitta - 06-27-2023
(06-27-2023, 05:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(06-27-2023, 03:34 PM)Acitta Wrote: At Monday's council meeting, a representative said that the owner has proposed to add 30 affordable units with no increase in parking. Council approved the amendments.
So this proposal is now fully approved?
It appears so. Key decisions of Kitchener Council: June 26, 2023
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-30-2023
According to this article this project has been approved for 3 additional floors. Making it 45 floors and 151.5 metres tall.
https://www.thestar.com/tr/news/waterloo-region/2023/06/30/four-developments-with-more-than-1000-new-homes-approved-by-kitchener-council.html
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 06-30-2023
City council is on a role, it would seem.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 42 fl | Proposed - neonjoe - 06-30-2023
Something has put the fear or Doug in them.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 45 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 06-20-2025
Could mods update this title to 50 floors
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 45 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 06-20-2025
(06-20-2025, 10:24 AM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Could mods update this title to 50 floors
Done.
RE: 200 Victoria St S | 50 fl | Proposed - Momo26 - 06-28-2025
And where does it stand in terms of approval?