+- 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: Victoria Commons (/showthread.php?tid=105)
RE: Victoria Commons - tomh009 - 03-01-2025
A good mix of unit sizes (though don't know how small the bedrooms are). The overall FSR is still low, so I should hope that this is approved.
RE: Victoria Commons - MidTowner - 03-21-2025
The Record has an article about the proposed new towers
Quote:The developer also intends to include car-share spaces and will provide new residents with transit passes for two years.
That's a good thing. Transit could be better in the area- improved frequency on the 4 and maybe additional trips on the 34. But the 204 is not a very long walk away.
What happened to the extensive commercial space that was originally supposed to be part of this big development, though? I personally am not sure that the City should approve 1,151 new units with no mixed use component whatsoever- there is not very much at all within walking distance at the moment.
RE: Victoria Commons - panamaniac - 03-21-2025
Although there are a number of nearby spots that could be redeveloped for commercial purposes. Requiring mixed use when the commercial space is going to be too expensive to attract businesses, does not seem an optimal approach.
RE: Victoria Commons - MidTowner - 03-21-2025
(03-21-2025, 11:09 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Although there are a number of nearby spots that could be redeveloped for commercial purposes. Requiring mixed use when the commercial space is going to be too expensive to attract businesses, does not seem an optimal approach.
1500+ new bedrooms in addition to what's already there, but no commercial space at all- particularly after the initial plans were for a very walkable, mixed-use community- seems like a mistake.
I grant that the residential units are obviously more profitable than commercial units would be, otherwise the developer would choose both. The City doesn't need to approve a 36-floor tower if there aren't the amenities to support the new residents, and maybe it shouldn't.
RE: Victoria Commons - ac3r - 03-23-2025
The city can't just say well you need to include commercial units or we won't approve this. The developer would just say no thanks. A big problem is that people don't want to start a business downtown/in these expensive units.
Take a look at how many mixed use buildings exist within Waterloo Region which have failed to attract any tenants, particularly newish builds downtown. The Bright Building, Civic 66, Station Park (maybe the units are just not ready yet? but they've been finished for months), Young Condos, 276 King and many more. Some buildings such as 1 Victoria are like a revolving door of businesses that come and go. Then we also have office buildings like One Young which still has units available, half of the brand new 345 King office tower sits vacant, neighbouring 305 struggles to attract tenants, 50Q I think still has a lot of unused space and so on.
Economics unfortunately has a lot to do with it, going back to the geopolitical situation of the world, our botched global response to the pandemic and land speculation that grew when the region tried to rebrand itself as this "Silicon Valley of the North" nonsense, abandoning the working class history to try and steamroll in this bougie rationalist tech-bro image. Last year saw the highest office vacancy rate in downtown Kitchener's history, with nearly 1/4th of units sitting vacant. In contrast, regionally we are seeing the highest residential vacancy rates since the early 1990s. There are many options out there for business owners and people seeking a home, but the cost of doing so has made it a challenge hence not only the slowdown in new project proposals/construction, but fewer units and in many cases the omission mixed-use features. Although, it's much deeper than just needing cheaper costs of living...a good neighbourhood requires more than just places for commercial consumption. You also need to ensure you have cultural and recreational things included as well.
RE: Victoria Commons - plam - 03-24-2025
(03-23-2025, 03:45 PM)ac3r Wrote: You also need to ensure you have cultural and recreational things included as well.
Right. Like climbing gyms.
RE: Victoria Commons - nms - 03-24-2025
Historically speaking, how did cities evolve a good mix of private, public and semi-private space? Simply building "mixed-use" buildings that stack housing, on top of office space, on top of one layer of retail that may or make not be in a shape that works doesn't seem to do more than encourage convenience retail, convenience services (nails and hair) and convenience eating (eg to-go or fast food restaurants). I doubt that mid-size urban areas like Waterloo Region have the critical mass to support larger cultural spaces that encourage longer stays in any particular area during leisure time. Does a development like the Victoria Commons even have the option for post-construction renovations of the "mixed-use" spaces into the kinds of things that the area might attract?
RE: Victoria Commons - ZEBuilder - 03-25-2025
For those interested the community meeting happened tonight and the comments were way more NIMBY then I expected. They were awfully similar to the VPNA hatred to the buildings on Victoria so it would not be surprising if the city opposes this at this point.
RE: Victoria Commons - MidTowner - 03-26-2025
(03-25-2025, 09:00 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: For those interested the community meeting happened tonight and the comments were way more NIMBY then I expected. They were awfully similar to the VPNA hatred to the buildings on Victoria so it would not be surprising if the city opposes this at this point.
Any notable comments? I'm not surprised that there was opposition generally.
RE: Victoria Commons - bravado - 03-26-2025
I really have to invest in ETFs comprised of OLT-based legal firms, but I know I'm a decade too late for the biggest gains
RE: Victoria Commons - ZEBuilder - 03-26-2025
(03-26-2025, 09:58 AM)MidTowner Wrote:(03-25-2025, 09:00 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: For those interested the community meeting happened tonight and the comments were way more NIMBY then I expected. They were awfully similar to the VPNA hatred to the buildings on Victoria so it would not be surprising if the city opposes this at this point.
Any notable comments? I'm not surprised that there was opposition generally.
There wasn't anything that notable, the condo corps for presidents for the townhomes were pissed. Then you had people being mad about traffic, people made about the height (wanting shorter buildings and more shadow impacts). There was also a couple BANANA comments. A couple people did mention lack of commercial which is a realistic point but it was very negative all things considered. So much so that it sounded like the city was going to ask for a redesign.
RE: Victoria Commons - ac3r - 03-26-2025
"There is a vivid contrast between the order of China and the chaos of the West."
![[Image: I7YMFX7.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/I7YMFX7.gif)
RE: Victoria Commons - panamaniac - 03-26-2025
(03-26-2025, 07:38 PM)ac3r Wrote: "There is a vivid contrast between the order of China and the chaos of the West."
Who are you quoting and what is the relevance?
RE: Victoria Commons - ZEBuilder - 09-16-2025
The proposal has now been revised, hopefully appeasing the neighbors.
The tower heights have dropped from 35, 33 and 21 floors to 27, 25 and 19 respectively.
The developer has introduced 3777 sqft of retail, there was originally none.
There has been a reduction of indoor amenity from 1747 sqm to 1318 sqm. The outdoor amenity has dropped from 1737 to 1710 sqm.
There has been a decrease in studios from 33 to 15.
There has been a decrease in 1 bdrms from 198 to 120.
1 bdrm + den has been reduced from 588 to 322.
2 bdrm has been reduced from 284 to 209.
2 bdrm + den has been increased from 0 to 123.
3 bdrm has been increasedn from 48 to 66.
Parking has decreased to the same as required by existing zoning same thing with bicycle spaces.
RE: Victoria Commons - MidTowner - 09-17-2025
(09-16-2025, 06:13 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: The proposal has now been revised, hopefully appeasing the neighbors.
The tower heights have dropped from 35, 33 and 21 floors to 27, 25 and 19 respectively.
The developer has introduced 3777 sqft of retail, there was originally none.
There has been a reduction of indoor amenity from 1747 sqm to 1318 sqm. The outdoor amenity has dropped from 1737 to 1710 sqm.
There has been a decrease in studios from 33 to 15.
There has been a decrease in 1 bdrms from 198 to 120.
1 bdrm + den has been reduced from 588 to 322.
2 bdrm has been reduced from 284 to 209.
2 bdrm + den has been increased from 0 to 123.
3 bdrm has been increasedn from 48 to 66.
Parking has decreased to the same as required by existing zoning same thing with bicycle spaces.
Great news on the retail and the improved mix of unit sizes.