Waterloo Region Connected
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)



RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 10:54 AM)Chris Wrote:
(08-27-2020, 10:44 AM)dtkmelissa Wrote: Was just by there on my bike and in addition to the fencing, there was a grey and white security vehicle with a person inside just hanging out. Not sure if that's related to the encampment that had been there or not (as there still seems to be some items left from the camp on the property).

Can't get anyone to clear the sidewalks for a couple winters but build a few tents and all of the sudden the site needs to be cleared and maintained. This city / region is frustrating.

Not sure I see the connection.  The old Fackoury site is private property.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - Chris - 08-27-2020

(01-06-2020, 06:53 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I go DTK often and utilize businesses and restaurants.  The changes I see are exciting.  My daughters and I will often to backpacking through the city ( I know it sounds silly) and we have found so many great places and I see the changes happening.  The people that make comments like above are the people that refuse to see and or make change.

(08-27-2020, 11:04 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(08-27-2020, 10:54 AM)Chris Wrote: Can't get anyone to clear the sidewalks for a couple winters but build a few tents and all of the sudden the site needs to be cleared and maintained. This city / region is frustrating.

Not sure I see the connection.  The old Fackoury site is private property.

The property owner ignores the property for a couple years. The sidewalks around that place during most of the winter are unpassable.

Some people put up tents to be be next to the soup kitchen and all of the sudden the property owner invests in fencing and security?

Where was the interest in maintaining the property so people can safely get around the neighbourhood? If the owner has money for security they clearly have money for sidewalk clearing but no desire to keep the sidewalks clear.

The mention of the city/region wasn't meant as an implication of ownership of the property. Just more of a general dissatisfaction with sidewalk clearing and pedestrian mobility in the area.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 11:50 AM)Chris Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:53 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I go DTK often and utilize businesses and restaurants.  The changes I see are exciting.  My daughters and I will often to backpacking through the city ( I know it sounds silly) and we have found so many great places and I see the changes happening.  The people that make comments like above are the people that refuse to see and or make change.

(08-27-2020, 11:04 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Not sure I see the connection.  The old Fackoury site is private property.

The property owner ignores the property for a couple years. The sidewalks around that place during most of the winter are unpassable.

Some people put up tents to be be next to the soup kitchen and all of the sudden the property owner invests in fencing and security?

Where was the interest in maintaining the property so people can safely get around the neighbourhood? If the owner has money for security they clearly have money for sidewalk clearing but no desire to keep the sidewalks clear.

The mention of the city/region wasn't meant as an implication of ownership of the property. Just more of a general dissatisfaction with sidewalk clearing and pedestrian mobility in the area.

This is on point!


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 11:50 AM)Chris Wrote: Where was the interest in maintaining the property so people can safely get around the neighbourhood? If the owner has money for security they clearly have money for sidewalk clearing but no desire to keep the sidewalks clear.

Oh, sure. But is that news? How many of the property owners that do not clear their sidewalks are actually unable to do so, either for financial or medical reasons? Not very many, I suspect.

So, I really don't see the connection between the homeless camp on private property, snow clearing and the frustration with the city and the region.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - dtkvictim - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 02:52 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-27-2020, 11:50 AM)Chris Wrote: Where was the interest in maintaining the property so people can safely get around the neighbourhood? If the owner has money for security they clearly have money for sidewalk clearing but no desire to keep the sidewalks clear.

Oh, sure. But is that news? How many of the property owners that do not clear their sidewalks are actually unable to do so, either for financial or medical reasons? Not very many, I suspect.

So, I really don't see the connection between the homeless camp on private property, snow clearing and the frustration with the city and the region.

Enforcement maybe? If fines aren't enough to get the property owner to do something, then maybe the city/region should have to power to clear it themselves and bill the owner?

I don't know, but I understand the frustration. That property is by far the worst place I've come across in the winter. Even the most negligent owners tend to clear their property a handful of times each winter (or at least, aren't located in a place where many people walk, like next to a train station). But this property doesn't get cleared a single time all year and is usually 2 inches of ice all winter.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 05:55 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Enforcement maybe? If fines aren't enough to get the property owner to do something, then maybe the city/region should have to power to clear it themselves and bill the owner?

Theoretically they have this power, but they don’t seem to use it much. They hide behind process. To be fair, as with any enforcement in the justice system, there is a process; whenever any action is to be taken it has to be done in accordance with a process. But the existence of these perma-offenders suggests the enforcement authorities aren’t really doing their job.

I get the impression, however, that the process is too onerous. Really it should be enough to observe that a bunch of sidewalks in a neighbourhood are clear and dry, and then simply clear any that are impassible and bill the property owner. Take video evidence and add the bill directly onto the property tax. Magistrates should have the authority to impose additional charges if a clearly bogus appeal is lodged (not if the appeal is at least colourable, but if it’s clearly just an attempt to avoid dealing with the issue).

Or, just have the city start doing its job itself and eliminate the relevant enforcement infrastructure entirely. Really I think the above paragraph is an example of a discussion which is a waste of time; except that so many people are fixated on the notion that it’s really really important that the job be split up amongst thousands of property owners that it feels like we need to have this discussion about how enforcement should be done.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 05:55 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:
(08-27-2020, 02:52 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Oh, sure. But is that news? How many of the property owners that do not clear their sidewalks are actually unable to do so, either for financial or medical reasons? Not very many, I suspect.

So, I really don't see the connection between the homeless camp on private property, snow clearing and the frustration with the city and the region.

Enforcement maybe? If fines aren't enough to get the property owner to do something, then maybe the city/region should have to power to clear it themselves and bill the owner?

I don't know, but I understand the frustration. That property is by far the worst place I've come across in the winter. Even the most negligent owners tend to clear their property a handful of times each winter (or at least, aren't located in a place where many people walk, like next to a train station). But this property doesn't get cleared a single time all year and is usually 2 inches of ice all winter.

They do, but this policy is basically toothless and ineffective. I could rant about this forever, but I'm going to agree, what you are pointing out is the priorities set by there region and city, which align with the actions of the property owner.

Not clearing sidewalks is taken far less seriously than private property rights.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - danbrotherston - 08-27-2020

(08-27-2020, 06:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-27-2020, 05:55 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Enforcement maybe? If fines aren't enough to get the property owner to do something, then maybe the city/region should have to power to clear it themselves and bill the owner?

Theoretically they have this power, but they don’t seem to use it much. They hide behind process. To be fair, as with any enforcement in the justice system, there is a process; whenever any action is to be taken it has to be done in accordance with a process. But the existence of these perma-offenders suggests the enforcement authorities aren’t really doing their job.

I get the impression, however, that the process is too onerous. Really it should be enough to observe that a bunch of sidewalks in a neighbourhood are clear and dry, and then simply clear any that are impassible and bill the property owner. Take video evidence and add the bill directly onto the property tax. Magistrates should have the authority to impose additional charges if a clearly bogus appeal is lodged (not if the appeal is at least colourable, but if it’s clearly just an attempt to avoid dealing with the issue).

Or, just have the city start doing its job itself and eliminate the relevant enforcement infrastructure entirely. Really I think the above paragraph is an example of a discussion which is a waste of time; except that so many people are fixated on the notion that it’s really really important that the job be split up amongst thousands of property owners that it feels like we need to have this discussion about how enforcement should be done.

That is an interesting proposal...pro-active sidewalk enforcement drives around in plows, and plows any uncleared sidewalk immediately and bills the owner, summary offense, no grace period....while I prefer city clearing, that policy might actually have some effect.

But given council is so innundated with the complaints about the already incredibly lax standard sidewalks that a few people are being held too, that they wanted to further relax standards as opposed to increase them, in conjunction with spending more money on useless enforcement....

Yeah, I'm beyond frustrated....


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 08-28-2020

(08-27-2020, 10:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That is an interesting proposal...pro-active sidewalk enforcement drives around in plows, and plows any uncleared sidewalk immediately and bills the owner, summary offense, no grace period....while I prefer city clearing, that policy might actually have some effect.

I just had an even better idea. Don’t use plows; use snowblowers, and put all the snow on the driveway of the offending property. No different for vacant properties, but you could probably skip the whole billing/collection/enforcement bit for occupied ones. This is what parenting manuals call “natural consequences”.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - jamincan - 08-28-2020

How about we just eliminate sidewalks and trails and make every road in the city a pedestrian sharrow.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - dtkvictim - 08-28-2020

(08-28-2020, 10:55 AM)jamincan Wrote: How about we just eliminate sidewalks and trails and make every road in the city a pedestrian sharrow.
Delete this before the city staff sees it.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 08-28-2020

(08-28-2020, 10:55 AM)jamincan Wrote: How about we just eliminate sidewalks and trails and make every road in the city a pedestrian sharrow.

To think about: what is the difference between this, and having many woonerfs in the city?

I have some ideas on the differences, and I think there are some, but all joking aside I think this deserves some careful thinking.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - dtkvictim - 08-28-2020

(08-28-2020, 07:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-28-2020, 10:55 AM)jamincan Wrote: How about we just eliminate sidewalks and trails and make every road in the city a pedestrian sharrow.

To think about: what is the difference between this, and having many woonerfs in the city?

I have some ideas on the differences, and I think there are some, but all joking aside I think this deserves some careful thinking.

Yeah, more seriously, there is something to this. A huge number of streets in Tokyo (and Japan in generally) are de facto pedestrian streets, but every so often a car slowly rolls through them. However, there are many streets with the same design (no sidewalk) that see a much higher proportion of vehicle traffic, and these are much less pleasant. I really don't know what dynamics are at play, but Dutch woonerfs seem to be much more intentional, whereas the Japanese style ones seem more like a happy coincidence or side effect of a population that walks more.


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - jamincan - 08-29-2020

It was a slightly snide comment on the fact that when a sidewalk is impassible, that's effectively what we're doing anyway. More accurately, we're abandoning pedestrians and leaving them to fend for themselves to either walk on a street they don't belong on, or trudge through snow or slip/slide on ice.

That said, I think there is some truth to the idea that by segregating uses, we are in effect conceding the street to cars. There are certain streets where it's necessary and useful, but by removing competing uses from the street, what we're actually doing is lowering the "friction" on the street which increases the perceived safe speed for drivers which is the greatest contributing factor in fatalities and injuries. An example of this friction we see now is on-street parking on both sides of the street. The presence of the parked cars dramatically increases the friction for drivers and slows them down.

Having pedestrians use the street only seems absurd to us because we have already conceded the street to cars so that now every street is an expressway. It's hard to know how you might step that back, though. A first candidate might be to remove sidewalks from cul-de-sac. They're possibly the most natural feature of the N. American urban environment for a woonerf-style treatment.

It would be interesting to do a study and determine how much the city might save if it didn't have to maintain sidewalks on absolutely every street in the city. And how much cheaper would it be clearing snow on the sidewalks that are necessary?


RE: General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 09-01-2020

(08-29-2020, 11:56 AM)jamincan Wrote: Having pedestrians use the street only seems absurd to us because we have already conceded the street to cars so that now every street is an expressway.  It's hard to know how you might step that back, though. A first candidate might be to remove sidewalks from cul-de-sac. They're possibly the most natural feature of the N. American urban environment for a woonerf-style treatment.

What worries me about this is that motorists would probably drive on the culs-de-sac the way they do now, that is, too fast. Or rather, enough of them would that removing the sidewalk would feel like an anti-pedestrian move.

Similarly, consider Queen St. just south/west of King. We’ve complained here about the flat curbs and so on. Conceptually, I’d be OK with making that a woonerf, and having cars go through at a walking pace; but that’s not (reliably) what would happen, especially at low-traffic times.

I think woonerfs can still work in some areas; if the combined road is narrow, doesn’t go anywhere (so no through traffic), and has lots of complexity, I think they can work. For example, the proposed conversion of Larch St. north of WLU should work well.

So getting back to the culs-de-sac, I think they need to be significantly redesigned to be narrow and windy (possibly deliberately wiggly), with things like posts with house numbers installed near the edge so that driving at a “driving” speed is guaranteed to cause trouble for the driver. If that were to be done, this might be successful.