6 Regina St N & 24 Erb St E | 25 fl | Proposed

[westwardloo]

It is definitely a downgrade in terms of the overall design. I still kind of like it though. The podium looks good in my opinion, as long as they don't downgrade again during construction and install grey, black and white precast concrete panels it will be a win. 

I do hate that they increased the height and kept the rectangular footprint for the tower. I would have prefered a square footprint with 30+ floors. Square footprint buildings just look better in my opinion. 

Since this is in uptown it will never be built so I don't care that much.

[taylortbb]

I do hate that they increased the height and kept the rectangular footprint for the tower. I would have prefered a square footprint with 30+ floors. Square footprint buildings just look better in my opinion. 

Waterloo city staff prefer the opposite, and push developers towards wider shorter towers. I believe neighbourhood surveys always say height is the thing people dislike the most.

[bravado]

Looks like this project has a settlement at the OLT.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlt/doc/20...12362.html

The Parties have come to agreement and appeared before the Tribunal to jointly present a settlement for consideration.  The revised development proposal is generally described as:

a.  The demolition of the existing commercial buildings and development of a mixed-use, multi-storey building consisting of a tower on a defined podium with a maximum tower height of 25 storeys inclusive of the podium, containing 289 dwelling units, a maximum density of 1,578 bedrooms per hectare (“ha”) and 500 square metres (“sq. m”) of commercial space at grade oriented to Erb Street East;
b.  An enhanced public realm along the Regina Street North and Erb Street East streetscape; and,
c.  High quality architectural design consistent with the plans and drawings as presented in Schedule B of the Minutes of Settlement.

The Proposed OPA will:

a.  Redesignate 6 Regina Street North from “Medium Density, 20 m” to “High Density, 81 m” (to align with the rest of the site which is already designated “High Density, 81 m”);
b.  Designate the lands as Specific Provision Area 83; and,
c.  Establish Specific Provision Area 83 policies.

[5]        The Proposed ZBA will:

a.  Rezone a portion of the Subject Lands (6 Regina Street North) from Uptown Commercial Core-20 (U1-20) to Uptown Commercial Core-81 (U1-81) with the site-specific provisions;
b.  Rezone a portion of the Subject Lands (24, 28 and 34 Erb Street East) from Uptown Commercial Core-60 (U1-60) to Uptown Commercial Core-81 (U1- 81) with the site-specific provisions;
c.  Require a Flood Emergency Plan, which is defined in the Proposed ZBA, prior to site plan approval; and,
d.  Establish several site-specific zoning regulations.

[ac3r]

That's good news, but probably so frustrating for the developer. To spend tons of money and labour to plan, design and apply to have a project built only for the City of Waterloo to say no has to drive them crazy. I don't get the logic either. Presumably it's because some people are choosing to be conservative about development, not wishing to rapidly change the uptown street scape and urban character it has always had. But then they have no problem rubber stamping eyesore after eyesore around the universities, which have collectively done so much damage that there have been entire lectures in university about what a mess the city has become. Long term, this glacial process of approving things uptown is just going to result in this awkward patchwork of stuff that lacks any sort of coherent plan, whereas you look at downtown and see that at least they're trying to keep things structured and well planned in spite of the rapid development taking place.

[bravado]

That's good news, but probably so frustrating for the developer. To spend tons of money and labour to plan, design and apply to have a project built only for the City of Waterloo to say no has to drive them crazy. I don't get the logic either. Presumably it's because some people are choosing to be conservative about development, not wishing to rapidly change the uptown street scape and urban character it has always had. But then they have no problem rubber stamping eyesore after eyesore around the universities, which have collectively done so much damage that there have been entire lectures in university about what a mess the city has become. Long term, this glacial process of approving things uptown is just going to result in this awkward patchwork of stuff that lacks any sort of coherent plan, whereas you look at downtown and see that at least they're trying to keep things structured and well planned in spite of the rapid development taking place.

It seems like everyone involved with making decisions at the city level is more concerned about the horrible costs of "buildings that aren't slender enough" than the costs of an entire generation losing their future.

[ac3r]

Yeah. I understand the desire to maintain the existing urban experience uptown has always had...which despite all the people, still feels very small town and I guess that is charming to some. But the "slender, not tall" philosophy results in an urban space that results in the sky feeling, well, walled in and obscured. As a result, you end up with all these huge rectangular buildings you notice from a mile away and just feel imposing. It plays on the visual perception, the way a striped shirt can make someone short and of a heavy weight appear larger than they really are. It's why Charlie West feels a lot less imposing than Young Condos, since the latter is oriented in a way that has created this huge wall visible from anywhere on King Street where a taller but skinnier building is much less visibly noticeable.

It's a pity because not only does it indeed limit the amount of housing we can make now when you cap things to 25 floors, it also means the space available to build is going to get gobbled up a lot faster. Instead of say two towers at 40 floors each with a courtyard in the middle, you get this giant slab that unless you design sardine can sized units, the amount of housing per building is limited by the height and floor space working against each other.

[KevinL]

Politicians are short-sighted by nature, always cautious of the next election. If they approve what enough constituents think is a 'massive eyesore' then that could get them at the polls. That it's a valuable project that will gradually resolve the housing crisis will only be celebrated far beyond that vote.

[tomh009]

(...) Instead of say two towers at 40 floors each with a courtyard in the middle, you get this giant slab that unless you design sardine can sized units, the amount of housing per building is limited by the height and floor space working against each other.

The size of the units is really independent of the height and shape of the building. You can build a tall, slender tower with tiny studio units, or a mid-rise with spacious 3BR apartmenets. Or the other way around. (If anything, the slender towers make it more difficult to fit in larger units.)

[bravado]

I thought a midrise with 3BR apartments was basically unprofitable from the start due to our lack of legal point-access blocks and aggressive setbacks/lot ratios?

[ac3r]

Quite often that is indeed the case. And sure it is possible to state the design of a building has no relation to the amount of units, but I think most of us know that it does play a huge role especially locally due to the issues mentioned.

[nms]

The original proposal:
"containing 245 bedrooms within 218 units (a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom), 1'860sqm of office space and 503sqm of retail space. 126 parking spaces and 146 bicycle parking storage are proposed"

The revised proposal: 
25 storeys inclusive of the podium, containing 289 dwelling

What happened to the office and retail space? Or it was unaffected, did it not get mentioned?

Does anyone know how wide the road allowance is along Regina?  The Seven Shores and Crumby Cookie Dough buildings are both relatively new builds (eg the last 20 years) and are significantly set back from the street. 

I would also assume that a Flood Emergency Plan might include things like "don't have the entrance to the parking garage on the downhill side, closest to the creek" (this could include the 34 Erb St end of the property)