Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
864-872 King St W | 55, 44, 38, 16 fl | proposed
#76
This is gonna be one busy stretch of road!
Reply


#77
(03-15-2025, 04:14 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Vive so it'll be rental, not $900K condos.

I actually think the cemetery will be a nice view, lots of green and tree cover.

Tend to agree that overlooking a cemetery isn't the worst. The units on the north and west faces of the building will fare no worse than the apartments along Moore and Union, and I don't think anyone's had problems there. The rent vs. own becomes moot, though, if the rents are "upscale luxury living," with affordability based on 80 percent of market. If only households with incomes above $90,000 a year can afford units that just barely accommodate two people, not much differentiates that development from others in the neighbourhood. Yet again, I wonder if any thought has been given at the regional planning level to the need for service workers (food, retail, cleaning, delivery/transport, shelf-stockers, etc.,) to maintain that upscale luxury standard. I have family members who have worked involuntary part-time overnights for years with a major grocery store, and between them earn about one full-time minimum-wage income. If wages don't even allow for a monthly GRT pass, how can the people who really keep things going live here?
Reply
#78
(03-17-2025, 11:02 AM)Silie Wrote:
(03-15-2025, 04:14 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Vive so it'll be rental, not $900K condos.

I actually think the cemetery will be a nice view, lots of green and tree cover.

Tend to agree that overlooking a cemetery isn't the worst. The units on the north and west faces of the building will fare no worse than the apartments along Moore and Union, and I don't think anyone's had problems there. The rent vs. own becomes moot, though, if the rents are "upscale luxury living," with affordability based on 80 percent of market. If only households with incomes above $90,000 a year can afford units that just barely accommodate two people, not much differentiates that development from others in the neighbourhood. Yet again, I wonder if any thought has been given at the regional planning level to the need for service workers (food, retail, cleaning, delivery/transport, shelf-stockers, etc.,) to maintain that upscale luxury standard. I have family members who have worked involuntary part-time overnights for years with a major grocery store, and between them earn about one full-time minimum-wage income. If wages don't even allow for a monthly GRT pass, how can the people who really keep things going live here?

I think it has been discussed elsewhere that there is a disconnect between the Regional planning tools and goals and what Provincial legislation actually allows the Region and Cities to proscribe.  If the Region and Cities were to suggest that they would build enough housing so that everyone who wanted housing to suit their needs within the current urban boundary if only the Province would either provide the funding or give the Region and Cities the funding tools to raise the capital to build enough housing, I doubt that the Province would do so.  Four decades ago, the federal government, provinces and municipalities were actively involved in building a variety of public housing and social housing. Through a series of cutbacks since the mid-1980s, virtually all construction was turned over the private sector who generally chase profits over the actual needs of the community.  The result is either shoebox condos, increasingly larger suburban homes on smaller lots, or "luxury rentals",  all of which leave gaps in the housing pool.  Some non-profit groups, such as Habitat for Humanity, have been able to continue to build housing, but nothing on the level of what could happen if the federal and provincial governments were to actually return to building public housing.
Reply
#79
(03-17-2025, 10:31 PM)nms Wrote:
(03-17-2025, 11:02 AM)Silie Wrote: Tend to agree that overlooking a cemetery isn't the worst. The units on the north and west faces of the building will fare no worse than the apartments along Moore and Union, and I don't think anyone's had problems there. The rent vs. own becomes moot, though, if the rents are "upscale luxury living," with affordability based on 80 percent of market. If only households with incomes above $90,000 a year can afford units that just barely accommodate two people, not much differentiates that development from others in the neighbourhood. Yet again, I wonder if any thought has been given at the regional planning level to the need for service workers (food, retail, cleaning, delivery/transport, shelf-stockers, etc.,) to maintain that upscale luxury standard. I have family members who have worked involuntary part-time overnights for years with a major grocery store, and between them earn about one full-time minimum-wage income. If wages don't even allow for a monthly GRT pass, how can the people who really keep things going live here?

I think it has been discussed elsewhere that there is a disconnect between the Regional planning tools and goals and what Provincial legislation actually allows the Region and Cities to proscribe.  If the Region and Cities were to suggest that they would build enough housing so that everyone who wanted housing to suit their needs within the current urban boundary if only the Province would either provide the funding or give the Region and Cities the funding tools to raise the capital to build enough housing, I doubt that the Province would do so.  Four decades ago, the federal government, provinces and municipalities were actively involved in building a variety of public housing and social housing. Through a series of cutbacks since the mid-1980s, virtually all construction was turned over the private sector who generally chase profits over the actual needs of the community.  The result is either shoebox condos, increasingly larger suburban homes on smaller lots, or "luxury rentals",  all of which leave gaps in the housing pool.  Some non-profit groups, such as Habitat for Humanity, have been able to continue to build housing, but nothing on the level of what could happen if the federal and provincial governments were to actually return to building public housing.
Oh, don't even get me started. I've been a member and board member of a couple of housing co-ops, before and after they were sucked into the maw of the Social Housing Reform Plan as a way to compensate for governmental abandonment of public/social housing. That has been disastrous: co-op and social housing don't work well, since members have assumed responsibility and participation in their community, and morale takes a hit when people who haven't got a clue about co-ops are placed in one and assured by caseworkers that the "rules" don't apply to them. As far as I'm concerned, the private sector has had its turn and really needs to be out of housing altogether. We have seen and are living the fallout. In the meantime, it seems like people have been so divided and discouraged by the housing market that there really isn't the awareness of or ambition to form co-ops and tenants' unions (except as an after-the-fact response to renoviction efforts). Which is a crying shame, because more than ever, this is the time for a massive push toward public and non-market housing, and political/social support of Habitat for Humanity. Anyway, I apologize for pulling this thread off course - back to our regular programming  Wink
Reply
#80
Yes, they now have a trailer parked here and a machine checking out the soil condition.
Reply
#81
They now have banners on the fence saying Oranj Constructors coming soon.
Reply
#82
(07-15-2025, 04:02 AM)Square Wrote: They now have banners on the fence saying Oranj Constructors coming soon.

Vive has been working in the background on this site and 332 Charles getting permits and site plan approval to start construction. This one is further ahead with shoring, foundation and balance of construction all applied for with status letters sent for two of them. The main reason Vive is working so fast on this one is they want to use CHMC funding to build if I recall correctly which has time stipulations.

As for Oranj Constructors it's just another branch of Vive. Vive is the development/property management arm, Oranj is the GC arm (it's also brand new).

It's the same thing as HIP and Melloul Blamey. Melloul Blamey is the GC (main company) and HIP is the development arm.
Reply


#83
Do we know what tower they are starting with?
Reply
#84
(07-15-2025, 10:06 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: Do we know what tower they are starting with?

The 44 floor tower at the rear of the site, if I recall correctly the city is considering it to be 45 because of the parking mezzanine level. Regardless it's the only one they have conditional SPA for and they have building permits applied for. The buildings fronting King and Pine will still need SPA before they can proceed, it wouldn't be surprising if they need ZBA as well just based on Vives history. So far there has been nothing submitted for the future phases.
Reply
#85
The conditional shoring permit for this was issued on August 1st so there should be some activities in the coming weeks.
Reply
#86
Great, more vertical 🤮 polluting the sky. This is by far one of the biggest towers of shit proposed in the history of Kitchener. It's like a 55 floor Brutalist superprison. This region is a complete joke lmao. Remember guys, there's NO going back from this. Enjoy.
Reply
#87
(08-02-2025, 10:17 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: The conditional shoring permit for this was issued on August 1st so there should be some activities in the coming weeks.

Maybe starting Monday August 18th?  Signs posted No Parking on the 18 Pine lot and the driveway to the old CTV building.
Reply
#88
It appears they're doing some pile driving on the site today.
Reply


#89
(10-30-2024, 05:49 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote: This got approved at yesterdays Planning and Strategic Initatives meeting, this still requires final council approval which should occur at the next council meeting.

There were some minor technical changes to the site which really don't change much, the way the parking structure is staff is considering it 45 floors instead of 44 floors however the height does not change. The tower itself was repositioned such that there are better set backs to the East and South property lines, the East set back makes it easier for future development of the adjacent parking lot and the southern set back allows for easier redevelopment of 850 King and phase 2 of this development. In terms of overall there is nothing major changing on the site.

The plans have confirmed it is a 3 phase development, this current tower being phase 1, the building fronting King being phase 2 and the final phase will be along Pine.

This is also going through CMHC which would require about 20% affordable housing which again is more than IZ requirements.

Councillor Stretch was the one questioning Vive on this one more than anyone else she was primarily complaining about traffic, Vive came back saying it's less than 1 per unit so while the building may be 450+ units it does not mean there will be 450 cars, there are only 270 spaces so its more realistic to look at that value. Stretch's second complaint was with construction traffic since the development on the other side of Pine has been using the local roads for access, in this case the residents were citing cement trucks at early hours or having lines of trucks on Pine/Herbert, in this case however that was primarily for raft slab pours where you need a constant flow of concrete but the King/Pine site is a lot more constrained then this in terms of staging areas which is why they need to use the route that they use through the neighbourhood. Anecdotally I was doing work on Union a few months ago and Stubbe's trucks were coming once an hour or so, it really wasn't horrific in any regard.

Stretch also asked if Waterloo could be informed but staff said it is not a requirement since it is not within the 120m radius (thankfully) of the site. A lot of the complaints from the public were traffic/height, one resident who delegated called the King/Pine building under construction making the area cavernous, in this case the Vive property is SGA 4 so there's no height limit so it's really just the  NIMBY nonsense.

So does Vive also own that parking lot that was used for the Medical Building? That is where phase 3 is going?

Also the crane base is poured and curing.
Reply
#90
So does Vive also own that parking lot that was used for the Medical Building? That is where phase 3 is going?

Also the crane base is poured and curing.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links