General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[Lens]

Does anyone know the story of these 3 houses on Courtland at Benton? https://goo.gl/maps/MPePewUtpwmaDKPb7

They're all currently boarded up and vacant.

These were just demolished in the last few days.

[CP42]

Views from Charlie West

[tomh009]

Very nice!

[Rainrider22]

I read this article and the overall point is that a high rise on an empty lot will ruin a heritage district. But all I saw was irony as I look at the high rise in the background of the cover picture.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...trict.html

What's that saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" enough said.

[danbrotherston]

I read this article and the overall point is that a high rise on an empty lot will ruin a heritage district. But all I saw was irony as I look at the high rise in the background of the cover picture.

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...trict.html

What's that saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words"  enough said.

Attachments are still broken, so I can't post a picture.

Apparently attachments do work when I actually post this, but it looked like they weren't working.

But I have a picture of a house with a sign opposing this which literally backs onto both those highrises.

These people have no scruples.

[Rainrider22]

Omg.....that is even better !!!

[Acitta]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that developers want to destroy a heritage parking lot! LOL

[Rainrider22]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that developers want to destroy a heritage parking lot! LOL

I too am shocked !

[dtkvictim]

But I have a picture of a house with a sign opposing this which literally backs onto both those highrises.

These people have no scruples.

Not to defend this group of NIMBYS but: Where you see irony and hypocrisy in this sign, you can just as easily see the most experienced and affected individual on the matter.

[Rainrider22]

For me the irony is the high rise in the background. They have been present for a great many years without comprimising the integrity of that heritage community. Additionally, there is a much higher building proposed right across the road...

[panamaniac]

For me the irony is the high rise in the background.  They have been present for a great many years without comprimising the integrity of that heritage community.  Additionally, there is a much higher building proposed right across the road...

Some would see them as the most prominent among a number of developments and demolitions over the years that have left the neighbourhood's heritage status hanging by a thread.  What is gone from that part of town was more impressive than most of what remains.  I have no objection to the new proposal, but we'll see how it plays out.  This is a strong community group so we may see the developer knock a few storeys off it.

[dtkvictim]

For me the irony is the high rise in the background.  They have been present for a great many years without comprimising the integrity of that heritage community.  Additionally, there is a much higher building proposed right across the road...

I get the irony. My point is that the individual living in the shadow of that highrise might directly feel that the building has been compromising the quality of the neighbourhood (for heritage reasons or otherwise) for all these years. Being so close to it perhaps gives them that most informed opinion.

Using an existing highrise as justification for another one also gives ammunition to the common slippery slope argument of "If we allow this one, we've opened the floodgates. How many more will follow?". Especially when the common rebuttal to that argument, including from folks on this forum, is that it's just one tower... we aren't Manhattan or Toronto after all.

[danbrotherston]

But I have a picture of a house with a sign opposing this which literally backs onto both those highrises.

These people have no scruples.

Not to defend this group of NIMBYS but: Where you see irony and hypocrisy in this sign, you can just as easily see the most experienced and affected individual on the matter.

No...NO...

The MOST affected and experienced individual on this matter is the person desperately trying to afford rent, or who is unable to afford rent.

Not some wealthy homeowner who objects to living near an apartment building.

I am always so frustrated by how invisible that group of people is treated.

[danbrotherston]

For me the irony is the high rise in the background.  They have been present for a great many years without comprimising the integrity of that heritage community.  Additionally, there is a much higher building proposed right across the road...

Some would see them as the most prominent among a number of developments and demolitions over the years that have left the neighbourhood's heritage status hanging by a thread.  What is gone from that part of town was more impressive than most of what remains.  I have no objection to the new proposal, but we'll see how it plays out.  This is a strong community group so we may see the developer knock a few storeys off it.

But that is the point.

Knocking a few stories off this development does NOTHING for heritage (and why would it, heritage is a bullshit argument, especially here).

But what it will do is represent a few dozen families in the margins who are now unable to find housing.

I hate that fake compromise so much....

[ac3r]

Some would see them as the most prominent among a number of developments and demolitions over the years that have left the neighbourhood's heritage status hanging by a thread.  What is gone from that part of town was more impressive than most of what remains.  I have no objection to the new proposal, but we'll see how it plays out.  This is a strong community group so we may see the developer knock a few storeys off it.

But that is the point.

Knocking a few stories off this development does NOTHING for heritage (and why would it, heritage is a bullshit argument, especially here).

But what it will do is represent a few dozen families in the margins who are now unable to find housing.

I hate that fake compromise so much....

I disagree with this. Preserving the heritage of areas of cities is an important thing to do. New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood. I don't think most people would disagree that if Venice suddenly started building massive condos and skyscrapers, it would be very detrimental to the city. Or for a more relatable comparison, all the new construction you see in China or Japan only happened by destroying the historic fabric of those cities.

It's all subjective of course and one can argue that heritage can coexist with the contemporary (and I believe it can), but suggesting the preservation of cultural, neighbourhood and architectural heritage is bullshit in terms of blocking new developments is wrong and can have negative impacts on an area. Of course, in this case I don't believe for one second that this proposed project will do any harm, but due to the subjective experience each person has in their cities, their voices are worth hearing out.

Heritage is a very important thing. As an Indigenous person, I could argue that all the settlers who came here destroyed our cultural heritage (both the intangible and tangible). Waterloo Region - Canada - only exists because you guys came here and decided that our heritage was not worth preservation and much of who we are has been destroyed. I know that's an odd argument to use but it helps illustrate why certain groups of people get wary when history is destroyed for something new. It's possible to have both, you just need compromises.

That said, given that downtown has always had tall buildings, their argument against this project is junk. More so because they are wanting to protect an actual parking lot. But at the same time, it's possible to develop cities without the need for highrises and skyscrapers everywhere. European cities are a great example. Many of them have high density, but many also prevent the construction of tall buildings in order to preserve the historic fabric of the area. Our cities would need to reconsider zoning rules, but you can achieve high density without the need for towering buildings everywhere.