General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

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.

I don't generally agree with heritage arguments. I think change is a natural thing which should happen. The most conciliatory thing I will say that there are perhaps SOME objects of historical significance that should be kept and maintained a historical artifacts open to the public, as a museum (e.g., schneider haus), but this does not mean our community should not change and evolve. (For example, who decides *WHEN* an area should be frozen in time?--perhaps Venice should have been held at a prior version!)

But generally I think almost all of the heritage arguments I've heard in KW are completely bullshit. They have nothing to do with our history, and have everything to do with opposing change.

Obviously this is not an opinion shared by most, but I feel like it is an increasingly easy to defend argument as we see increasingly ludicrous "heritage" arguments like this.

[Rainrider22]

I find myself in strange territory because I am in complete agreement with Dan We talk so much about the need for more housing g and fast, we need to expedite projects like this. It is appropriate height and appropriate for the location. I walk through this niehghbourhood twice a week while my daughter is at dance lessons. It is beautiful. If I could convince my wife to live in an older home I would by on Ahrens street in a new york minute. The whole area is just beautiful the 2 current high rise at Margret and Queen enhance the area not take away. I see people constantly coming out to walk their dogs. I see so many people walking and it is nice. Guess what, people make neighborhoods great, not buildings This proposal will bring more people into the area there by making it better.

I am no expert on urban planning but I have a lot of interest in this area. For me, Dan is correct. This may be a large working g group, but they are small in their voice when it comes to what I best for the city. I will be writing to my counselor like I did for the project at Victoria and Park...enough already. What happened in Blemont village was wrong in my opinion...enough already

[danbrotherston]

I find myself in strange territory because I am in complete agreement with Dan    We talk so much about the need for more housing g and fast, we need to expedite projects like this.  It is appropriate height and appropriate for the location.  I walk through this niehghbourhood twice a week while my daughter is at dance lessons.  It is beautiful.  If I could convince my wife to live in an older home I would by on Ahrens street in a new york minute.  The whole area is just beautiful  the 2 current high rise at Margret and Queen enhance the area not take away.  I see people constantly coming out to walk their dogs.  I see so many people walking and it is nice.  Guess what, people make neighborhoods great, not buildings  This proposal will bring more people into the area there by making it better.

I am no expert on urban planning but I have a lot of interest in this area.  For me, Dan is correct.  This may be a large working g group, but they are small in their voice when it comes to what I best for the city.  I will be writing to my counselor like I did for the project at Victoria and Park...enough already.  What happened in Blemont village was wrong in my opinion...enough already

Lol...if we agree...well...that's pretty compelling.

It is a nice area, I used to walk there pretty much daily as well, I love the area, the mix of densities (and prices) is what I love about it.

[ac3r]

Lol.

Well yeah I completely agree that transformation is inevitable and that in most cases, heritage arguments here are nonsense. But we can't simply destroy everything old nor can we always upset the fabric of certain cities or neighbourhoods. History needs to be preserved. People come from all over the world to stand in awe of cities like Istanbul, London, Goa, Lagos and so on. Once it's gone, it's gone. I love watching Star Trek and even in that advanced version of our future, they still preserve historic areas of cities and planets. Imagine living in 2489 and not really knowing what once existed? Holodecks aren't a team thing, sadly.

It just needs to be done right. In our case, we can easily preserve our heritage to an acceptable degree but permit progress and modern development. It's not as if we're bulldozing historic palaces or whatever. And yes most of the time when people use this argument against change, they likely don't really care about heritage, they just don't want something new or different in their life. But in the end, we must consider the arguments for preservation even if in many cases it's just used to argue in bad faith.

In the end, it's not like they're living in Old Montreal here, so I think this project should be approved. Nothing is being lost but a parking lot full of weeds and dirty needles. There's really not a whole lot in Canada that is unique, especially here. These people are basically objecting about the view they'll have out there windows which is just dumb. On the other hand, if someone planned to buy up the entire Civic District area and bulldoze this all down, then they'd have something. Either way, they can voice their concerns and we need to listen to them as it lets us make decisions as to how we evolve this city we call home.

[dtkmelissa]

"New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood." I hear this often at council meetings. If it were true, shouldn't we have a city full of 'destroyed neighbourhoods'? Where locally has this occurred - where a new development has wrecked an existing neighbourhood? I get that it's subjective too but I honestly can't think of examples.

[ac3r]

Locally, I suppose nowhere has faced that yet and likely never will. But it does happen in cities all the time. As I mentioned, once it's gone it's gone. It's important to preserve what we can, whether it's individual buildings or just the fabric of certain neighbourhoods. I mean what charm would downtown Cambridge (Galt) have if we razed all the old stone buildings for new ones? We'd lose that identity. Thankfully, it's through heritage preservation that have still been able to maintain its atmosphere. Change will come to Cambridge too, but it's important to hold on to what we can, while we can. It's a delicate thing to manage the old and new parts of cities.

[danbrotherston]

"New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood." I hear this often at council meetings. If it were true, shouldn't we have a city full of 'destroyed neighbourhoods'? Where locally has this occurred - where a new development has wrecked an existing neighbourhood? I get that it's subjective too but I honestly can't think of examples.

I think the key is understanding that for certain people "changing" is equivalent to "destroying"...they are incapable of dealing with change.

So in a way, our city is filled with vibrant neighbourhoods which are "destroyed" because they are different than they were 10 years ago.

[danbrotherston]

Locally, I suppose nowhere has faced that yet and likely never will. But it does happen in cities all the time. As I mentioned, once it's gone it's gone. It's important to preserve what we can, whether it's individual buildings or just the fabric of certain neighbourhoods. I mean what charm would downtown Cambridge (Galt) have if we razed all the old stone buildings for new ones? We'd lose that identity. Thankfully, it's through heritage preservation that have still been able to maintain its atmosphere. Change will come to Cambridge too, but it's important to hold on to what we can, while we can. It's a delicate thing to manage the old and new parts of cities.

If we came and razed Galt and built something new, we'd have .... something new. Perhaps something vibrant, alive, with it's own community, building it's own history.

This is an extreme example, and I'm not suggesting we do that, but the point is, for the people who would live in that community it wouldn't be "destroyed".

What you talk about is change, not "destruction" or at least not in any more meaningful way than the nature of the word "change" implies.

The word "destroyed" is used to invoke all sorts of horrible hellscapes, because that is what people who don't like change envision. We should try and influence change to be something we like, but "holding onto what we can" just implies the goal is to arrest and avoid change as much as possible. That is foolish at best.

[jwilliamson]

"New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood." I hear this often at council meetings. If it were true, shouldn't we have a city full of 'destroyed neighbourhoods'? Where locally has this occurred - where a new development has wrecked an existing neighbourhood? I get that it's subjective too but I honestly can't think of examples.

You could make an argument for new development completely changing the character of Northdale. There were far more outdoor parties, more people hanging out on lawns when it was dominated by houses instead of apartments.

[dtkvictim]

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.

You've misunderstand my argument. These people are protesting the development due to their perceived negative consequences of it. Unless you've completely blinded yourself with urbanist dogma, you must also understand that all change, whether net good or bad, is made up of positive and negative components.

Within the context of those protesting the negative consequences, I'm simply stating that the individual in your photo likely has one of the most valid arguments, not that least as you seemed to have implied.

I am not arguing in favour of blocking the development, nor that there is merit to the idea of the development being a net negative, nor denying that it's a necessity. I am also not arguing that the individual from your photo is the most experienced and affected by the housing crisis, as you've misinterpreted.

[cherrypark]

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.

Really sincerely wish we could get more well designed mid-density in our city. It seems though, that the somewhat loose definitions of what qualifies for heritage, the breadth of "heritage communities" encircling downtown, and the vigour that anything new gets opposed, developers would just rather find the few larger parcels left and put the maximum they can get away with on each plot.

It feel like an admission to the NIMBYs that a proposal is a bit aggressive in height proposed just supports the idea that nothing should get built or that their reasons for opposition aren't far out of proportion to the actual impacts. 

It is tiresome to hear people living in heritage carve out complain when the areas around them continue to grow up. That's the whole point! 22 Weber is a prime example on the biggest thoroughfare in downtown, right across the road from buildings of equivalent size.

[bravado]

I think downtown Preston is a reasonable case where something “old” was replaced with something of much lower quality and the whole area is lessened by it. But it’s still rare and could have been avoided with literally any amount of moderation and investment…

[panamaniac]

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....

Locally, I suppose nowhere has faced that yet and likely never will. But it does happen in cities all the time. As I mentioned, once it's gone it's gone. It's important to preserve what we can, whether it's individual buildings or just the fabric of certain neighbourhoods. I mean what charm would downtown Cambridge (Galt) have if we razed all the old stone buildings for new ones? We'd lose that identity. Thankfully, it's through heritage preservation that have still been able to maintain its atmosphere. Change will come to Cambridge too, but it's important to hold on to what we can, while we can. It's a delicate thing to manage the old and new parts of cities.

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.

Really sincerely wish we could get more well designed mid-density in our city. It seems though, that the somewhat loose definitions of what qualifies for heritage, the breadth of "heritage communities" encircling downtown, and the vigour that anything new gets opposed, developers would just rather find the few larger parcels left and put the maximum they can get away with on each plot.

It feel like an admission to the NIMBYs that a proposal is a bit aggressive in height proposed just supports the idea that nothing should get built or that their reasons for opposition aren't far out of proportion to the actual impacts. 

It is tiresome to hear people living in heritage carve out complain when the areas around them continue to grow up. That's the whole point! 22 Weber is a prime example on the biggest thoroughfare in downtown, right across the road from buildings of equivalent size.

I don't think the "NIMBYs" in this case have opposed any construction - they acknowledge that the current zoning would allow an 8 storey structure.   Other than shadowing, which is not decisive in these things, I don't think, I really don't see a problem with this tower on Weber St.   As I said before, however, I suspect that the final result will be something closer to 15 storeys than 19.  It just seems to be the way these things play out - in fact I've long suspected that developers request more height than they actually expect to get in anticipation of neighbourhood push back.

[danbrotherston]

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....

Locally, I suppose nowhere has faced that yet and likely never will. But it does happen in cities all the time. As I mentioned, once it's gone it's gone. It's important to preserve what we can, whether it's individual buildings or just the fabric of certain neighbourhoods. I mean what charm would downtown Cambridge (Galt) have if we razed all the old stone buildings for new ones? We'd lose that identity. Thankfully, it's through heritage preservation that have still been able to maintain its atmosphere. Change will come to Cambridge too, but it's important to hold on to what we can, while we can. It's a delicate thing to manage the old and new parts of cities.

Really sincerely wish we could get more well designed mid-density in our city. It seems though, that the somewhat loose definitions of what qualifies for heritage, the breadth of "heritage communities" encircling downtown, and the vigour that anything new gets opposed, developers would just rather find the few larger parcels left and put the maximum they can get away with on each plot.

It feel like an admission to the NIMBYs that a proposal is a bit aggressive in height proposed just supports the idea that nothing should get built or that their reasons for opposition aren't far out of proportion to the actual impacts. 

It is tiresome to hear people living in heritage carve out complain when the areas around them continue to grow up. That's the whole point! 22 Weber is a prime example on the biggest thoroughfare in downtown, right across the road from buildings of equivalent size.

I don't think the "NIMBYs" in this case have opposed any construction - they acknowledge that the current zoning would allow an 8 storey structure.   Other than shadowing, which is not decisive in these things, I don't think, I really don't see a problem with this tower on Weber St.   As I said before, however, I suspect that the final result will be something closer to 15 storeys than 19.  It just seems to be the way these things play out - in fact I've long suspected that developers request more height than they actually expect to get in anticipation of neighbourhood push back.

I think that's naive. "The developer should follow the zoning" argument is nothing more than a false pretext to claim a reasonable argument. If the developer was proposing an 8 story building, they'd still be there, disagreeing.  Plenty in the meeting were plenty honest about this, saying they'd oppose pretty much anything besides a tire shop.

And, I'll be fair, there would be fewer people opposing it in the meeting. But I don't believe it's because they don't oppose an 8 storey building, but because they would feel they had less chance of successfully obstructing it.

[ijmorlan]

I think that's naive. "The developer should follow the zoning" argument is nothing more than a false pretext to claim a reasonable argument. If the developer was proposing an 8 story building, they'd still be there, disagreeing.  Plenty in the meeting were plenty honest about this, saying they'd oppose pretty much anything besides a tire shop.

And, I'll be fair, there would be fewer people opposing it in the meeting. But I don't believe it's because they don't oppose an 8 storey building, but because they would feel they had less chance of successfully obstructing it.

Especially since so much of the zoning is idiotic. I remember a townhouse complex that had to get a zoning amendment to allow one of the townhouse blocks to be just 2 units — in other words, officially a semi-detached, not a townhouse; only townhouses were allowed by the zoning.