General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[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.