11-11-2021, 10:50 PM
(11-11-2021, 09:48 PM)nms Wrote: If developers and municipal staff did a better job of communicating the benefits of a new development to the community, that would go a long way towards gaining neighbourhood acceptance, particularly if a developer is proposing something that goes well beyond what a certain piece of property has been zoned for. Every square inch of downtown Kitchener has been planned and discussed for decades. Most people who live downtown have a reasonable expectation that things will change. It's when a developer arrives with a plan to dramatically increase the density beyond what was already planned with no apparent benefit for the nearby community, neighbours begin to ask questions. I do not buy the argument of, "Give the developers what they want and maybe we can convince them to throw a community benefit elsewhere". Developers should know their community and plan to become a part of it rather than appear to be maximizing their profit for the sake of themselves and real estate investors while those who will ultimately be living in the building and those in the surrounding area have to live with the consequences of any negative impacts.
What would make a project more palatable to me:
- ample sidewalk or plaza space around the building that would allow pedestrians to not feel as if they are squeezed between a glass/concrete/whatever wall and a high capacity road
- trees all along the sidewalk (this development is cutting down 51 trees of various maturity. I doubt that any trees of meaningful use are going to appear on site)
- onsite affordable housing (don't just give money to something that might be built elsewhere by someone else)
- family sized units, or a provision that single-occupancy units could be converted into larger units later (this would only work with rental buildings)
- meaningful contribution to accessible green space nearby (the downtown Kitchener parks are on the cusp of being overrun using Kitchener's own metrics once all of the current under construction and planned buildings are occupied)
- no massive wall of a parking podium that hulks over the groundfloor space and the street.
Things like this:
- We are going three stories taller because the building is narrower to allow for an outdoor gathering space or play structure
- We are going three stories taller so be able to plant more trees around the building for a pleasant pedestrian experience and to reduce the urban heat island effect
- We are going five stories taller because this building will have 35 affordable housing units onsite
- We are going five stories taller because we have moved the parking podium to the back (non street-facing) side of the building and there will be occupied residential or commercial units facing the street
If the neighbourhood is being asked to make trade-offs, then they should be able to expect some community benefit. How does this development contribute to the neighbourhood? (I ask rhetorically)
I think most of the wants here are cogent and your manner of explanation approach would be great if it could be made so straight forward. I do think, though, that reading documents on the community feedback from similar projects (recently in Belmont) or this petition you'll realize that, regrettably, the most prominent community complaints that arise are none of those things (even if some may be intrinsic).
Maybe that just means that the constructively critical neighbours need to speak up more. In part I think that is true.