924-944 King St W | 28 fl | Proposed

[ZEBuilder]

This is a single tower development being developed by two numbered companies 1000100206 Ontario and 1000187534 Ontario. It's located at 924-944 King St W which is directly across from Mt Hope St. The company behind this appears to be Dez Capital, they haven't done anything remotely close to the scale of this so it would not be surprising if this sits for years.

The building itself is 28 floors containing 341 residential units, comprising of 224 1 bdrm, 97 2 bdrm, and 30 3 bdrm units. It will have a 5 floor podium as well as 1 floor of underground parking, in total there will be 182 parking spaces split between the underground level and the podium. The site will also contain 350 bicycle spaces with 290 spaces on the ground floor of the building in a secured room.

For amenity space there is 2500 sqft of interior space provided on the 6th floor as well as 4671 sqft of outdoor amenity space on the 6th floor. Each unit will also have a balcony or terrace which is included in the 8sqm of amenity space per unit.

In terms of commercial space there is 7093 sqft provided on the ground floor in two separate units. One is 4352 sqft and the other is 2741 sqft.

The building itself is not award winning but there is some colour albeit its only in the podium. The rest is the typical grey and black.

Arch set: 924 King Arch Set
Planning Docs: 924 King Planning Docs

The architect for the project is ABA. Geotechnical is provided by Englobe. Functional servicing (Storm/Sanitary/Water requirements) is provided by WalterFedy. The TIS was completed by Paradigm who do almost every TIS for local projects.

Site Plan: 
   

Render:
   

[Kodra24]

I wonder if this will be approved - lots of developments are trying to upsize, this was designated SGA2 (max 8 storeys) originally through Growing Together, they're going for SGA3 (max 28 storeys)

Anyone know how successful these applications are typically?

[ZEBuilder]

I wonder if this will be approved - lots of developments are trying to upsize, this was designated SGA2 (max 8 storeys) originally through Growing Together, they're going for SGA3 (max 28 storeys)

Anyone know how successful these applications are typically?

The problem right now is while Growing Together has been approved at the city level it is appealed to the OLT which means it's not easily enforceable yet, so really the city is working off of 85-1 or 2019-051. In the case of this property 85-1 stands and has a height limit of 24m and a FSR of 4.0. 

For this tower for 85-1 they need ammendments for heigt (96m), FSR (11.5), no minimum parking requirements, and a setback. 

For Growing Together they need two different ammendments for height, one for a height of 20m within 10m of SGA 1 or lowrise, another for a height of 96m within 30m of SGA 1.

However since the city can't officially consider Growing Together they're working entirely off of 85-1 and all those ammendments would pass, FSR and parking minimums are gone in Growing Together so those would easily pass, the setback is something that CoA normally deals with and it's rather minor in nature, the height is the only question mark, the issue though is the development does support ROPA 6, PPS 2024, and Kitchener's Official Plan, its just actually zoning that it doesn't conform to so you'd have to disregard all 3 of those documents which would easily pass at the OLT.

If Growing Together magically comes into force before this goes to council (it won't) you have the first height issue which the developer can look back and say we designed based on 85-1 which allowed that at the time of design, and the city can't argue with that, and then it's again just one height issue which will likely get approved because it again is supporting ROPA 6, PPS 2024 and Kitchener's Official Plan.

In terms of other developments that have come since Growing Together got city approval you have Vive's CTV property, 328 Mill and 169 Victoria. Each of them were very different but all got approval. Vive's was mainly a phasing issue with regards to Growing Together and then height with 85-1 but it's SGA 4 in Growing Together so Vive's site was always going to get approved. 328 Mill got approved against the recommendation of staff, it had ridiculous ammendments to setbacks but it's not being built anytime soon, then you have 169 Victoria which is very similar to Vive's issue in that there's just really minor ammendments required to make any building work on the site regardless of which bylaw you're using.

So long story short it's extremely likely to get approved.

[bravado]

^ this super well-made and knowledgeable post is a summary of why the housing crisis is what it is around here. If we want housing, we sure don't write the laws to make it look like we do... What a confusing nightmare!

[nms]

^ this super well-made and knowledgeable post is a summary of why the housing crisis is what it is around here. If we want housing, we sure don't write the laws to make it look like we do... What a confusing nightmare!

Documents were written, like Growing Together, but then they get appealed.  At the risk of derailing this post (and mods, feel free to move this where appropriate), why was Growing Together appealed, and by whom?

[ZEBuilder]

^ this super well-made and knowledgeable post is a summary of why the housing crisis is what it is around here. If we want housing, we sure don't write the laws to make it look like we do... What a confusing nightmare!

Documents were written, like Growing Together, but then they get appealed.  At the risk of derailing this post (and mods, feel free to move this where appropriate), why was Growing Together appealed, and by whom?

In this case since changes were made to zoning via a bylaw any individual can appeal that bylaw under section 34(19) of the planing act. Since an appeal was made the bylaw can not be enforced since it is still not technically approved.

This particular appeal was made by Vive for two different properties both of which they lobbied during Growing Together but didnt get what they wanted, thus they took it to the tribunal since they want better zoning, SGA 3 and SGA 4 instead of SGA 2 and 3 respectively. The tribunal found that Vive had no basis to argue those two at the tribunal, however they can argue specific parts of the bylaw, the next meeting is a written submission at the end of February so Growing Together isn't going to be approved for a while.

This is what the last OLT report ordered:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal without a hearing is granted, in part. The Appeal may proceed to a hearing; however, Charles Preston Kitchener Holdings Inc. and Vive Development Corporation are limited to its appeal of Section 6.5.2 and Table 6-5 of Section 21 of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-065 and are not permitted to raise issues nor to present evidence that exclusively challenge the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum height established by Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 2024-065 (save and to the extent that evidence may be led as to matters of maximum height and maximum density that indirectly relate to the issues raised in s. 6.5.2 and Table 6-5 in Section 21 of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-065).

[tomh009]

Story in The Record yesterday:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...d069c.html

No staff recommendation or council decision yet.

Online meeting next Wednesday (2025-02-19):
https://calendar.kitchener.ca/default/De...nt-924-944

[westwardloo]

Besides the zoning mess that has been brought up.  I actually like the proposed building, other then how bulky it looks, but I think I have to give up hope on the region getting slender towers.  The material choice appears to be somewhat thought out, with brick for the podium and not my favorite but "classic" white and black for the tower. It's nice to see Vive proposing something that is not Precast concrete finally, looks like they are going with metal panelling.  The podium while not great, but is fairly well designed with residentials units facing king st, so we won't have 4 floors of a precast parking garage wall. They even included commercial space, which I think is great to see and wish it was included in more projects.

Saying all this, it will probably be rejected by the city go to tribunal and we will end up with a taller precast building delayed by 2 years.

[ZEBuilder]

Besides the zoning mess that has been brought up.  I actually like the proposed building, other then how bulky it looks, but I think I have to give up hope on the region getting slender towers.  The material choice appears to be somewhat thought out, with brick for the podium and not my favorite but "classic" white and black for the tower. It's nice to see Vive proposing something that is not Precast concrete finally, looks like they are going with metal panelling.  The podium while not great, but is fairly well designed with residentials units facing king st, so we won't have 4 floors of a precast parking garage wall. They even included commercial space, which I think is great to see and wish it was included in more projects.

Saying all this, it will probably be rejected by the city go to tribunal and we will end up with a taller precast building delayed by 2 years.

The reason you like it so much is this isn't actually a project by Vive, Vive's go to architect is Reindeer and Associates who tend to produce the same garbage. This is ABA who while they aren't going to win many awards, they tend to make some decent looking buildings (Charlie West, Civic 66).

The lack of parking facing King isn't enforced in the current bylaw however if Growing Together is approved before this, Growing Togethers priority street rules come into affect, King is one of the Priority Streets but I don't recall off the top of my head if this particular section is but I believe it is, regardless Priority Streets force developers to have active uses on the frontage, something like 20% maximum of a buildings frontage can be parking podium but there's other more niche restrictions to the whole Priority Streets rules.

[westwardloo]

That is a good point ABA has produced some decent buildings for our Region. I tend to like most of their designs. They will still use precast if the developer wants, but they have been better at implementing it into the design, although the gaslight district podium is a bad example of their work.

[tomh009]

Vive's go to architect is Reindeer and Associates

I thought most (many?) of Vive's buildings were designed by NEO.

[ZEBuilder]

Vive's go to architect is Reinders and Associates

I thought most (many?) of Vive's buildings were designed by NEO.

I should have clarified and said recent. Most of Vives midrises are NEO. Many of their recent developments have been Reinders.

Reinders: CTV site (2024), 3241 King (2022), 87 Weber (2023), all the Growing Together Concepts (2024)

Cusimano: King/Sheldon, 1770 King, Lancaster (2021, Partnership with Corley)

Edge: 50 Borden (there's been no action for well over a year on the OPA/ZBA so this is likely dead)

Neo: 332 Charles (2023), 926 King (2021), Woodside (2023), 1001 King (2022)