Vogue Residences (née District Condos) | 21 + 14 fl | U/C

[Coke6pk]

The final zoning change approval for this is going to Waterloo City Council tomorrow (Monday) the 27th. (agenda, a lots of information in the council packet)

Some notes:

• Apparently the zone MR-25 requires at least 10% of parking be at grade!
  
• Parking for the building will be approved at 0.8 spaces/unit. They have to change many 1-bedrooms to 2-bedrooms at staff's request to get that number up from the requested 0.71 spaces/unit, even though its the same number of bedrooms per parking space.
  
• The ground floor commercial was supposed to be 500 square metres, but to reduce parking requirements, that was changed to 300 square metres, and 200 square metres of "amenity" space.
  

At KW multicultural fest, members of St. Sophia's Church were calling for people to attend the Waterloo City Council meeting to oppose this development, as it is across the street. Something along the lines of "Save the church". They are none-too-pleased with being surrounded by apartment towers.

Perhaps St. Sophia's should be taking the "many new parishioners moving into our neighbourhood" approach, as opposed to a NIMBY one.  It's the Christian thing to do...

Coke

[myfaceisonfire]

I am not as hard as many people here seem to be about what has happened to Northdale, however, this tower is an  abomination.   I would be none to please if it were being built next to me either.  I can't help but to feel like it is going to change the whole vibe of this area.

[panamaniac]

Why do you have that reaction to this building in particular?

[eizenstriet]

... this tower is an  abomination.

 
The development application was unanimously rejected by Council on June 27. The Record and Chronicle reporters were there and it seemed newsworthy, but nothing has been mentioned.

[myfaceisonfire]

Why do you have that reaction to this building in particular?

 I think it's far too big, too boxy, the windows are too small, the colours are awful.  It's just a perfect combination of things I don't like.

[Markster]

I have a minor complaint, but it was caused by Waterloo staff, not the developers. The reduction of commercial space from 500m2 to 300m2 in service of parking requirements. It seems ridiculous, particularly in this rapidly urbanizing area, to limit the retail space allowed. At least the "amenity" space can always be converted.

My only major complaint is that the south view of the tower is not really good enough. This is one of those locations where a "design review panel" is truly needed. Nothing will ever be built to the south of this building, so this will be the view looking north from Uptown for the next 40 years or more:

   

And its.... uninspired. It's not the worst we've seen, and I'm happy to see its northern neighbour hidden from view, but it would be nice to get something... nice. Like the buildings going up on Albert St

[tomh009]

... this tower is an  abomination.

 
The development application was unanimously rejected by Council on June 27. The Record and Chronicle reporters were there and it seemed newsworthy, but nothing has been mentioned.

So why was it rejected?  I suspect not because of the design ...

[eizenstriet]

So why was it rejected?  I suspect not because of the design ...

You are setting me a tough task, here, t’9.

Going by memory, which is fast fading…

All the tougher because the expressed reasons were not extensive. Before any reasons were advanced, as the process was unfolding, there were undercurrents. Recall that the project had been “sold” (in Toronto, no less) before any approvals were even a twinkle in Council’s eye. I feel that did not sit well. Recall also that this was the project which prompted the City to labour over creating an enforceable definition of a “bedroom”, if you know what I mean. I detected that Council did not appreciate being treated as rubes.

The surrounding neighbourhood was represented by a presentation which accented how they have been adaptive and welcoming to all the challenges which have pressed in on them over the decades, but would find it difficult to contact the 250 absentee owners of this project for a neighbourhood “get acquainted” BBQ, metaphorically and literally speaking.

The nearby church recounted how it had been treated with contempt by other nearby developments, and seemed resigned to being screwed over again (that is a total paraphrase by me, since churches do not use that language), and wished the surrounding neighbourhood well in its dwindling chances of survival.

One Councillor took the lead in starting rolling the motion which seemed to have coalesced into consensus some time before. However, the Councillor’s extemporaneous speech was not too clear. Coun. Whaley added clarity by referring to the built form, the lack of interaction with the community, the over-large, over-bearing nature of the development, and a certain inflexibility on the part of the developer. A number of Councillors were absent, but among those present, the rejection was unanimous.

If one were a believer in Divine intervention, one could speculate that justice was dispensed to those who had earned favour.

[tomh009]

Thanks, eizenstriet. It's interesting. The proposal is significantly improved from the original one in September (more setback, less height, fewer bedrooms, more parking) and thus would need smaller variances. And the staff recommended accepting it. But a wholesale rejection really makes it unclear what the way forward is for this project.

(As an aside, I don't see why anyone would want to invite condo owners to a neighbourhood BBQ, surely they would care about residents, not owners. Or do they also invite the owners of the apartment buildings? But whatever.)

[eizenstriet]

... it would be nice to get something... nice.  Like the buildings going up on Albert St

I thought these were raising the Northdale bar, too,  until I spoke with a young couple who had been living in one of them for almost a year. It seems one must also look beneath the surface.

They were desperate to get out. The building is mostly 4-bedroom student clusters. The couple was in what would, I guess, be one of the rarer 2-bedroom "young professional" suites. They were not professionals, but students, apparently serious ones. The noise made it impossible for them to work or study, and apparently even residents of the student clusters were moving desks into the halls to get work done.

One year in, there were still bare wires hanging from the ceiling, and their balcony had no railing. It was not only the pace of construction, but the quality, which disillusioned them. They said the building would not hold up well.

They were paying very hefty rent for what sounded like about 700 square feet. The father of one of them said you couldn't "swing a cat" in the bedrooms. (I emphasize that I would be morally opposed to any such experiment.)

Seriously, I have real doubts about the trumpeted appeal of these buildings for other than students. If young professionals are inclined to be trailblazers, they should bring lots of cash, Bose airtravel earphones, and a parachute.

But the buildings do look pretty good.

[eizenstriet]

(As an aside, I don't see why anyone would want to invite condo owners to a neighbourhood BBQ, surely they would care about residents, not owners.  Or do they also invite the owners of the apartment buildings?  But whatever.)

I did not do that presentation justice in my brevity. They literally do invite surrounding landlords and tenants to BBQs to foster community and understanding. It is no secret in Waterloo that this neighbourhood is on the pointed end of the double-whammy of lax landlords and boisterous tenants. What the permanent residents do to smooth the waters is admirable.

[Markster]

... it would be nice to get something... nice.  Like the buildings going up on Albert St

I thought these were raising the Northdale bar, too,  until I spoke with a young couple who had been living in one of them for almost a year. It seems one must also look beneath the surface.

...

But the buildings do look pretty good.

And to be clear, I was literally only talking about the exterior aesthetic design!

[shellshockpeach]

... it would be nice to get something... nice.  Like the buildings going up on Albert St

I thought these were raising the Northdale bar, too,  until I spoke with a young couple who had been living in one of them for almost a year. It seems one must also look beneath the surface.

They were desperate to get out. The building is mostly 4-bedroom student clusters. The couple was in what would, I guess, be one of the rarer 2-bedroom "young professional" suites. They were not professionals, but students, apparently serious ones. The noise made it impossible for them to work or study, and apparently even residents of the student clusters were moving desks into the halls to get work done.

One year in, there were still bare wires hanging from the ceiling, and their balcony had no railing. It was not only the pace of construction, but the quality, which disillusioned them. They said the building would not hold up well.

They were paying very hefty rent for what sounded like about 700 square feet. The father of one of them said you couldn't "swing a cat" in the bedrooms. (I emphasize that I would be morally opposed to any such experiment.)

Seriously, I have real doubts about the trumpeted appeal of these buildings for other than students. If young professionals are inclined to be trailblazers, they should bring lots of cash, Bose airtravel earphones, and a parachute.

But the buildings do look pretty good.

their website says they only have 2 and 3 bedroom suites...but I agree that with the location they're most likely to attract more students than young professionals

[tomh009]

I thought these were raising the Northdale bar, too,  until I spoke with a young couple who had been living in one of them for almost a year. It seems one must also look beneath the surface.

They were desperate to get out. The building is mostly 4-bedroom student clusters. The couple was in what would, I guess, be one of the rarer 2-bedroom "young professional" suites. They were not professionals, but students, apparently serious ones. The noise made it impossible for them to work or study, and apparently even residents of the student clusters were moving desks into the halls to get work done.

One year in, there were still bare wires hanging from the ceiling, and their balcony had no railing. It was not only the pace of construction, but the quality, which disillusioned them. They said the building would not hold up well.

I talked with a neighbour a few days ago, and he told me they lived at 144 Park before.  Much of a similar horror story, he said they couldn't wait to get out ot there.  Not only the Mady bankruptcy, but according to him the construction quality was atrocious.  (Though it's rarely great anywhere these days.)

Admittedly this is only hearsay, I have never been inside 144 Park.

[Drake]

King Street condo plan rejected

Waterloo Chronicle
By James Jackson  
Council has rejected a controversial 26-storey condo proposed for King Street North near the MacGregor-Albert Heritage Conservation District and MacGregor Senior Public School.
The proposal from NKL Properties Inc. would have amalgamated four properties at 151, 157, 159 and 161 King St. N. for a four-storey podium containing ground floor commercial and parking, and a 22 storey tower containing 236 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units.
Councillors said it wasn’t the right fit for the neighbourhood and ward Coun. Melissa Durrell put forth the motion to reject the plan.
“One of the things that sticks out for me the most is the compatibility with the neighbourhood,” she said. “I say that because 26 storeys to zero, there’s no transition into the schoolyard.”
The subject lands are currently zoned to permit an apartment building with a maximum height of 75 metres (25 storeys).
The development first came to council last October and saw opposition from several community members, who argued it wouldn’t be a good fit for the area and would dwarf the neighbourhood and school yard.
The developer made several amendments to the proposal since that October meeting, including fewer bedrooms and larger setbacks from the rear and side setbacks, but it wasn’t enough.
“This development is, for me, a real low point,” said Coun. Mark Whaley. “The developer will not give up on 26 storeys even though our zoning bylaw says 25 storeys … there’s been no willingness to be a part of the community, but to build a large, overbearing building.”
The developer had promised to save the façade of the non-registered heritage building at 151 King St. N. and rebuild it in the foyer of the tower, but removed that as part of the revised plan brought forth last week.
The building would have been across the street from a twin-tower condo development adjacent to St. Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and church spokesperson Daniel Monforte argued against the project.
“It’s going to change the dynamics of the entire neighbourhood,” he said.
Kae Elgie said the hundreds of residents of the condo would not be integrated well into the community given their isolation inside the tower. She urged council to reject it.
“I’m asking you to do this because I’m concerned for the future of the city, particularly the uptown neighbourhoods north of Bridgeport,” she said.
Council was also critical of the developer for putting units in the so-called District Condos project up for pre-sale in January of this year — before the project had even been approved.
Glenn Scheels of GSP Group, speaking on behalf of the developer, said units can’t be sold before the building is approved and that it’s more of a reservation for interested purchasers.
The sales website, www.districtresidenceswaterloo.com, touted the units as “now selling” as well as its proximity to Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo, along with the city’s innovation centres. Tentative occupancy was fall 2018 with prices starting at $276,900.

A couple thoughts on this. First, I am not certain how compelling an argument Whaley makes with comments such as"...a large overbearing building...[will] change the dynamics of the neighbourhood...". The site is zoned for 25 stories, yet the council gets their backs up about 26 stories. I am sorry, but I am missing the fundamental difference here. Regarding flow to that part of the city, I fail to see what difference a single story makes.



I am personally not supportive of a huge tower being built either. I find the argument about 1 story ridiculous and a weak argument. 25 stories is wrong.

 
My other issue here is the presale of units prior to zoning approval. I really hope the condo industry gets regulated by the government sooner than later. Cobbling together some basic plan, advertising a 2018 occupancy date and having nothing more than wishful thinking taking place before starting to collect money is not enough. This is a fraud in the making and this kind of activity should be illegal.