Parking in Waterloo Region

[tomh009]

The Bram Street yards would be ideal for a convention centre/office/condo towers.  The location is very accessible via Victoria street. Plus with the future transportation hub right there.....

I think the point is that the Bramm Lots are ~10 minute walk from Central Station.  There are many other parking lots that could be developed first that are closer and will support a higher density today.  And developing Bramm into a low density use right now would be a bad plan.  A large dense development would be fine, but given how much closer space there is, may not be feasible.

The distance from Bramm St to King St (along Victoria St) is less than 500m. If the yards were developed, one would hope for a similar-length trail along the railway tracks to avoid having to walk to Victoria St.

And, yes, I agree that low density for the yards doesn't make sense for the long term. But given that it's next to the 1 Victoria/Garment St/Glove Box complex, it should be able to support higher density even now.

[KevinL]

Interestingly, a convention centre was once considered on a neighbouring parcel of land - what is now the School of Pharmacy. That was back in the first days of LRT proposals.

[taylortbb]

I think the point is that the Bramm Lots are ~10 minute walk from Central Station.  There are many other parking lots that could be developed first that are closer and will support a higher density today.  And developing Bramm into a low density use right now would be a bad plan.  A large dense development would be fine, but given how much closer space there is, may not be feasible.

The distance from Bramm St to King St (along Victoria St) is less than 500m. If the yards were developed, one would hope for a similar-length trail along the railway tracks to avoid having to walk to Victoria St.

And, yes, I agree that low density for the yards doesn't make sense for the long term. But given that it's next to the 1 Victoria/Garment St/Glove Box complex, it should be able to support higher density even now.

The problem I see isn't about density, it's that it's very difficult to bootstrap a vibrant pedestrian mixed use space. It shouldn't be, but that's a whole other issue about how our society builds cities. It's very difficult to convince people to walk somewhere unless there's a critical mass of destinations, and it's on the way to somewhere. Right now Garment St/Bramm St even when fully developed just aren't connected to the vibrant parts of King St. Even King/Victoria is really cutoff from the parts of King St where people walk, and the amount of pedestrian traffic there is a lot lower than just a couple blocks down King St.

Distance for something like this isn't about meters, it's about the pedestrian feel. 500m from Water St to Queen St on King St feels like nothing, because it's vibrant and pedestrian friendly. The same 500m on Victoria St from King to Bramm feels a LOT longer. I worry that anything built right now at the Bramm St yards, no matter how dense, would end up feeling like the Barrel Yards development. Despite how dense it is, it just feels dead to pedestrians, and has a pretty suburban form.

It seems to me to make much more sense to focus on building up in the central core, where areas are already walkable, than to try and develop the Bramm St yards right now. Over the next 5-10 years we'll hopefully see the transit hub get built, the U-haul property get redeveloped, one (or even both) of the two parking lots at Joseph/Victoria get developed. Then, in 10 years the Bramm St yards can be developed, and they'll actually be connected to a vibrant pedestrian area as Victoria St won't feel so arterial.

[Spokes]

I didn't love that quote either.  Especially because they specifically reference Evolv1 which should not be a goal for DTK

I too have always had high hopes for the lot directly across from Charlie West

My hopes for that block are even more ambitious: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NvS_-T...lAzNrm-Kba&usp=sharing

Yes, Evolv1 would be terrible, I don't think much of it in the R&T Park.

Very cool ideas!

[ijmorlan]

The distance from Bramm St to King St (along Victoria St) is less than 500m. If the yards were developed, one would hope for a similar-length trail along the railway tracks to avoid having to walk to Victoria St.

And, yes, I agree that low density for the yards doesn't make sense for the long term. But given that it's next to the 1 Victoria/Garment St/Glove Box complex, it should be able to support higher density even now.

The problem I see isn't about density, it's that it's very difficult to bootstrap a vibrant pedestrian mixed use space. It shouldn't be, but that's a whole other issue about how our society builds cities. It's very difficult to convince people to walk somewhere unless there's a critical mass of destinations, and it's on the way to somewhere. Right now Garment St/Bramm St even when fully developed just aren't connected to the vibrant parts of King St. Even King/Victoria is really cutoff from the parts of King St where people walk, and the amount of pedestrian traffic there is a lot lower than just a couple blocks down King St.

A lot of good points. I would add that we need to change zoning to allow a lot more possibilities. Remember, it is illegal to build the same city form that is proven, by its high property value, to be preferred by many people: dense downtowns with many uses crammed in one next to the other. The best city forms were only permitted to be built before city planning became ubiquitous.

[MidTowner]

taylortbb, you nailed it with your comments about what it takes to get people walking. And the implications for any potential Bramm Street development now, while Victoria South is still not very hospitable to people on foot.

I have a coworker who moved into 100 Victoria back in the summer or thereabouts. He moved from a suburban area of some other city. I asked him whether he's ever taken the Ion (our workplace is close to a station). He hasn't, nor had he ever had reason to walk to King and Victoria. He estimated the walk to Central Station as being "at least ten minutes." 600 metres feels that way when walking past parking lots and long frontages with little street interaction, immediately adjacent to car traffic going 60 or 70 km/h.

[Spokes]

The distance from Bramm St to King St (along Victoria St) is less than 500m. If the yards were developed, one would hope for a similar-length trail along the railway tracks to avoid having to walk to Victoria St.

And, yes, I agree that low density for the yards doesn't make sense for the long term. But given that it's next to the 1 Victoria/Garment St/Glove Box complex, it should be able to support higher density even now.

The problem I see isn't about density, it's that it's very difficult to bootstrap a vibrant pedestrian mixed use space. It shouldn't be, but that's a whole other issue about how our society builds cities. It's very difficult to convince people to walk somewhere unless there's a critical mass of destinations, and it's on the way to somewhere. Right now Garment St/Bramm St even when fully developed just aren't connected to the vibrant parts of King St. Even King/Victoria is really cutoff from the parts of King St where people walk, and the amount of pedestrian traffic there is a lot lower than just a couple blocks down King St.

Distance for something like this isn't about meters, it's about the pedestrian feel. 500m from Water St to Queen St on King St feels like nothing, because it's vibrant and pedestrian friendly. The same 500m on Victoria St from King to Bramm feels a LOT longer. I worry that anything built right now at the Bramm St yards, no matter how dense, would end up feeling like the Barrel Yards development. Despite how dense it is, it just feels dead to pedestrians, and has a pretty suburban form.

I think you nailed it.  The positive is that there is a lot of potential to connect Garment to King and Vic, but the negative is there is a LONG way to go to make that happen

It seems to me to make much more sense to focus on building up in the central core, where areas are already walkable, than to try and develop the Bramm St yards right now. Over the next 5-10 years we'll hopefully see the transit hub get built, the U-haul property get redeveloped, one (or even both) of the two parking lots at Joseph/Victoria get developed. Then, in 10 years the Bramm St yards can be developed, and they'll actually be connected to a vibrant pedestrian area as Victoria St won't feel so arterial.

I totally agree, but unfortunately I'm guessing developers see it otherwise because the cost of land on Victoria is likely much, much cheaper than that on King

[MidTowner]

I totally agree, but unfortunately I'm guessing developers see it otherwise because the cost of land on Victoria is likely much, much cheaper than that on King

Right. Since it's our land to sell, we should be selling the expensive land, not the cheap land.

[jamincan]

A convention centre could actually be a pretty good use for that land. Proximity to the main transportation hub is good, but it doesn't really have street frontage, which is also kind of good as convention centres generally have a terrible street presence unless it's really heavily used, and even then I don't know if I'd call it a good street presence.

[panamaniac]

I totally agree, but unfortunately I'm guessing developers see it otherwise because the cost of land on Victoria is likely much, much cheaper than that on King

Right. Since it's our land to sell, we should be selling the expensive land, not the cheap land.

Perhaps some of the "cheap land" could be made available for affordable/public housing ....

[MidTowner]

Write your councillor, because that's a good idea. Maybe we should be severing a portion of this land and building affordable housing units, instead of selling it off in the hopes that the private sector will do something we like.

[tomh009]

Write your councillor, because that's a good idea. Maybe we should be severing a portion of this land and building affordable housing units, instead of selling it off in the hopes that the private sector will do something we like.

That's what Kitchener Housing does. And Kitchener Housing provides by far the most affordable housing in the region.

[MidTowner]

The City of Kitchener's Community and Infrastructure Services Committee the other day approved a staff plan to allow vehicles to park overnight during the winter months using a similar system of exemptions as Waterloo. Each household would be allowed five such exemptions each winter season.

One thing I never knew that was discussed in the committee was that bylaw does not enforce parking regulations over "the holidays" (they didn't defined what that meant, but I guess the week or so defined by Christmas and New Year's).

I have to question why such a system is required and why overnight parking is restricted at all. If an exemption system were put in place, those exemptions would be void if a snow event were declared, after all. Why not just disallow parking during snow events (and maybe other times, like leaf collection and snow clearing, if necessary), and allow it at all other times?

Oh, and charge for it, naturally.

[timc]

I don't understand it. I thought the reason for not allowing overnight parking was for snow clearing. I guess that five exemptions isn't a lot, so maybe this is a better balance than completely banning overnight parking for the whole winter. People also should know that their cars may end up snowbound if they park overnight when the plow comes.

[Coke6pk]

One thing I never knew that was discussed in the committee was that bylaw does not enforce parking regulations over "the holidays" (they didn't defined what that meant, but I guess the week or so defined by Christmas and New Year's).

This is solely because governments come to the people every few years to get elected.  It looks bad if you are ticketing at Christmas.  Enforcement slows down in stages leading up to and after Christmas/New Years.  3 hr limits / overnights go first, the rest disappear with zero enforcement (except Disabled/Fire Route/Priv Propery requests) Dec 23ish on.  

Politian's fear of complaints is the reason for this.  Kind of a localized version of The Purge!

Coke