General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

To be honest, the render is a bit strange, it's surrounded by a sea of pavement, more I think, than there is at that location, and yet only two cars--seems a little misleading. Right now, the building is usually surrounded by a sea of parked cars. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4511985,-...312!8i6656

I wish they'd be more honest about these types of things.

[panamaniac]

The site was Epton Industries.

Yes, Epton was on the Goodrich site ....

[tomh009]

Adding the render to the thread ...

[ijmorlan]

I wish they'd be more honest about these types of things.

I distinctly remember seeing a pair of models of a shopping centre in Ottawa when I was a teenager. They were “now” and “after expansion” models. If I remember correctly, the expansion involved both the mall itself and the addition of structured parking (or more structured parking).

In the “before” model, the parking was absolutely full of cars, with hardly any empty spaces. In the “after”, the parking was sparsely occupied, probably with fewer cars in total than in the “before” model.

[Momo26]

Where did those beautiful pine trees in the back come from?

[Spokes]

They'll grow once construction starts

[Momo26]

Oh yes of course. They'll be there in full size by the time construction ends.

[ac3r]

Council approved proposal to give 8.5 million to UW for the medical facility on Victoria: https://outline.com/MSZHpx

[panamaniac]

Council approved proposal to give 8.5 million to UW for the medical facility on Victoria: https://outline.com/MSZHpx

Gazzola's opposition would be expected.  What was Chapman's rationale?

[tomh009]

Gazzola is objecting to spending money -- but this will come from the economic development fund, not the city budget.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure what Chapman's opposition is, they only quoted Gazolla. It really concerns me when I start to agree with Gazolla, but nonetheless here we are. And I mean, it's not entirely that I agree, for one, he says "it's not the city's job"...sure it is, the city's job is whatever the city decides to do within it's legal mandate, this clearly qualifies. He doesn't want it to be the city job and he is entitled to that opinion, but he does not speak for everyone.

But in terms of funding, I'm still angry about the refusal to clear sidewalks, so the fact they'll just up and spend this money, well, again, it bothers me.

I also don't much like the project, that building is surrounded by a sea of parking, if UW really wanted to build it, they could probably sell off all the surrounding parking and fund the entire project with no help from any government. UW is addicted to parking and in my opinion, they can keep their addition out of my downtown.

[westwardloo]

I'm not sure what Chapman's opposition is, they only quoted Gazolla. It really concerns me when I start to agree with Gazolla, but nonetheless here we are. And I mean, it's not entirely that I agree, for one, he says "it's not the city's job"...sure it is, the city's job is whatever the city decides to do within it's legal mandate, this clearly qualifies.  He doesn't want it to be the city job and he is entitled to that opinion, but he does not speak for everyone.

But in terms of funding, I'm still angry about the refusal to clear sidewalks, so the fact they'll just up and spend this money, well, again, it bothers me.

I also don't much like the project, that building is surrounded by a sea of parking, if UW really wanted to build it, they could probably sell off all the surrounding parking and fund the entire project with no help from any government. UW is addicted to parking and in my opinion, they can keep their addition out of my downtown.

I have to disagree with you. This is a much better use of city funds than clearing sidewalks. This investment has the potential to create a large number of high paying medical tech jobs and potential start something much larger in the region. The city taking over the responsibly of clearing sidewalks would be no improvement over having residents do it in my opinion. All you have to do is look at the city of London. It takes up to 48 hours after a major snow fall to clear sidewalks. Anecdotally, in my neighbourhood sidewalks are cleared within 24hours. If anything we just need a raise awareness campaign on responsibility of property owners. 

I don't disagree that UW is in love with surface parking. In reality it probably makes them money. It is a sea of parking in terms of downtown, but in reality its not that big. I also think UW has a future plan for that lot in terms of expanding the health sciences department, which could be accelerated, by this medical research facility.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure what Chapman's opposition is, they only quoted Gazolla. It really concerns me when I start to agree with Gazolla, but nonetheless here we are. And I mean, it's not entirely that I agree, for one, he says "it's not the city's job"...sure it is, the city's job is whatever the city decides to do within it's legal mandate, this clearly qualifies.  He doesn't want it to be the city job and he is entitled to that opinion, but he does not speak for everyone.

But in terms of funding, I'm still angry about the refusal to clear sidewalks, so the fact they'll just up and spend this money, well, again, it bothers me.

I also don't much like the project, that building is surrounded by a sea of parking, if UW really wanted to build it, they could probably sell off all the surrounding parking and fund the entire project with no help from any government. UW is addicted to parking and in my opinion, they can keep their addition out of my downtown.

I have to disagree with you. This is a much better use of city funds than clearing sidewalks. This investment has the potential to create a large number of high paying medical tech jobs and potential start something much larger in the region. The city taking over the responsibly of clearing sidewalks would be no improvement over having residents do it in my opinion. All you have to do is look at the city of London. It takes up to 48 hours after a major snow fall to clear sidewalks. Anecdotally, in my neighbourhood sidewalks are cleared within 24hours. If anything we just need a raise awareness campaign on responsibility of property owners. 

I don't disagree that UW is in love with surface parking. In reality it probably makes them money. It is a sea of parking in terms of downtown, but in reality its not that big. I also think UW has a future plan for that lot in terms of expanding the health sciences department, which could be accelerated, by this medical research facility.

Well, you're wrong, I've lived in London, I've lived here. Our sidewalks are not clear. Yeah, it take 48 hours, which is better than the 4 months it takes here. I'm not exaggerating, there has never been a time when I've walked up a clear sidewalk in KW.  Yeah, your neighbourhood might be clear, I don't care, major sidewalks are not, constantly.

This is the biggest problem with our policy, neighbourhoods look fine because their filled with guiltable homeowners, and able bodied folks who don't really not notice one uncleared walk on their way to the neighbourhood park or mailbox. But out here in the real world, it's impossible to actually get anywhere in the city on foot for four months of the year.

But if you don't want to take my word for it, then take the data that the city collected, the area they cleared sidewalks in had far clearer sidewalks than the area the city proactively enforced against residents doing it.

That's empirical data....it conclusively validated my experience, I'm sick and tired of bullshit denialism of my constant awful experience....so while I was never polite about it before, expect me to be even less polite now.

As for UW's parking, no they don't make money on it, sure they charge for it, but building and maintaining parking is expensive, they don't charge anywhere near the cost of maintining their parking anywhere on campus, least of all downtown where property values are higher. And no, their parking lot isn't the biggest in DTK, but it does still cover an entire city block. I really doubt they plan to do anything with it, besides pave it...it's a bad land use for downtown, and I am not going to support it.

[westwardloo]

Well, you're wrong, I've lived in London, I've lived here. Our sidewalks are not clear. Yeah, it take 48 hours, which is better than the 4 months it takes here. I'm not exaggerating, there has never been a time when I've walked up a clear sidewalk in KW.  Yeah, your neighbourhood might be clear, I don't care, major sidewalks are not, constantly.

This is the biggest problem with our policy, neighbourhoods look fine because their filled with guiltable homeowners, and able bodied folks who don't really not notice one uncleared walk on their way to the neighbourhood park or mailbox. But out here in the real world, it's impossible to actually get anywhere in the city on foot for four months of the year.

But if you don't want to take my word for it, then take the data that the city collected, the area they cleared sidewalks in had far clearer sidewalks than the area the city proactively enforced against residents doing it.

That's empirical data....it conclusively validated my experience, I'm sick and tired of bullshit denialism of my constant awful experience....so while I was never polite about it before, expect me to be even less polite now.

As for UW's parking, no they don't make money on it, sure they charge for it, but building and maintaining parking is expensive, they don't charge anywhere near the cost of maintining their parking anywhere on campus, least of all downtown where property values are higher. And no, their parking lot isn't the biggest in DTK, but it does still cover an entire city block. I really doubt they plan to do anything with it, besides pave it...it's a bad land use for downtown, and I am not going to support it.

Well 4 months is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously side walks are clearer when the city provides that surface, but is it worth the cost to do so? in my opinion, the cities staff and councils opinion, it is not. Certain areas of the city where winter walking is more prevalent like downtown receives this service, it works well and cost to the city are minimal (890K per year in 2016). That is for 193km of sidewalk. there are over 1,200km of sidewalk in the city, which would cost the city 3.6million per year + 4.0million the capital expense of purchasing equipment. There would also be costs associated with complaints/ damages.  Kitchener's winter sidewalk report concluded that residential complaints went up when the city took over the service.  Personally that money is better spent expanding permanent separated bike lanes.  

There is no need to be aggressive with your opinion on how this city should spend its budget, it is your opinion, you can certainly advocate for what you feel is important and I respect that. But I have a different opinion and we can have a civil discourse about these issues.

I don't work for UW so I don't know what revenue that make, but based on a quick research. They have 6,000 parking spaces. it costs about $300 per year to maintain surface parking (new York, 2013 http://buildabetterburb.org/financing-pa...per%20year) UW charges various rates depending on parking lot, but lets say $5 per parking. That means they needs a car parked in that spot at least 60 times per year in order to make a profit. I am going to go out on a limb and saw, yes they do make money on their surface parking lots. 

Just because they don't have submitted plans right now does not mean they don't have a future vision for it. It would be very short sighted of the university to sell the property today, then in a decade realize they want to expand and have to buy a property not adjacent to the existing health science campus.

[ijmorlan]

I believe UW’s policy is to charge enough to cover maintenance expenses. As to land use, I believe the policy is to close lots when needed for construction. For example, in my memory EIT, E5, E6, and E7 have all been built on former parking lots, and before that DC and probably other buildings were built on former parking lots.

So in effect the parking lot is a land bank. I think given how much construction is going on in Kitchener, a case can be made that they should build a large building and rent it until they need the space; build in a parking garage if needed (although UW main campus to UW Kitchener campus is about as easy as it could possibly be on the LRT; with better design one could have eventually been able to get from my office in DC to Pharmacy without going outside). Certainly almost anything besides a parking lot would look nicer. But I don’t expect it to remain that way eventually. Various long-term plans for main campus already anticipate the possibility of building structured parking. I think for now they are basically using the space because it is available and it’s still not clear how much parking demand there will be in the future.

On the other hand, the University has done an atrocious job of pricing their parking, so maybe I am ascribing too much thought and intent.

On the third hand, the University bought the 5 RIM buildings on the SW corner of Phillip and Columbia when they had the opportunity. This added a bunch of parking and some immediately available low-density office space while significantly expanding the campus. Anybody who realized that was a good deal and executed on it has earned their pay.