TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C

[ac3r]

I kind of stopped reading when she was saying something about mid-town Manhattan being dropping in DTK. Obviously, she's never been to Manhattan. This little building would be dwarfed by everything around it. Bottom line, DKT is growing. This - is - good. It's why we spent $1B for an LRT. We're getting rid of a parking lot, hardly used, and building a nice looking condo. Victoria Park is busy? This is a GOOD problem. It wasn't that long ago that people avoided that place. We WANT a busy park. We want a busy DTK. This is what we want. We don't get there by stopping/slowing progress.

We can either do this, or we can accelerate growth in the outskirts. Start merging the smaller communities just outside the city. Perhaps that's a better option. We can build a ring highway around the outskirts to accommodate traffic. That's the alternative.

Luisa D'Amato never has anything good to say about this city in anything she writes and Debbie Chapman, despite being a local politician, always seems to take this pseudo-progressive attitude where she says she wants development, but then has loads of criticism to offer anything that is proposed.

I'll be curious to see how the response to this project was from the meeting this evening. I was watching for a short time, but gave up after a while since most of it was just stuff I already know about the project and companies involved. And I'm sure the community speakers were typical: "this is too big, we shouldn't become Toronto 2.0, what about parking/traffic, it's too big, traffic, too big, traffic, Toronto, traffic, progress is destroying Waterloo Region and we must stop it all." with perhaps one or two voices voicing approval.

I'm pretty confident this will get built due to the sheer scale of this...it'll provide a lot of jobs and homes, but as we've witnessed over the last year, all it takes is a few dedicated NIMBYs to rally together and stop something in its tracks. However, I think it's unlikely because there have been so many large projects approved recently. It's not that much taller than Duke Tower or the proposed 38 and 44 floor buildings at Station Park, which nobody seems to have a problem with.

[jeffster]

So, how about "tiny homes"/granny flats built on SFH properties? Do you support those?

I don't think coach houses will make any significant difference at all. Few people are going to want to build them and lose the backyard space, and even fewer will actually be renting them out to something other than relatives adult single children or widowed senior parents.

What I am trying to figure out is 'running water' and drainage to the sewer. How does this get done? I can't imagine the processing being easy.

[Lebronj23]

I kind of stopped reading when she was saying something about mid-town Manhattan being dropping in DTK. Obviously, she's never been to Manhattan. This little building would be dwarfed by everything around it. Bottom line, DKT is growing. This - is - good. It's why we spent $1B for an LRT. We're getting rid of a parking lot, hardly used, and building a nice looking condo. Victoria Park is busy? This is a GOOD problem. It wasn't that long ago that people avoided that place. We WANT a busy park. We want a busy DTK. This is what we want. We don't get there by stopping/slowing progress.

We can either do this, or we can accelerate growth in the outskirts. Start merging the smaller communities just outside the city. Perhaps that's a better option. We can build a ring highway around the outskirts to accommodate traffic. That's the alternative.

Luisa D'Amato never has anything good to say about this city in anything she writes and Debbie Chapman, despite being a local politician, always seems to take this pseudo-progressive attitude where she says she wants development, but then has loads of criticism to offer anything that is proposed.

I'll be curious to see how the response to this project was from the meeting this evening. I was watching for a short time, but gave up after a while since most of it was just stuff I already know about the project and companies involved. And I'm sure the community speakers were typical: "this is too big, we shouldn't become Toronto 2.0, what about parking/traffic, it's too big, traffic, too big, traffic, Toronto, traffic, progress is destroying Waterloo Region and we must stop it all." with perhaps one or two voices voicing approval.

I'm pretty confident this will get built due to the sheer scale of this...it'll provide a lot of jobs and homes, but as we've witnessed over the last year, all it takes is a few dedicated NIMBYs to rally together and stop something in its tracks. However, I think it's unlikely because there have been so many large projects approved recently. It's not that much taller than Duke Tower or the proposed 38 and 44 floor buildings at Station Park, which nobody seems to have a problem with.

I stayed for kicks

A few height concerns but mostly regarding : 

1. Amount of affordable housing.
2. Lack of Bicycle spots
3. How the city plans to enforce dwellers instead of mainly investment units 


A comment from the developer about  timeline indicated 2023 as likely to break ground 

[jeffster]

Luisa D'Amato never has anything good to say about this city in anything she writes and Debbie Chapman, despite being a local politician, always seems to take this pseudo-progressive attitude where she says she wants development, but then has loads of criticism to offer anything that is proposed.

I'll be curious to see how the response to this project was from the meeting this evening. I was watching for a short time, but gave up after a while since most of it was just stuff I already know about the project and companies involved. And I'm sure the community speakers were typical: "this is too big, we shouldn't become Toronto 2.0, what about parking/traffic, it's too big, traffic, too big, traffic, Toronto, traffic, progress is destroying Waterloo Region and we must stop it all." with perhaps one or two voices voicing approval.

I'm pretty confident this will get built due to the sheer scale of this...it'll provide a lot of jobs and homes, but as we've witnessed over the last year, all it takes is a few dedicated NIMBYs to rally together and stop something in its tracks. However, I think it's unlikely because there have been so many large projects approved recently. It's not that much taller than Duke Tower or the proposed 38 and 44 floor buildings at Station Park, which nobody seems to have a problem with.

I stayed for kicks

A few height concerns but mostly regarding : 

1. Amount of affordable housing.
2. Lack of Bicycle spots
3. How the city plans to enforce dwellers instead of mainly investment units 


A comment from the developer about  timeline indicated 2023 as likely to break ground 

All reasonable concerns.

1) Affordable housing -- not sure how much they can do there.
2) They need to figure out bike spots, and it should be a priority.
3) Investors invest. 2023 is a long way off, so, unsure if and what we'll see.But yeah, I do agree that it's better to have condo owners living in their unit instead of Toronto, or wherever.

[EdM]

And I'm sure the community speakers were typical: "this is too big, we shouldn't become Toronto 2.0, what about parking/traffic, it's too big, traffic, too big, traffic, Toronto, traffic, progress is destroying Waterloo Region and we must stop it all." with perhaps one or two voices voicing approval.

Sam Nabi live-tweeted the meeting, Q&A starts here: https://twitter.com/samnabi/status/1400235880967770113

[Acitta]

The next time there is a development for single family homes, we need to get some NIMBY First Nations people to go to the meeting to complain about the lack of longhouses.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t know why the city would want to enforce owner-occupiers vs. investors. Isn’t a shortage of rental housing one of the issues we supposedly have in this city? If rental apartment buildings are good I can’t see how having many units in a condo building be rental can be bad.

I do understand the owner-occupiers might prefer to live in a building with other owner-occupiers, preferably long-term occupiers, but I don’t see why the city would care.

[Lebronj23]

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/prop...-1.5454340

[Bytor]

I don’t know why the city would want to enforce owner-occupiers vs. investors.

Because investors lead to speculation and speculation leads to the problem we have now. If the City cares about the wellbeing of all its residents, it cares about them being able to afford housing. Thus they have an interest in curtailing and mitigating situations like we currently find ourselves in.

Isn’t a shortage of rental housing one of the issues we supposedly have in this city? If rental apartment buildings are good I can’t see how having many units in a condo building be rental can be bad.

Corporations as landlords can rely on economies of scale, so to speak, for a lower profit margin and thus smaller increases. Joe Schmoe investor, on the other hand, wants the excessive increases to fund their upper middle class retirement. I mean, something's gotta pay for 6 months in Florida every year, right? People like Joe Schmoe donate to their favourite politicians and bend their ear in order to prevent any legislation that would curtail the situations like we're in now. The Corporate landlords, while they don't need the excessive increases, so they aren't quite as motivated to lobby for them, aren't going to complain about them, either.

[tomh009]

I don't think coach houses will make any significant difference at all. Few people are going to want to build them and lose the backyard space, and even fewer will actually be renting them out to something other than relatives adult single children or widowed senior parents.

What I am trying to figure out is 'running water' and drainage to the sewer. How does this get done? I can't imagine the processing being easy.

Easier than running it from the street.

As to making a difference, these certainly will not be enough to solve the lack of housing options. But every little bit helps, and this is another alternative (or supplement) to duplexing a house: the owner may well rent both the house and the granny flat.

If we can get 200 of these built, that's the equivalent of a big condo building, with no additional land required. And most of those will be substantially less expensive (to rent) than a new condo.

[tomh009]

Isn’t a shortage of rental housing one of the issues we supposedly have in this city? If rental apartment buildings are good I can’t see how having many units in a condo building be rental can be bad.

Corporations as landlords can rely on economies of scale, so to speak, for a lower profit margin and thus smaller increases. Joe Schmoe investor, on the other hand, wants the excessive increases to fund their upper middle class retirement. I mean, something's gotta pay for 6 months in Florida every year, right? People like Joe Schmoe donate to their favourite politicians and bend their ear in order to prevent any legislation that would curtail the situations like we're in now. The Corporate landlords, while they don't need the excessive increases, so they aren't quite as motivated to lobby for them, aren't going to complain about them, either.

Actually, I believe that many condos that are being rented are cash flow negative for their owners, and often negative enough that the owner's equity in the unit is not increasing. Instead, the owners are fully dependent on future property value increases for their profit. So, there isn't necessarily a greater investor profit, but the condo buildings tend to be more expensive to start with than rental buildings.

I fully support building sufficient rental housing that there will be less need for condo unit rentals, but those can still fill in some gaps in the market. Recent and upcoming rental stock looks good, though: The Scott, 66 Civic, Arrow 2, Drewlo, Market Flats, Ophelia in DTK alone.

[nms]

I attended the meeting last night and generally the meeting went well. The comments were respectful both from the community to the staff & developers during the Q&A and within the chat. There was one troll within the chat who was doing his best to bait the opponents and mock them for wanting to live in a small town. No one rose to the bait. Kitchener has done a good job of figuring out how to do online meetings.

Among the takeaways that I heard:
1. Concerns were raised about traffic congestion along Hall's Lane since that is the entrance and exit for 1 Vic. The City staff response was effectively: "Yes, 1 Vic would be done differently if it were built again."
2. A question was raised whether In8 was responsible for any kind of fees to contribute towards green space or other community amenities. City staff response: "No"
3. In8 is proposing 0 setbacks but a wider sidewalk underneath their podium overhang.
4. City staff did not respond to the question about whether adequate green space was planned to accommodate extra population downtown. The only response was that there is a study underway that will be finished at the end of 2022.
5. While the architect claimed to be referencing the local industrial heritage while designing the exterior, the reality is that there will be a multistorey parking podium along Charles St, hidden behind some paneling.
6. In8 has not yet confirmed if the ground floor space will be outward facing retail space, or inward facing common space. "We've been going back and forth on that a lot. We don't want empty storefronts"
7. There were concerns that there was not enough bicycle parking provided for given that the Kaufman Lofts apparently has more bicycles than spots to store them.

One thing I noticed was that the smallest unit available was a bachelor apartment that appeared to be the same size as two parking spots. That seems mighty tiny and makes me wonder why not just add it to the unit next door to add another bedroom?

[taylortbb]

1. Concerns were raised about traffic congestion along Hall's Lane since that is the entrance and exit for 1 Vic. The City staff response was effectively: "Yes, 1 Vic would be done differently if it were built again."

It seems to me like 1 Vic is exactly how it should be done, and it bothers me this project has a parking access from Charles St. The fewer driveways crossing DTK sidewalks the better, that's what the laneway is for. I feel like the laneway congestion can't possibly be delaying people more than a few seconds.

[jamincan]

I thought there was a provincial requirement for greenspace to be provided in developments or otherwise fees in lieu of it.

[cherrypark]

1. Concerns were raised about traffic congestion along Hall's Lane since that is the entrance and exit for 1 Vic. The City staff response was effectively: "Yes, 1 Vic would be done differently if it were built again."

It seems to me like 1 Vic is exactly how it should be done, and it bothers me this project has a parking access from Charles St. The fewer driveways crossing DTK sidewalks the better, that's what the laneway is for. I feel like the laneway congestion can't possibly be delaying people more than a few seconds.

Speaking as someone who walks in the area regularly, that part of Halls Lane is effectively a driveway in from a notably short block between Charles and Victoria intersections, and it leads to some less than ideal pedestrian interactions there because Victoria is so busy. Its in a tough spot but I don't think more cars entering Victoria there would necessarily be more favourable than driveway access to Charles.