Six-Sixty Belmont | 13 fl | Proposed

[cherrypark]

So much opposition to a new building that will bring more restaurant and retail, to a street that is focused on restaurants and retail, in place of a tire shop…

Rather unbelievable but given things these days, the obvious apparently isn't too obvious to people. 

Belmont Village has potential, but its definitely not a destination for the Region.  This development should bring more businesses that make it closer to being that destination.  The added residents will only improve things for the local businesses as well.  Hopefully Council will see this.

As someone who semi-regularly heads there for dinner / date nights / weekend treats, I think that side of Belmont, minus the beloved Arabella, could really use some more engagement with the street and this would do so much to improve that and add a few more high quality restaurant and commercial units.

The real tragedy will be if they roll back the patio extensions they made for COVID-19. If anything they should extend them the full length of that slip lane as there is plenty enough parking otherwise for those businesses. You are right that Belmont is close but could really use that extra bit of further foot traffic and streetscaping to expand on its potential.

[Watdot]

Rather unbelievable but given things these days, the obvious apparently isn't too obvious to people. 

Belmont Village has potential, but its definitely not a destination for the Region.  This development should bring more businesses that make it closer to being that destination.  The added residents will only improve things for the local businesses as well.  Hopefully Council will see this.

As someone who semi-regularly heads there for dinner / date nights / weekend treats, I think that side of Belmont, minus the beloved Arabella, could really use some more engagement with the street and this would do so much to improve that and add a few more high quality restaurant and commercial units.

The real tragedy will be if they roll back the patio extensions they made for COVID-19. If anything they should extend them the full length of that slip lane as there is plenty enough parking otherwise for those businesses. You are right that Belmont is close but could really use that extra bit of further foot traffic and streetscaping to expand on its potential.

Agreed. The patio extensions are a big plus for Belmont Village. I too hope that continues indefinitely for the future. Can't really tell but hopefully there is some space at the front of this development or to the side of it for some small trees. Another plus for the ambiance of Belmont Village and most communities is foliage. This will definitely be more engaging than that dated car garage and wide open, plain paved frontage, for that specific location.

[jeremyroman]

‘Would you entertain an eight-storey’ condo tower in Belmont Village rather than 11-storeys, some councillors ask the developer [The Record]

[ac3r]

I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.

[panamaniac]

I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.

It would mean fewer, considerably more expensive, units, I would think.  The neighbours would be thrilled.  Future developments in the area are inevitable either way, no?

[cherrypark]

I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.

I'm not that big of a proponent of heavy density specifically when we have so much more we can do for low to mid-rise (which 660 is at the end of the day), but this is a cause and effect that gets forgotten some times, especially notable for those who feel more space is needed for green space or affordable housing. Same for the even bigger buildings downtown: more residents does mean more people accessing amenities, but one has to decide if the same number of people will still demand housing just spread over 2-4x the area in that case.

That said, I think the residents in the area see more development as a forgone conclusion and the fervour the last two nights has a lot of focus on this as a predicate for more towers and more "exceptions", even though this one is really not that much of a stretch of the zoning bylaws. Several instances that anything new and more than 2-4 stories was opposed came up when councillors pressed delegates to describe what "acceptable" looked like, usually showing their push for zoning compliance was not really the crux of their opposition.

Zac Zehr unsurprisingly was deft on his feet avoiding any suggestion of whether 8 stories was a viable business case. To me, the 3 added stories is a pretty trivial difference if it means they can "afford" (at least by means of their bottom line returns) to uphold plans for improving the street scape and things like adding the IHT access.

[danbrotherston]

I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.

I'm not that big of a proponent of heavy density specifically when we have so much more we can do for low to mid-rise (which 660 is at the end of the day), but this is a cause and effect that gets forgotten some times, especially notable for those who feel more space is needed for green space or affordable housing. Same for the even bigger buildings downtown: more residents does mean more people accessing amenities, but one has to decide if the same number of people will still demand housing just spread over 2-4x the area in that case.

That said, I think the residents in the area see more development as a forgone conclusion and the fervour the last two nights has a lot of focus on this as a predicate for more towers and more "exceptions", even though this one is really not that much of a stretch of the zoning bylaws. Several instances that anything new and more than 2-4 stories was opposed came up when councillors pressed delegates to describe what "acceptable" looked like, usually showing their push for zoning compliance was not really the crux of their opposition.

Zac Zehr unsurprisingly was deft on his feet avoiding any suggestion of whether 8 stories was a viable business case. To me, the 3 added stories is a pretty trivial difference if it means they can "afford" (at least by means of their bottom line returns) to uphold plans for improving the street scape and things like adding the IHT access.

I mean, everything is in the margins. But what bugs me is what you highlight in the bottom. Going beyond the zoning gives the government leverage to extract benefits.

We see this on Mill St. the opposition killed the project, and instead of some affordable housing we got none, and nothing, and those people who live there now are still equally fucked. Yet the same people bleating about affordable housing claim it as a win.

I digress...the point is, people who care only about height are shortsighted and blind, 8 stories but worse is worse...I don't care what you think about height.

[ac3r]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.6346410

[panamaniac]

I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.

I'm not that big of a proponent of heavy density specifically when we have so much more we can do for low to mid-rise (which 660 is at the end of the day), but this is a cause and effect that gets forgotten some times, especially notable for those who feel more space is needed for green space or affordable housing. Same for the even bigger buildings downtown: more residents does mean more people accessing amenities, but one has to decide if the same number of people will still demand housing just spread over 2-4x the area in that case.

That said, I think the residents in the area see more development as a forgone conclusion and the fervour the last two nights has a lot of focus on this as a predicate for more towers and more "exceptions", even though this one is really not that much of a stretch of the zoning bylaws. Several instances that anything new and more than 2-4 stories was opposed came up when councillors pressed delegates to describe what "acceptable" looked like, usually showing their push for zoning compliance was not really the crux of their opposition.

Zac Zehr unsurprisingly was deft on his feet avoiding any suggestion of whether 8 stories was a viable business case. To me, the 3 added stories is a pretty trivial difference if it means they can "afford" (at least by means of their bottom line returns) to uphold plans for improving the street scape and things like adding the IHT access.

I would have thought it was most telling that the developer did not say that 8 stories would not be viable.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not that big of a proponent of heavy density specifically when we have so much more we can do for low to mid-rise (which 660 is at the end of the day), but this is a cause and effect that gets forgotten some times, especially notable for those who feel more space is needed for green space or affordable housing. Same for the even bigger buildings downtown: more residents does mean more people accessing amenities, but one has to decide if the same number of people will still demand housing just spread over 2-4x the area in that case.

That said, I think the residents in the area see more development as a forgone conclusion and the fervour the last two nights has a lot of focus on this as a predicate for more towers and more "exceptions", even though this one is really not that much of a stretch of the zoning bylaws. Several instances that anything new and more than 2-4 stories was opposed came up when councillors pressed delegates to describe what "acceptable" looked like, usually showing their push for zoning compliance was not really the crux of their opposition.

Zac Zehr unsurprisingly was deft on his feet avoiding any suggestion of whether 8 stories was a viable business case. To me, the 3 added stories is a pretty trivial difference if it means they can "afford" (at least by means of their bottom line returns) to uphold plans for improving the street scape and things like adding the IHT access.

I would have thought it was most telling that the developer did not say that 8 stories would not be viable.

Viability is relative.

They could sell a 1 story bungalow on the site if they wanted too...it would be a 10 million dollar mansion...but they can't say that it isn't "viable".

But every compromise made costs us something.

[cherrypark]

I mean, everything is in the margins. But what bugs me is what you highlight in the bottom. Going beyond the zoning gives the government leverage to extract benefits.

We see this on Mill St. the opposition killed the project, and instead of some affordable housing we got none, and nothing, and those people who live there now are still equally fucked. Yet the same people bleating about affordable housing claim it as a win.

I digress...the point is, people who care only about height are shortsighted and blind, 8 stories but worse is worse...I don't care what you think about height.

Full agreement there - they could build an unfinished concrete block that fits the code and has zero street engagement and maximized surface parking and that would be that. The complaints about having to do this consultation to give exceptions misses the point that there are trade backs for those exceptions (of which this one is a pretty modest exception to boot).

[KevinL]

Luisa d'Amato, voice of reason? https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ssion.html

[panamaniac]

I would have thought it was most telling that the developer did not say that 8 stories would not be viable.

Viability is relative.

They could sell a 1 story bungalow on the site if they wanted too...it would be a 10 million dollar mansion...but they can't say that it isn't "viable".

But every compromise made costs us something.

Yes, as I noted earlier, a smaller building is going to mean more expensive units.

[Rainrider22]

Well said Luisa....

[CP42]

Is anyone able to copy the story into here?