Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ophelia (242-262 Queen St S) | 11 fl | U/C
#31
(08-12-2018, 11:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 11:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

In general, I would be opposed to segregated entrances for affordable units. However … if these would essentially be shelter units managed by One Roof, then the separate entrance would probably be the right solution.

It definitely appears that it's a collaborative discussion between Vive and One Roof, even if the meeting might have been a surprise. Hopefully they will work out a solution.
Reply


#32
(08-12-2018, 11:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 11:18 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I like how Litt said he is willing to look at providing units for homelss teens if the city allows more floors. Very smart negotiations on his part.

Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Absolutely! I live across the street from this development, and anyone who brings up the neighbourhood argument here, well they're full of crap. The neighbourhood is a number of multi-unit dwellings, some of which are actually quite old. It is, in fact, these houses which don't match the character of the neighbourhood.

I'll also point out, we've had no negative experiences living next to One Roof, there is a reasonable chance they may get opposition from where they want to move too, but it's entirely unwarranted.
Reply
#33
Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.
Reply
#34
(08-12-2018, 11:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 11:37 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Given the surroundings, I'd be surprised if anyone would oppose an extra storey, in exchange for low-cost units within the building.  It wouldn't even be a big design challenge, istm, - just incorporate a side entrance to a segregated section of the building on the first floor or first two floors at the back of the tower.  I could see a dozen or more studios being incorporated into the project in that way, along with a space for a supervisor, if that were felt to be a requirement for the One Roof clientele.

Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

I was going to say this. Same in NYC and I think they are now banned.
Reply
#35
(08-13-2018, 09:08 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.

That's so frustrating...what right does anyone in the city have to say that they have a right to try to get rid of other people they don't like the looks of.
Reply
#36
(08-13-2018, 10:33 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 09:08 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.

That's so frustrating...what right does anyone in the city have to say that they have a right to try to get rid of other people they don't like the looks of.

To me it's the same attitude as NIMBYism, the same idea that a neighbour who wants to work or live downtown shouldn't be able to, because they'd change "neighbourhood character". Every time I see the signs up on front lawns saying that the people there support refugees, welcome them, but then know that those neighbourhoods oppose development in, nearby, or even appropriate for the core areas of a region which will not long be three quarters of a million people, I lose my mind a bit at the contradiction.
Reply
#37
(08-13-2018, 11:20 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: To me it's the same attitude as NIMBYism, the same idea that a neighbour who wants to work or live downtown shouldn't be able to, because they'd change "neighbourhood character". Every time I see the signs up on front lawns saying that the people there support refugees, welcome them, but then know that those neighbourhoods oppose development in, nearby, or even appropriate for the core areas of a region which will not long be three quarters of a million people, I lose my mind a bit at the contradiction.

It's a contradiction for the neighbourhood, sure. But the people with the signs are not necessarily the ones with the NIMBY attitudes.
Reply


#38
(08-13-2018, 10:33 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 09:08 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Right now there is a very aggressive push by some in the neighbourhood to get ROOF out, to close down the public washroom, because both are seen as causes of the presence of people that some don't want around. They have been going door to door with a petition which, at the time, was more about proactive enforcement, but the petitioner laid enough groundwork that I suspect they want things like that.

That's so frustrating...what right does anyone in the city have to say that they have a right to try to get rid of other people they don't like the looks of.

Not to say that such views are not obnoxious, but the right you are asking about is called "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression", protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reply
#39
(08-13-2018, 09:51 AM)urbd Wrote:
(08-12-2018, 11:52 AM)Chicopee Wrote: Of course this situation is quite different, but the idea of separate entrances for market units vs. affordable units has been in the news lately in Vancouver. They've been dubbed "poor doors", and it's created a stir.

I was going to say this. Same in NYC and I think they are now banned.

I've never heard of this concept before... but  could see how they could create controversy.

However, in this case, is it not a separate entrance for a business/company?  Only OneRoof has access to these units, and I cant rent one myself.  I don't see an issue with that... it gives them control of their area.

Coke
Reply
#40
I don't like the idea of having a so-called poor entrance, but I have a hard time justify why it shouldn't be allowed. Airlines separate their premium customers, and we're okay with that; is this really all that different? Some buildings have separate elevators for the penthouses. Some clubs have VIP areas. I'm sure there are loads of other examples, too.
Reply
#41
(08-13-2018, 01:44 PM)jamincan Wrote: I don't like the idea of having a so-called poor entrance, but I have a hard time justify why it shouldn't be allowed. Airlines separate their premium customers, and we're okay with that; is this really all that different? Some buildings have separate elevators for the penthouses. Some clubs have VIP areas. I'm sure there are loads of other examples, too.

The examples you give are slightly different. Air travel (already a middle class and up activity) and visiting a club are both, I don't have a good word for it "add on activities"...they are part of your life, but not core to it, one's home is fairly core to their life.

Further, the 'VIP' area, and the express entry line at the airport, are value added services, you pay more to get more service. The "poor" doors as meaning intended here, exist for the singular purpose of segregating people.  "keeping away the poors" *IS* the service they're providing. Many dwellings have different entrances for different areas (155 Caroline has brownstone walkups with front doors, and also, apartment units accessed by a separate entrance), but they don't exist solely to segregate people.

I suspect there is probably research somewhere showing what social harm such designs may cause.  There is already research showing walking past first class in planes is correlated with more problems with passengers on the plane.

My musings here only scratch the surface of the complex social questions around "poor doors", I am not a sociologist.
Reply
#42
(08-13-2018, 06:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 01:44 PM)jamincan Wrote: I don't like the idea of having a so-called poor entrance, but I have a hard time justify why it shouldn't be allowed. Airlines separate their premium customers, and we're okay with that; is this really all that different? Some buildings have separate elevators for the penthouses. Some clubs have VIP areas. I'm sure there are loads of other examples, too.

I think “poor doors” are a symptom, not a cause. City governments should make sure that public space is allocated fairly (which usually means away from private motor vehicles and towards transit and active uses, compared to the status quo), and minimize the time spent micro-managing the floor plans of buildings.

What are you suggesting it is a symptom of?

Wealth inequality and poverty?

Perhaps you're right, but it doesn't mean the city shouldn't concern itself with mitigating the symptoms as well.
Reply
#43
Kitchener heritage committee has rejected Vive's application to demolish the houses at 254 and 262 Queen St S, which the developer owns. It did, however, approve demolition of the OneRoof building, which the developer does not own (say what?).

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/888...-building/
Reply


#44
(09-05-2018, 10:53 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Kitchener heritage committee has rejected Vive's application to demolish the houses at  254 and 262 Queen St S, which the developer owns.  It did, however, approve demolition of the OneRoof building, which the developer does not own (say what?).

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/888...-building/

Well, their job is to bring a heritage perspective; as the OneRoof building was completely rebuilt after a fire a decade ago, it has no heritage of concern.

Whether 254 and 262 should be considered of important enough heritage is the real question.
Reply
#45
The artic focuses purely on the OneRoof property, which is fine. But I wish they'd talked at least a little bit about why the other two were rejected. Because I'm not sure. Maybe the insides are very different.

Then again I've always thought Heritage Kitchener to be anti development and would prefer nothing to be demolished.

Curious what council decides. Anyone know when the decision is happening? Pre or post election is a factor.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links