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:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
6 Regina St N & 24 Erb St E | 25 fl | Proposed
#16
Alright, here it is in combination with what's proposed next door. Street wall actually not as bad as I thought! Massing seems nice.

[Image: FHKWjF9.jpg]
[Image: IeYGXiC.png]
[Image: RudXRYg.png]

Slightly broader uptown context...

[Image: bAUpyv1.jpg]

Aaaaaand with a view of downtown. We're assembling quite the skyline Smile 

[Image: GZZd1jR.png]
Reply


#17
What a stark difference between Kitchener and Waterloo haha! Ugly, dated, 20th century rectangular slab style buildings in Waterloo. Modern, skinny, tall towers in Kitchener.
Reply
#18
Is this because of their apparent 25 floor limit? So developers are maximizing the units they can fit into the allowable zoning?
Reply
#19
Yeah, it's due to the height limit. As a result of restrictions like that, developers go for these old school slab buildings so they can fit as many units in as they can to make it worth the cost and effort.

Even if they just increased allowed height to 30 (or 35) floors, it would allow buildings to go a little higher, hold more people and more efficiently utilize the available space that exists uptown which is important as it's a tiny, tiny, tiny urban space. It's how downtown Kitchener went from having <20 floor buildings like The Bow and 1 Victoria going up mid 2010s to where we're now planning like half a dozen 44-45 floor skyscraper projects to start soon. Waterloo just needs to realize that by doing this, it's not like downtown Kitchener turned bad. If they don't want skyscrapers like we're building here that's fine - not every city needs those anyway, especially a place like Waterloo where uptown is not the centre of the region like downtown is - but just permitting a slight increase to perhaps 30 floors could go a long way (especially, for me anyway, in terms of aesthetics/urban environment...these recangular building projects are hideous and inhumane feeling).

I think the issue is that older residents and council in Waterloo still perceive the city as being "small town" which is totally fine - it's a good way to brand that part of the region. But Waterloo is physically small. We're a rapidly growing region and maximizing space utilization everywhere is going to be important. Either build up like most cities do when facing growing pains or at least change the rules for medium density zoning all over the place. The only area they've really allowed this is near the universities. While the buildings are hideous disasters and really cheap, they sure did manage to pack a ton of mid-rise buildings in a small area which is how the best cities in the world grow.
Reply
#20
It's also odd to me because it seems like anything over a certain height feels the same from ground level. Like would we really notice a difference of 25 floors to 35?

Or is it about things like traffic?
Reply
#21
25 is an arbitrary number some councillor or staff member came up with thinking it would make developers would mostly build 8-10 storey buildings and couple of 25 storey buildings would be built. Instead since developers have to install similar amenities to a building that is 8 storeys to one that is 25 storeys, they all propose a 25 storey building with a rectangular footprint to maximize units. This is going to make Waterloo look like even more of a commie block city in the future. If they really want to impose a max height it should be something like 50 storeys. unless things have changed I am pretty anything past 40 storeys the engineering aspect of the project starts to get expensive, so you would have a couple developers striving for that 50, but most would be in the 25-40 range.
Reply
#22
(09-21-2022, 06:21 AM)Spokes Wrote: It's also odd to me because it seems like anything over a certain height feels the same from ground level. Like would we really notice a difference of 25 floors to 35?

Or is it about things like traffic?

Barely. I mean unless you're looking at the building it's hard to really notice them beyond what's in your immediate vision. Stand at street level outside of The Regency at Queen and Weber which is 18 floors and then do the same beside Charlie West or Duke Tower which are 31 and 39. Unless you look up, you really don't notice any difference on the ground most of the time.

In general, height limits are more about how things look from a more distant view. Montréal doesn't allow anything higher than Mont Royal as the mountain is meant to be a symbol. Cities like Ottawa won't allow anything tall directly in the core to preserve the views of Parliament Hill.

Then you have cities like Washington (DC) which don't allow anything past around 130 feet - though despite the myth that it's because nothing was to exceed the height of the Capitol Hill, it's actually just because they're like Waterloo and decided to set a specific limit (there are varying explanations as to why, though). I think it could be altered at this point, but I guess it's up to them to decide. It's not like Waterloo has any specific feature in the skyline that needs to be preserved, so the height limit is a bit arbitrary. But you can easily densify a city without any height - most of Europe and even Washington being a great example. In German or Austrian cities, the majority of buildings are no more than 6 floors. In Washington, nothing exceeds 14. Yet they're some of the densest cities in the world. I suppose it's something the City of Waterloo and its residents would need to decide if they want to alter or not. For some reason, I suspect the answer would be a big fat No however...just because they like to be different.
Reply


#23
Any chance of a developer coming up with a dense plan that did not include a forest of 25 storey buildings (or 30 or 45 or whatever...) on a really tight lot? If Northdale had been able to develop into something that was all 6-10 storeys, and a complete neighbourhood with housing stock and services that fit a range of housing needs (eg singles, communal living, families etc) then it might have gone a long way to reshaping Waterloo Region into something that was a good example of a dense city. Maybe in 20 years (I say hopefully), Northdale will have matured into something, but for now, who knows. (I admit that I have not ventured into Northdale other than to drive along Albert St as I haven't had any need to do so)
Reply
#24
But does anyone other than students or very recent grads want to live there? I'd say no.
Reply
#25
(09-26-2022, 06:40 AM)Spokes Wrote: But does anyone other than students or very recent grads want to live there? I'd say no.

With respect to Northdale specifically, who knows. If the neighbourhood were well-designed enough, it could accommodate a range of ages and lifestyles. Taking development to the nth degree, it *could* be conceivable that at some point, there will be enough housing for students either on campus, or within Northdale that would also leave spaces for other stages of life. If Waterloo is going to become the equivalent of other urbanized areas that have post-secondary institutions in their urban fabric, the neighbourhood could have the potential to become something other than a transient student ghetto.

For this development in particular, it's far enough from the Universities and the location checks off enough boxes that it should be able to appeal to downsizing seniors or couples and families just starting out. One can dream...
Reply
#26
Demolition fencing up around the house on the corner. Has this been approved?
Reply
#27
(11-11-2022, 11:23 PM)GtwoK Wrote: Demolition fencing up around the house on the corner. Has this been approved?

I think it's been appealed to whatever provincial body is in effect now
Reply
#28
They've got the sidewalk blocked off and a "Cyclists Dismount" sign posted by the bike lane. Do they need regional approval for that?
Reply


#29
Per VanMar’s instagram, looks like the height has increased from 18 floors to 25. Unfortunately, the design looks to have been significantly downgraded from the first renderings

[Image: CSBFPNx.jpeg]
Reply
#30
I'd expect nothing less than a complete downgrade in the design. It's like every developer is competing with one another to make the shittiest buildings possible in this region.

Interesting design choice for the balconies though...

[Image: B4bNYu8.jpeg]

I updated the thread title. If anyone knows what has changed in regards to the unit count and commercial space and such, I'll update that as well.
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