General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

*rolls eyes*...

Yes, some of the architecture isn't amazing.

No, the city isn't "destroyed".

Lmao...no, no, that's not what is driving NIMBYism...that honestly made me chuckle.

Destroyed is a stretch but as a university student avoid the area at all costs outside of going to class. It really is borderline unlivavle in a lot of places. 

I've been to many a developing country who's mid tier cities feel nowhere near as bleak and oppresive as Waterloo. 

It's not the reason there are nimbys but it certainly throws fuel on the fire.

Lol...no. I was a university student and as uninteresting as the architecture in the student area is, it's still a more interesting place than the empty sprawling suburbs I (and most others) grew up in. Architecture is important, but so is density and people. the University district has those in spades.

The university district never felt "bleak and oppressive" to me, certainly far less so than any stroad in any residential area in the city.

Does it encourage NIMBYs...sure, of course it does. Look how you folks here are pushing the narrative of how "bleak" and "oppressive" it is. Who (never having experienced it) wouldn't be afraid of that happening where they live.

[westwardloo]

Was this (potential) proposal ever discussed here?
Office development on Caroline Street between the Seagram Lofts and LRT stop.

https://www.dhrendering.com/low-rise/#prettyPhoto

That is the first I am seeing of this. I like it, which probably means it won't be built. Waterloo is too focus on helping University of Waterloo build out their suburban office park dream.

[cherrypark]

Lol...no. I was a university student and as uninteresting as the architecture in the student area is, it's still a more interesting place than the empty sprawling suburbs I (and most others) grew up in. Architecture is important, but so is density and people. the University district has those in spades.

The university district never felt "bleak and oppressive" to me, certainly far less so than any stroad in any residential area in the city.

Does it encourage NIMBYs...sure, of course it does. Look how you folks here are pushing the narrative of how "bleak" and "oppressive" it is. Who (never having experienced it) wouldn't be afraid of that happening where they live.

Not sure the assumption on WRC of all places that no one else is bringing experience living in Northdale...

Having lived there, and then avoided living there, as a student, it's not exactly delivering on the benefits of that concentrated and highly connected population. Its definitely better than the 10 unit house converts that it replaced and some of the stroad dominated suburbia, but the new designs are also bad and its fair to say there were/are missed opportunities here with how much development the city has green lit. Both on the developer design quality side and the city.

[ac3r]

Was this (potential) proposal ever discussed here?
Office development on Caroline Street between the Seagram Lofts and LRT stop.

https://www.dhrendering.com/low-rise/#prettyPhoto

I'm pretty sure that's long dead. The DH website just has a lot of old proposals on their website since they are an architectural rendering company, so it allows them to showcase their portfolio. You'll find a lot of projects on there that were never actually built or that were redesigned.

[taylortbb]

Was this (potential) proposal ever discussed here?
Office development on Caroline Street between the Seagram Lofts and LRT stop.

https://www.dhrendering.com/low-rise/#prettyPhoto

Yep, I posted it a couple years ago in this thread. There was some discussion back then, https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...8#pid80578 .

[tomh009]

A nice expansion of an existing three-storey apartment at 144 Lucan Ave, at the intersection of the Spur Line Trail and Union St. They added three floors and 30 units (60 bedrooms!) without the need for a complete demolition and construction.

This is moving forward, albeit at a very slow pace. The exterior has paint and almost all the windows are in now, but still no balcony railings. It now appears to have a name ("Spurline Flats") and they are promoting the apartments. Or maybe the sign was there before and I just didn't see it?

   

   

[danbrotherston]

1845 for what is essentially a brand new unit...that seems pretty reasonable.

[ijmorlan]

Interesting that the 2nd bedroom is not even another $100/month. Suggests they overestimated the number of 2 bedroom units to build… I’m pretty sure the marginal cost of a room is worth more than that.

[danbrotherston]

Huh...I only just noticed that.

That sounds crazy...1 extra bedroom is obviously worth an extra 100 a month to anyone who has like...any friends at all.

That being said, I wonder if the units are actually all the same size and just a different configuration, then it would make much more sense.

[ijmorlan]

Huh...I only just noticed that.

That sounds crazy...1 extra bedroom is obviously worth an extra 100 a month to anyone who has like...any friends at all.

That being said, I wonder if the units are actually all the same size and just a different configuration, then it would make much more sense.

Good point! I was implicitly assuming the 2 bedroom units were basically 1 bedroom units with an extra room. But maybe it’s really just the difference between a den with a window and one without.

[danbrotherston]

I heard recently that the City has deals with developers to develop the large parking lots uptown, but the owner of the shops is stopping it. Has anyone else heard this?

I had not heard of any deals.

And I don't know by what mechanism the owner of the shops in uptown could stop it.

But it is a foregone conclusion that the owner would oppose such a development.

Do you have any other details? Where did you hear this?

[KaiserWilhelmsBust]

I heard recently that the City has deals with developers to develop the large parking lots uptown, but the owner of the shops is stopping it. Has anyone else heard this?

I had not heard of any deals.

And I don't know by what mechanism the owner of the shops in uptown could stop it.

But it is a foregone conclusion that the owner would oppose such a development.

Do you have any other details? Where did you hear this?

I have a few details. It's multiple residential towers (i think 4-5?), and the owner is stopping progress because they have a lease on the parking spots and don't want them affected or moved.

[tomh009]

I had not heard of any deals.

And I don't know by what mechanism the owner of the shops in uptown could stop it.

But it is a foregone conclusion that the owner would oppose such a development.

Do you have any other details? Where did you hear this?

I have a few details. It's multiple residential towers (i think 4-5?), and the owner is stopping progress because they have a lease on the parking spots and don't want them affected or moved.

That becomes a simple contractual issue, then. If the owner wants to break the lease, the contract will state the terms and conditions for doing that. And the landowner of course has the option of sufficiently compensating the lessee for the loss of the parking spots to convince them to relinquish the lease. This may (or may not) have NIMBY logic behind it, but having a lease means that the landlord cannot arbitrarily break it.

[danbrotherston]

I have a few details. It's multiple residential towers (i think 4-5?), and the owner is stopping progress because they have a lease on the parking spots and don't want them affected or moved.

That becomes a simple contractual issue, then. If the owner wants to break the lease, the contract will state the terms and conditions for doing that. And the landowner of course has the option of sufficiently compensating the lessee for the loss of the parking spots to convince them to relinquish the lease. This may (or may not) have NIMBY logic behind it, but having a lease means that the landlord cannot arbitrarily break it.

There will be some contractual procedures to follow yes.

But there is also extra baggage when it's a government and individuals with influence.

Like I said, there is 0% chance the shops wouldn't oppose a development, they want parking, and they don't want competition. The only question is in how much power they have to stop it.

(Whether you call this NIMBYism, I don't know...businesses are supposed to be selfish, and it isn't about fear or classism/racism/culturewar probably...just business...so not exactly NIMBYism).

[Bytor]

Business may not be NIMBYs, but their owners can be, and those business reasons can easily be the same covers as concerns about neighbourhood character, traffic studies, or the other common NIMBY tactics.