139 Northfield Drive West | 12 m | 3 fl

[ColliersWR]

139 Northfield Drive West
City of Waterloo

Soon to become "Northfield Station", demolition has begun at 139 Northfield Drive West. The former Laurel Springs building was purchased by Zehr Group who will also head up the construction of the 3 storey office building. Designs by ABA Architects have definitely been inspired by the recent "brick-and-beam" popularity of the Tannery and the Breithaupt Block in Kitchener. Exposed brick, 8' windows, exposed duct-work and a roof-top patio will make this an interesting new addition to Waterloo's suburban office building portfolio.

843

[bcwessel]

Is that a parking lot out front?

[planningthatplannyplan]

Is that a parking lot out front?

Looks a lot like the Columbia Corporate Centre at Columbia and Weber, albeit this is a three storey building. This site is huge, and I hope this is just phase one. I was worried another car dealership was going to flock to this area, as those uses agglomerate and this area is getting heavily concentrated with dealerships.

[ColliersWR]

Yes there is parking at the front of the lot and there are plans to develop the site further in the future, although nothing has been decided as of yet. Here's an aerial view of the entire site with a rendering of the future LRT stop. I will admit, this looks more like a bullet train than an LRT, but it does the job for now.

850

[Lugnut]

Looks good, but would look better without parking in front. Give it some street presence.

[mpd618]

It's a very nice rendering of a nice looking building in a really crappy development. Congratulations for ruining the Northfield station area.

[markster]

Yeah, a fairly standard suburban style development. 3 stories, which is just enough density to give you ample room for surface parking. (i.e. see RIM's Philip/Columbia campus)

[Trogdor]

That much parking laughs in the face of the fact there is an LRT stop literally steps away. As people have said, the building is nice, but the parking situation is out of control. Reduce it by a half or more and then it would be a decent development.

[Lugnut]

So much for transit oriented development huh.

[myfaceisonfire]

I am not an urban planner by any stretch of the imagination but I think that it is somewhat naive to think that a building would lease for as much or as quickly if it had half as much parking as is being offered. People in KW love to drive, they are not going to give that up overnight. Businesses are going to be more willing to lease where there is ample parking available for their employees. They are concerned with their bottom line (employee satisfaction plays a large roll in this) unfortunately, not with urbanism - this building is just facilitating that concern.

[DHLawrence]

If it were going in *after* LRT they would probably lose the front parking. And who knows, maybe they will after it's been in operation for a couple of years. Waterloo square has shown us how easily that space can be repurposed.

[bcwessel]

I am not an urban planner by any stretch of the imagination but I think that it is somewhat naive to think that a building would lease for as much or as quickly if it had half as much parking as is being offered. People in KW love to drive, they are not going to give that up overnight. Businesses are going to be more willing to lease where there is ample parking available for their employees. They are concerned with their bottom line (employee satisfaction plays a large roll in this) unfortunately, not with urbanism - this building is just facilitating that concern.

Nobody said anything about reducing the amount of on-site parking (initially). It's likely the developer wouldn't have had much say in the matter anyway, considering Waterloo's high parking minimums and unwillingness to grant zoning variances (even in the most obvious of cases (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=617)).

I think the main complaint here is that the building is situated incorrectly on the lot (again, perhaps a fact owing more to Waterloo's planning office than to the developer's unwillingness to create something reasonably urban). Move the entire building, otherwise unaltered, to the very corner of the lot, and relocate the lost parking spaces to the rear and side. Then, when the area's modal share gives way to more transit/cycling/walking, the underused parking spaces could be used for other, more productive uses. As it stands, however, this building will always be to far away from the edge of the lot to help define a street, making future efforts to rehabilitate this currently dysfunctional area more difficult (and expensive, and time consuming).

I'm not unhappy with the developer here; from the above description it's clear they're making some effort to do what's right. It's not a perfect building, but it could happily fit into a perfectly good place. I'm unhappy with the City of Waterloo for being incapable of leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars worth of future transit infrastructure into developments that make up districts which will actually enrich the city and the region, economically, civically, and socially. Why is The City even allowing developments to proceed in station areas before they have any idea of what they would like those areas to become? I hesitate to go down this path, but shit like this is a waste of taxpayer money.

[planningthatplannyplan]

I'm not unhappy with the developer here; from the above description it's clear they're making some effort to do what's right. It's not a perfect building, but it could happily fit into a perfectly good place. I'm unhappy with the City of Waterloo for being incapable of leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars worth of future transit infrastructure into developments that make up districts which will actually enrich the city and the region, economically, civically, and socially. Why is The City even allowing developments to proceed in station areas before they have any idea of what they would like those areas to become? I hesitate to go down this path, but shit like this is a waste of taxpayer money.

Given that the Region just decided to fund Rapid Transit this summer, I cannot see how the city could be expected to go through a zoning bylaw amendment process already. The fastest such a process could be completed is 120 days after the Regional decision, and that is assuming that city planners are sitting on their pencils with nothing else to do. Has 6 months even passed since the Regional decision?

All that said, it is too bad the developer is not looking more long term and locating the building at the limit of the front yard setback, or ideally, seeking a minor variance to locate even closer to the street than the front yard setback.

[bcwessel]

Given that the Region just decided to fund Rapid Transit this summer, I cannot see how the city could be expected to go through a zoning bylaw amendment process already. The fastest such a process could be completed is 120 days after the Regional decision, and that is assuming that city planners are sitting on their pencils with nothing else to do. Has 6 months even passed since the Regional decision?

All that said, it is too bad the developer is not looking more long term and locating the building at the limit of the front yard setback, or ideally, seeking a minor variance to locate even closer to the street than the front yard setback.

This location has been in consideration for a RT station for at least 4 years, and probably considerably longer than that (people have seriously talking RT, rail or otherwise, for more than a decade now). Given that one of the stated goals of the $800 million LRT project is to encourage urban intensification along the route, I don't think it's too much to ask for the city and region to have some kind of coherent sense of what that actually entails prior to the thing actually being built. Barring that, I'd even settle for a moratorium on building permits within station area limits until they have a chance to think about how we can extract a return on this massive collective investment.

[Lugnut]

If it were going in *after* LRT they would probably lose the front parking. And who knows, maybe they will after it's been in operation for a couple of years. Waterloo square has shown us how easily that space can be repurposed.

This is a valid point. I just wish it was a bit closer to the sidewalk to have more interaction with it. Even without the parking, the setback is a bit far.

I can see that they're thinking LRT is a number of years away and until then car is King.

[bcwessel]

This is a valid point. I just wish it was a bit closer to the sidewalk to have more interaction with it. Even without the parking, the setback is a bit far.

I can see that they're thinking LRT is a number of years away and until then car is King.

We're all aware that that's in 5 years, right? We're not talking 2050 or something. If it doesn't make sense in 2017, it doesn't make sense now. We are living in a post-LRT Region, and everything we do from now on should reflect that reality. There is a very large opportunity cost to every thing that gets built in the wrong way, and that cost rises the closer that stuff is to things like transit. When it happens to be literally steps away, that cost is at its absolute peak. Make no mistake, this development (and others like it) cost(s) every single person in The Region.

We can all take one look at this, and tell that it's not right. Why on Earth anyone is interested in rationalizing why it's happening is beyond me. It's wrong; don't do it. I can't think of anything that could possibly be clearer.

[planningthatplannyplan]

This location has been in consideration for a RT station for at least 4 years, and probably considerably longer than that (people have seriously talking RT, rail or otherwise, for more than a decade now). Given that one of the stated goals of the $800 million LRT project is to encourage urban intensification along the route, I don't think it's too much to ask for the city and region to have some kind of coherent sense of what that actually entails prior to the thing actually being built. Barring that, I'd even settle for a moratorium on building permits within station area limits until they have a chance to think about how we can extract a return on this massive collective investment.

I agree that it would be best if there was a way to prohibit certain uses that are permitted in the zoning bylaw today, such as auto dealerships, until station area planning implements a coherent vision. I really do worry about non-transit supportive uses locating in the station areas.

[WaterlooNative]

Has anyone considered how wide the road variance is here? I'm not sure if its an issue, but if, hypothetically, the Region had planned many moons ago for 4 lanes in both directions (or heaven forbid, off-road multi-use trails on both sides), they might be less than keen to see the building right up against the existing roadway.

As well, there may be sightline limitations due to the proximity of the railway right-of-way and the current volume of traffic. If this were a historical section of town (ie UpTown Waterloo; somewhere in Europe), it would likely be grandfathered. However, new-builds would have to comply with new rules.

[DHLawrence]

Another consideration: who says it always has to be car parking? A deluxe bike parking rack would fit nicely there.

[planningthatplannyplan]

Has anyone considered how wide the road variance is here? I'm not sure if its an issue, but if, hypothetically, the Region had planned many moons ago for 4 lanes in both directions (or heaven forbid, off-road multi-use trails on both sides), they might be less than keen to see the building right up against the existing roadway.

As well, there may be sightline limitations due to the proximity of the railway right-of-way and the current volume of traffic. If this were a historical section of town (ie UpTown Waterloo; somewhere in Europe), it would likely be grandfathered. However, new-builds would have to comply with new rules.

I had not considered that at all, but it is a strong possibility and a great example of how the need to balance different objectives can alter developments. And to think, it could very well be the region that is requiring a larger setback while also being responsible for Rapid Transit?!?!

[BigCityBoy]

Let's not all forget that urban growth is largely organic and as long as we live in a free society with private land ownership then the state has no business in telling people what they should be putting up, but rather simply controling what they cannot put up. Most real estate development is based on demand for product and if this developer has put the money in they must feel that it will be profitable - hence the investment. Is it ideal? Perhaps not. But you could ask 6 urban planners what should go there and get 8 opinions, i'm sure. The market is the driver here, not hysterical idealism.

[mpd618]

I had not considered that at all, but it is a strong possibility and a great example of how the need to balance different objectives can alter developments. And to think, it could very well be the region that is requiring a larger setback while also being responsible for Rapid Transit?!?!

Why would it be the Region? The city of Waterloo sets the zoning by-law. This property is zoned I-6 and that zoning (http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Zoning_Bylaw/1418_I.pdf) requires a massive 10.5m setback -- which is good evidence that it is the city at fault here, instead of the developer. Though zoning variance is sometimes permitted when asked for (and paid for).


Let's not all forget that urban growth is largely organic and as long as we live in a free society with private land ownership then the state has no business in telling people what they should be putting up, but rather simply controling what they cannot put up.

These are two ways of saying the same thing. Zoning that enforces a minimum setback of X metres means you can't build closer to the street than X. Alternately, that same zoning tells people that what they should put up must have a large setback. All city planning here is about guiding what gets built, sometimes with some flexibility. There is no principled distinction to be made between zoning that requires maximum setbacks versus zoning that requires minimum setbacks.

[BigCityBoy]

Ummm, sure, with regards to setback. However, zoning restrictions simply limit the things that you cannot do, not the things that you must do. For example, a certain zoning area may permit a medical office, a convenience store, an office building, a travel agent, a hotel. etc. It may permit a building of up to 3 stories, or 4, or 5. It does not regulate what must be put up but simply what can and cannot be put up. It does not tell you what to put up and how big, merely the restrictions. So no, it's not two ways of saying the same thing.

[BuildingScout]

I will jump in and add that the most livable cities in Europe have relatively very few zoning restrictions. Almost all buildings are mixed usage, and short of industrial/chemical plants all uses are allowed side by side.

In my opinion zoning laws in North America on the whole are responsible for more evil than good.

[bcwessel]

I will jump in and add that the most livable cities in Europe have relatively very few zoning restrictions. Almost all buildings are mixed usage, and short of industrial/chemical plants all uses are allowed side by side.

In my opinion zoning laws in North America on the whole are responsible for more evil than good.

Most European cities also have rigorous form-based codes (most often in the form of massing, site coverage, and design guidelines). One of the great benefits of form-based coding is that it prescribes what a building ought to look like so that it doesn't detract from the district in which it exists, but says very little (often nothing) about possible uses.

I will readily agree that North American zoning is responsible for some extremely poor outcomes, and has been for quite some time; however, that fact does not preclude the existence of a productive urban code that generates value for developers, local taxing bodies, and the people actually experiencing the end results. Smart Growth (form-based coding) generates considerable savings in terms of public expenditures on infrastructure [1], lessens the impact of urban development on the environment [2], and improves local economies by improving overall access to goods and services [3]; all of which lead to healthier, safer, more prosperous communities. Not to mention the greater likelihood of adaptive reuse presented by building in a thoughtful, context-sensitive, long-view manner. The remedy for bad planning isn't no planning; it's better planning.

1. Litman, Todd. Understanding Smart Growth Savings (http://www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf). Victoria Transport Policy Institute: 17 June 2011.
2. Litman, Todd. Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts (http://www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf). Victorian Transport Policy Institute: 16 January 2012.
3. Litman, Todd. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning (http://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf). Victorian Transport Policy Institute: 15 April 2011.

[BuildingScout]

I will readily agree that North American zoning is responsible for some extremely poor outcomes, and has been for quite some time; however, that fact does not preclude the existence of a productive urban code that generates value for developers, local taxing bodies, and the people actually experiencing the end results.

The problem is that while this is possible in theory, in practice it essentially never happens. Zoning in North America means mono-culture, urban sprawl, and NIMBY-ism.

[mpd618]

The problem is that while this is possible in theory, in practice it essentially never happens. Zoning in North America means mono-culture, urban sprawl, and NIMBY-ism.

The Kitchener mixed-use zoning is very close to a form-based code.

[BuildingScout]

The Kitchener mixed-use zoning is very close to a form-based code.

Sure, but it was only adopted when after decades of complete failure of traditional zoning and downtown decay city hall finally gave up and said in desperation "build something, build anything downtown".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of downtown, zoning in Kitchener is still mostly mono-culture, urban sprawl, and NIMBY-ism.

[mpd618]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of downtown, zoning in Kitchener is still mostly mono-culture, urban sprawl, and NIMBY-ism.

The mixed-use corridors (http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/Mixed_use_corridors.asp) are actually all outside of downtown, which is a place that often gets some manner of exemption from the excesses of zoning. They really are a very substantial change in the city's approach to land-use planning. Most zoning is mono-culture, but this is an important step forward.

[BuildingScout]

I see. They are a step forward, but again, not enough. I recently posted in another thread here how ideally all housing should be at most 2 blocks away from a mixed use district. This is still not close to that.

[bcwessel]

The problem is that while this is possible in theory, in practice it essentially never happens. Zoning in North America means mono-culture, urban sprawl, and NIMBY-ism.

Change takes time, but I would argue that the debate has mostly been settled in North America by this point, and we're just waiting for implementation to catch up with firmly-established best practices. Washington has adopted a Smart Growth code; Miami has just introduced one into law; Vancouver has been planning like this for years; even Markham and Mississauga, once poster children for bad planning, are well on their ways to adopting and implementing strong, proscriptive form-based codes.

Again, I don't think the answer to bad zoning is no zoning. Zoning has been around since at least the 15th Century in Europe and North America, and should be given some credit for making cities safer, healthier, cleaner, and ultimately more prosperous places to be.

[benjaminbach]

Good looking building; glad to see this lot adjacent to a planned LRT stop re-purposed to office space, bringing more employees to the area.

[WatDot]

Decent looking development. Glad it's next to an LRT stop too. It's a step in the intended direction, new development of vacant (manufacturing) lands. The developments will only get better as the LRT is built/established and vacant space near the stations disappear.

[ColliersWR]

Article from Exchange Magazine, posted today (http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2012/week13/Wednesday/12032808.htm):

Developer Draws Inspiration from the Success of Recent Brownfield Redevelopments

Zehr Levesque transforms Waterloo’s former Laurel Springs building into new, high-tech office space

Kitchener - It took just one week for local developer Zehr Levesque to demolish the “Laurel Springs” building at 139 Northfield Drive. The 40 year-old manufacturing facility had previously served as an auto manufacturing facility, water bottling plant and go cart track, and will now be replaced with a modern office construction bringin new life to the formerly vacant site.

The 66,000 square foot office building, now called “Northfield Station” will benefit heavily from the Region’s plans for light-rail transit. The site is located directly adjacent to the proposed “Northfield” stop. Don Zehr, owner of Zehr Levesque, felt that the site was so well located and had such great visibility, that starting a building on spec wasn’t a hard decision. He said “the unique design and unbeatable location lead me to believe that companies will come sooner than later- there won’t be a more accessible site in the Region”.

Northfield Station won’t look like your typical new office construction either. “What people will find interesting about this project is that once built, it will look like it’s always been there”, says Zehr. Constructed of brick and glass, Northfield Station is designed to appeal to tenants interested in the increasingly popular “brick-and-beam” projects like the Breithaupt Block.

Exposed ceilings, large windows and brick walls will create the charm of brownfield developments with all the benefits of a brand-new building. Upon completion, the building will feature a rooftop patio for tenants, state-of-the- art mechanical systems and modern interior design. Exposed brick walls, large windows and open ceilings will give tenants the much desired “character” that The Tannery and The Breithaupt Block have been so successful in bringing to market.

“Tenants are definitely seeking out this type of space, however, brick-and-beam conversions are in limited supply,” says John Frezell of Colliers International. “Buildings like these borrow the best from those types of developments and aren’t limited by geography or the existing size of the structure- I think we’ll see more of this down the road in Waterloo Region”.

Construction at the Northfield Station site is well underway with an anticipated completion date in early 2013.