Proposed Waterloo Commons | 20m | 5 fl [Archive]

metropolis

02-13-2012, 09:48 AM

I am not sure if anyone else has seen this but I found it when I was visting waterloo in December and completely forgot to post it.

http://www.dtzbarnicke.com/Client/JJB/JJBNA Web Listing db.nsf/5b1d91a237abc91f852570d800775fbc/c1f2a74a7953bdf2852579270062f337!OpenDocument

Personally, I have not seen this so a big thanks!

This looks promising in that the considerable space occupied by parking could easily be converted into office buildings as demand warrants it and LRT comes online. In particular along the train track side of the development.

You do have to give credit to their efforts of creating a street presence, particularly along Weber and containing most of the parking on the inside of the development.

Also worth mentioning is the fact they don't seem inclined to knock down the existing structure completely and will repurpose it instead.

Lugnut

02-13-2012, 06:47 PM

That's actually the former NCR property at 580 Weber St I believe. I think there's a thread for it.

panamaniac

02-13-2012, 06:56 PM

That's a s***load of parking! Might help if those "future parking structures" could be moved up, but it still seems like a waste of land.

ViewFromThe42

02-13-2012, 08:16 PM

gomesjustin

02-13-2012, 08:38 PM

this is a step in the right direction. but I agree with ViewFromThe42. Terrible, Terrible use of the future LRT stop basically at your front door. Get rid of all the surface parking, and squeeze in some mixed-use, and make it enjoyable for the predestrians so it is lively throughout the day. (and maybe night?)

KevinL

02-14-2012, 12:43 AM

I'm actually a bit disappointed here. If I'm not mistaken, it's the southeastern corner where there will be an LRT stop, and that's where there is the greatest concentration of parking, the least walking-accessible area, and the promise of parking structures to keep it from having workspace adjacent to transit.

It's also where the wedge-shaped property belonging to the fire station sits in the way of easy pedestrian access from this development to the station area. I do hope they work out better access vectors here.

Razzie

02-14-2012, 10:19 AM

My thoughts on this - what if the parking structures were intended to be garages for people who wanted to use the LRT? They could make their owners a fair bit of coin if that were the case. As well, I'm looking at the 50,000 sq. ft. retail space on the property and wondering if Sobeys was considering a move across the street, given I've been told they're moving anyway.

insider

02-14-2012, 10:48 AM

Can someone please remove 'mixed-use' from the project description? This is not mixed-use at all. Office and retail, maybe even hotel (which probably won't happen anyway), are all forms of commercial uses. This is simply another suburban business park, which fits perfectly with the rest of Waterloo.

Lugnut

02-14-2012, 12:11 PM

Wow I never saw the site plan at the top. Hideous.

zanate

02-14-2012, 12:55 PM

You know, it could be worse. And it still helps to build a destination at the Northfield LRT stop. It would be tough to lease out industrial/commercial buildings in this part of town without providing a lot of parking, because there isn't any walkable density here, there is a massive pedestrian and cycling barrier cutting off walkability to the east, and not everyone will ride the train to work.

Even if you provided twice the building footprint, that wouldn't be enough on its own to generate a vibrant streetscape around there. I worked half a block from there for 8 years and to me, this is enough of an improvement to satisfy my pragmatic side.

I do miss the baseball diamonds, though.

Waterlooian4Life

02-14-2012, 02:27 PM

I do believe this location is going to be treated like some of Calgary's Park and Ride locations. where people can drive to the suburban transit stations park in some of the excess of parking and ride transit to the downtown and uptown cores and Tech park where the hope would be there are many more employment spaces. This gets more cars off the street in downtown locations and ideally shorter commute times for people.

That being said it is not the best example of ubran design but if this could be a replacement for northfield plaza and there is potential redevelopment on that site I would be happy...

WatDot

02-15-2012, 11:37 AM

I'm not disappointed with this development. In my opinion this is a healthy thing. Indication that LRT is helping our City and Region... and it's not even built!! The developer obviously is expecting the LRT to help lease buildings, but at the same time recognize that our province/country is so auto-dependent that access to highway/parking is vital. LRT was step 1, this development is step 2, in 20-30 years step 3 with true mixed-use and density will happen when parking is less important. BUT, I agree with ViewFromThe42 right now. The land use nearest the LRT station and the fire station is silly. There should be better connection with the LRT station through building development, not parking lots/structures.

I'm actually a bit disappointed here. If I'm not mistaken, it's the southeastern corner where there will be an LRT stop, and that's where there is the greatest concentration of parking, the least walking-accessible area, and the promise of parking structures to keep it from having workspace adjacent to transit.

garthdanlor

02-15-2012, 12:45 PM

I think it's a pretty ugly development with too much surface parking and a hotel proposal that is just thrown in there with little or no chance of ever being built. Saying that it is better than what currently exists on the spot, and is certainly no worse than the mess that surrounds a major rapid transit station such as Kennedy in Toronto. I think sometimes we are expecting too much change (or at least change to come too quickly) as result of our of our LRT, especially in a suburban spot like this. Kennedy has been around 30+ years and still the area looks like it does. Would I prefer a better development here? Damn right. And do I expect this area to be better than Kennedy currently is in 30 years? I certainly hope so. Still, sometimes I think we might need to temper our expectations as I just don't want the LRT to fail (or been seen as a failure) due to the weight of false expectations that we may have for it.

BuildingScout

02-15-2012, 12:56 PM

I think it's a pretty ugly development with too much surface parking and a hotel proposal that is just thrown in there with little or no chance of ever being built.

The city is in dire need of hotel space. I'm curious as to why you think it would never happen. City council opposition? zoning restrictions? other?

mpd618

02-15-2012, 06:37 PM

I think sometimes we are expecting too much change (or at least change to come too quickly) as result of our of our LRT, especially in a suburban spot like this.

The problem is that we don't even know whether the market actually wants to build this in preference to something more dense and urban. And that's because Waterloo's zoning wouldn't allow something more dense and urban, and with less parking.

planningthatplannyplan

02-15-2012, 07:14 PM

The problem is that we don't even know whether the market actually wants to build this in preference to something more dense and urban. And that's because Waterloo's zoning wouldn't allow something more dense and urban, and with less parking.

I took a look, and Waterloo's current zoning by-law does contain parking regulations that require one parking space per hotel unit, as well as parking spots to cover things like convention centre space. Of course, setbacks also have to be met, which I'm sure not everyone would love. Beyond that, it looks like hotel uses can build to the maximum permitted height, so given that the proposed Official Plan would permit 81 metres on this site (something like 25 storeys), I'm not too sure how Waterloo is holding a site like this back from being "more dense". Granted, Waterloo doesn't permit Burj Khalifa heights (828 metres and more than 160 storeys), but permitting a 25 storey hotel sounds pretty dense to me. Of course, the market doesn't exist for this size of a hotel, which is another issue. To me, that is the point though; the market is not there for "dense" hotel sites or extremely urban office parks. Waterloo's suburban market (which this site is located in right now) will never have the same land use characteristics as downtown Toronto because the land values will never be the same and the population/employment density does not (and will never) exist to support such uber-dense uses. Waterloo will be a City of 150,000 in 2031 and Toronto will be around 4 Million (I could be off on Toronto's number, I did not look), so expect stark differences even then.

bcwessel

02-15-2012, 08:33 PM

I took a look, and Waterloo's current zoning by-law does contain parking regulations that require one parking space per hotel unit, as well as parking spots to cover things like convention centre space. Of course, setbacks also have to be met, which I'm sure not everyone would love. Beyond that, it looks like hotel uses can build to the maximum permitted height, so given that the proposed Official Plan would permit 81 metres on this site (something like 25 storeys), I'm not too sure how Waterloo is holding a site like this back from being "more dense". Granted, Waterloo doesn't permit Burj Khalifa heights (828 metres and more than 160 storeys), but permitting a 25 storey hotel sounds pretty dense to me. Of course, the market doesn't exist for this size of a hotel, which is another issue. To me, that is the point though; the market is not there for "dense" hotel sites or extremely urban office parks. Waterloo's suburban market (which this site is located in right now) will never have the same land use characteristics as downtown Toronto because the land values will never be the same and the population/employment density does not (and will never) exist to support such uber-dense uses. Waterloo will be a City of 150,000 in 2031 and Toronto will be around 4 Million (I could be off on Toronto's number, I did not look), so expect stark differences even then.

I don't really understand what difference a lack of height restrictions makes in the context of parking minimums and density. If you built a 25-storey hotel, you would need a concomitant number of spaces to reflect the extra number of rooms. The parking would take up a greater amount of the available space, and site coverage would decrease accordingly. Site coverage is just as important as height when you're calculating density (as the Corbusian towers (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=1280&highlight=millionth+tower) which dominate Toronto's outer-ring suburbs demonstrate).

You're also not addressing the real issue brought up by mpd's post, which is what exactly are we hoping to accomplish by enforcing parking minimums (not just on this site but anywhere)? Once we've been able to answer that, follow-up questions will likely include: Is there any evidence to suggest that parking minimums actually help us to achieve our goals? Does the thinking informing the regulation of parking minimums align with current planning practices and goals (are our previous goals the same as our current ones)? And, would developers be doing things differently if parking minimums weren't being imposed?

planningthatplannyplan

02-15-2012, 10:03 PM

I don't really understand what difference a lack of height restrictions makes in the context of parking minimums and density. If you built a 25-storey hotel, you would need a concomitant number of spaces to reflect the extra number of rooms. The parking would take up a greater amount of the available space, and site coverage would decrease accordingly. Site coverage is just as important as height when you're calculating density (as the Corbusian towers (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=1280&highlight=millionth+tower) which dominate Toronto's outer-ring suburbs demonstrate).

You're also not addressing the real issue brought up by mpd's post, which is what exactly are we hoping to accomplish by enforcing parking minimums (not just on this site but anywhere)? Once we've been able to answer that, follow-up questions will likely include: Is there any evidence to suggest that parking minimums actually help us to achieve our goals? Does the thinking informing the regulation of parking minimums align with current planning practices and goals (are our previous goals the same as our current ones)? And, would developers be doing things differently if parking minimums weren't being imposed?

Developers often provide more than the minimum required parking in mid-sized cities due to the demand for parking. My point is this: A framework looks to exists for a pretty dense hotel development. A framework also exists for a very suburban hotel development. Mpd implied that moronic planners constrain sites so that they can only be suburban in form. I am a planner (albeit one from out of town) and so I know how to read a zoning by-law, and can say unequivocally that Waterloo's zoning by-law appears to give developers a choice. For the life of me, I dont understand why a developer's choice to build (say, for example) surface parking to accommodate twice the minimum required parking leaves only planners to blame. That is my point, and to me, that is what mpd's comment was about. Why arent developers building parking structures, because they can under zoning by-laws. Why do they provide more than the minimum required parking? These are choices they make and if people are pointing blame (which happens a lot on this site), it seems odd that developers are often depicted as having their hands tied by planners that are driven (like that word choice?) to ruin cities.

mpd618

02-16-2012, 01:42 AM

I took a look, and Waterloo's current zoning by-law does contain parking regulations that require one parking space per hotel unit, as well as parking spots to cover things like convention centre space. Of course, setbacks also have to be met, which I'm sure not everyone would love. Beyond that, it looks like hotel uses can build to the maximum permitted height, so given that the proposed Official Plan would permit 81 metres on this site (something like 25 storeys), I'm not too sure how Waterloo is holding a site like this back from being "more dense".

Um. Since when is a 25 storey hotel the be-all and end-all of dense urban use? I said nothing about hotels. But as bcwessel mentions, height does not mean density -- just look at the Sun Life Financial tower and its surrounding parking and nothingness. And what I mean by "more dense and urban" I mean a real mix of land uses, permitted residential, smaller setbacks, no minimum parking requirements, and a decent portion of the site covered by a fine grain of buildings.

Developers often provide more than the minimum required parking in mid-sized cities due to the demand for parking.

Then the minimum parking requirements are especially useless.

Mpd implied that moronic planners constrain sites so that they can only be suburban in form. I am a planner (albeit one from out of town) and so I know how to read a zoning by-law, and can say unequivocally that Waterloo's zoning by-law appears to give developers a choice. For the life of me, I dont understand why a developer's choice to build (say, for example) surface parking to accommodate twice the minimum required parking leaves only planners to blame.

I don't consider the planners moronic, though I'll be happy to use that word for the current state of planning in the city of Waterloo (and only somewhat mitigated in the new OP). And I don't consider developers blameless for poor outcomes. However, while I don't have a way of divining their decision-making process, the zoning code does allow me to see what development choices are not open to them.

Brenden

02-16-2012, 09:46 AM

This would be a great location for a new conference center

garthdanlor

02-16-2012, 10:47 AM

The city is in dire need of hotel space. I'm curious as to why you think it would never happen. City council opposition? zoning restrictions? other?
No we definitely need more hotel space and I couldn't forsee any city objection. It's just that we have seen quite a few early plans including hotel proposals with very little delivery on the end product. The fact that they indicate the building as an office OR hotel makes me think it is even less likely to be built. Almost as if the the hotel is simply padding the proposal.

With the LRT and expressway, and its relative closeness to the universities, the tech park, and St Jacobs, I think this is actually an OK hotel site but we are currently having problems attracting hotels to potentially much better sites in Uptown, Downtown, and nearer the Universities. Still, best of luck on attracting a potential hotel.

This would be a great location for a new conference center
I don't think it really is. There aren't any nearby pubs, restaurants, clubs, and cultural institutions to entertain conference goers, and there aren't any other nearby hotels to accommodate overflow guests at large conferences. I for one would hate to be stuck in a location like this for a couple of days. I think the same could be said to a lesser or greater extent for other potential conference sites such as Bingeman's, the Auditorium or Sportsworld. On the other hand, I think the ideal conference centre location in KW would be near King & Victoria (say on the old city yards or the plaza containing the hobo LCBO or the block accross from Kaufman). Great central location with the best transit links in town, close to the expressway, and plenty to eat and drink. Would be a huge boost for Downtown too.

WaterlooNative

02-16-2012, 08:54 PM

Um. Since when is a 25 storey hotel the be-all and end-all of dense urban use? I said nothing about hotels. But as bcwessel mentions, height does not mean density -- just look at the Sun Life Financial tower and its surrounding parking and nothingness. And what I mean by "more dense and urban" I mean a real mix of land uses, permitted residential, smaller setbacks, no minimum parking requirements, and a decent portion of the site covered by a fine grain of buildings.

The Sunlife Tower is great example of setting a corporate tower in (what had been) a largely residential neighbourhood. The cynic in me expects that SunLife is sitting on the parking lot until they can sell it off either to the hospital or a developer at a price high enough to pay for underground parking for their staff. I know that a while back they actually sent a delegation to Waterloo City Council about zoning limits on the northern section of their property (bounded by King/John/Park).

With the LRT and expressway, and its relative closeness to the universities, the tech park, and St Jacobs, I think this is actually an OK hotel site but we are currently having problems attracting hotels to potentially much better sites in Uptown, Downtown, and nearer the Universities. Still, best of luck on attracting a potential hotel.

I don't think it really is. There aren't any nearby pubs, restaurants, clubs, and cultural institutions to entertain conference goers, and there aren't any other nearby hotels to accommodate overflow guests at large conferences. I for one would hate to be stuck in a location like this for a couple of days. I think the same could be said to a lesser or greater extent for other potential conference sites such as Bingeman's, the Auditorium or Sportsworld. On the other hand, I think the ideal conference centre location in KW would be near King & Victoria (say on the old city yards or the plaza containing the hobo LCBO or the block accross from Kaufman). Great central location with the best transit links in town, close to the expressway, and plenty to eat and drink. Would be a huge boost for Downtown too.

I guess this is a Catch-22. If you wait until a lively urban centre builds, the remaining land is likely too expensive or too fragmented to build a convention centre. On the other hand, if you build the centre, will the urban fabric follow? Northfield Drive would be a good site as it is large and close to the LRT and the highway.

ChrisKolednik

02-24-2012, 08:04 PM

Another great project slated for the Kitchener-Waterloo area

http://swo.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120222/waterloo-commons-development-jobs-120222/20120222/?hub=SWOHome

This is definetly great news for the city. Jobs, and taxes is what the city needs right now, and this kills two birds with one stone. Although, I still don't think Brenda is doing a great job with the city with what's been and is being developed at this time, albeit that's a different conversation for another time.

ck

BigCityBoy

02-24-2012, 11:17 PM

Then the minimum parking requirements are especially useless.

The Sunlife Tower is great example of setting a corporate tower in (what had been) a largely residential neighbourhood. The cynic in me expects that SunLife is sitting on the parking lot until they can sell it off either to the hospital or a developer at a price high enough to pay for underground parking for their staff. I know that a while back they actually sent a delegation to Waterloo City Council about zoning limits on the northern section of their property (bounded by King/John/Park).

Does anyone know how full that parking structure is during the day? Did they not need to build an additional parking lot next to the hospital for their employees? Am i missing a crucial aspect here?

Does someone travelling to a hotel also not need to park the car within which they arrived to the hotel? Are we suggesting he/she park his/her car at Conestoga Mall and take the LRT into town? Did RIM build huge buildings on a greenfield site in northeastern Waterloo's periphery because it was closer to town or because there was more parking available at a cheaper cost on the outskirts? Why didn't they build a more dense mini-skyscraper in Uptown or Kitchener? Why does U of W build in greenfield sites - the accelerator centre? Why not downtown? Parking, perhaps? At least Sunlife is central.

BuildingScout

02-24-2012, 11:21 PM

Does anyone know how full that parking struture is during the day? Did they not need to build an additional parking lot next to the hospital for their employees? Am i missing a crucial aspect here?

Completely full, together with the parking lot in the block between the Sun Life building and the hospital and several other satellite parking lots.

BigCityBoy

02-24-2012, 11:32 PM

Thank you, Building Scout. I will mark that down as 'over-subscribed' parking.

BigCityBoy

02-25-2012, 12:31 AM

Hi, i'm checking in. I have a room booked for Friday and Saturday night.

Great, can i see your ID and a credit card, please?

Sure.

Check-out is at 11 but we also offer a late check-out at 12.

Great. No need, but i will need to park my car close to the exit so i can get out early for my meeting.

Oh, i'm sorry sir, not only can we not charge you $10 for parking, but we don't actually have parking at all.

How's that?

Oh, we simply don't believe in it, sir. Would you like a turn-down with your service?

That would be great.

mpd618

02-25-2012, 01:23 AM

Oh, i'm sorry sir, not only can we not charge you $10 for parking, but we don't actually have parking at all. ... Oh, we simply don't believe in it, sir.

Oh man, straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) arguments - my favourite!

DHLawrence

02-25-2012, 01:34 AM

Don't feed the troll. Once you feed them they never leave.

bcwessel

02-25-2012, 07:19 PM

Another great project slated for the Kitchener-Waterloo area

This is definetly great news for the city. Jobs, and taxes is what the city needs right now, and this kills two birds with one stone.

Is everybody willing to accept that this is a given? One of the biggest problems with spaces built for cars (as opposed to places built for people) is that it costs more to maintain (http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/14876/growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1) the infrastructure which they require to be accessible than the land itself. Sure, revenue will increase, but so will infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs. Every parking spot available on this site represents another residential unit with on-site parking, another underused, low-value, likely under-connected street connected to a local collector, connected to a regional connector, connected to a highway, all of which need to repaved and resealed constantly, and much of which will require expansion if auto-centricity continues to dominate.

While developments like this may represent short-term injections of property tax revenue, and revenue generated through construction jobs and development charges, long-term this is a debt. We should probably understand this by now, considering we're currently trying to figure out how to pay for the previous half-century of similar debts (http://www.amm.mb.ca/PDF/Magazine/Winter2009/SR-legacy.pdf).

BuildingScout

02-25-2012, 08:09 PM

Sure, revenue will increase, but so will infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs. Every parking spot available on this site represents another residential unit with on-site parking, another underused, low-value, likely under-connected street connected to a local collector, connected to a regional connector, connected to a highway, all of which need to repaved and resealed constantly, and much of which will require expansion if auto-centricity continues to dominate.

But this is not a green field development. It is intensification of brownfield. The infrastructure is already there, we are now intensifying its use, albeit just mildly so which is a step in the right direction in terms of revenues.

bcwessel

02-25-2012, 08:24 PM

But this is not a green field development. It is intensification of brownfield. The infrastructure is already there, we are now intensifying its use, albeit just mildly so which is a step in the right direction in terms of revenues.

I believe I addressed this in part by describing the cascade-effect of adding more car-dependent activities anywhere within a region, greenfield or brownfield. If you build places for cars, you have to build a corresponding number of places to house those cars and their drivers. You can add to this the fact that, if we continue to develop corridors like Northfield along the lines of this pattern, we only further cement them as roads which not only do not generate value, but actively sap it. You can't turn Northfield into a street if you expect that many people to drive on it, and you can't expect people to not want to drive on it if it's entirely lined by things which are only good for driving to (whether they are served by higher-order transit or not).

bcwessel

02-25-2012, 08:47 PM

Every development, regardless of its geographic location (or even its geographic context) should be required to answer basic questions: (1) Is this a place for people (because that's what cities have been for thousands and thousands of years. This universalizes across every climate, geography and culture. It's both the purpose of a city, and the key component of its immense potential value). (2) Will this pay for itself. This question isn't strictly monetary; there are social, environmental, and civic elements, etc. It's a complicated question, which is accordingly difficult to answer properly. But it's an important question, crucial even.

BuildingScout

02-26-2012, 12:24 AM

If you build places for cars, you have to build a corresponding number of places to house those cars and their drivers.

What I don't see is how exactly intensification of a brownfield next to an LRT stop "cements" a car culture.

Undoubtedly it could have been a better development, but still, it is a step in the right direction.

bcwessel

02-26-2012, 01:16 AM

What I don't see is how exactly intensification of a brownfield next to an LRT stop "cements" a car culture.

Undoubtedly it could have been a better development, but still, it is a step in the right direction.

I don't know how to say it any differently. You actually quoted what I believe is the answer to your question.

Drake

02-26-2012, 03:18 PM

I'm not disappointed with this development. In my opinion this is a healthy thing. Indication that LRT is helping our City and Region... and it's not even built!! The developer obviously is expecting the LRT to help lease buildings, but at the same time recognize that our province/country is so auto-dependent that access to highway/parking is vital. LRT was step 1, this development is step 2, in 20-30 years step 3 with true mixed-use and density will happen when parking is less important. BUT, I agree with ViewFromThe42 right now. The land use nearest the LRT station and the fire station is silly. There should be better connection with the LRT station through building development, not parking lots/structures.

I hope the designers consider building some type of buried or elevated crossing to the LRT station. No one will walk back to the intersection and cross there.

I think this is a good location for a development of this size. Hope it works out.

BuildingScout

02-26-2012, 04:07 PM

I hope the designers consider building some type of buried or elevated crossing to the LRT station. No one will walk back to the intersection and cross there.

There will be a traffic light at the rails activated by the LRT (this is one of the distinguishing characteristics between a tram and an LRT btw). Once we have a traffic light there, one must assume it will have a pedestrian button on it.

Lugnut

02-26-2012, 10:05 PM

I hope the designers consider building some type of buried or elevated crossing to the LRT station. No one will walk back to the intersection and cross there.

I think this is a good location for a development of this size. Hope it works out.

No way. Before people think of doing this they should take a look at Market Square downtown. Remind them of how bad it looks.

markster

02-27-2012, 10:41 AM

No way. Before people think of doing this they should take a look at Market Square downtown. Remind them of how bad it looks.
The problem with the bridges at Market Square is that they don't really connect anything, aside from giving old city hall (now Sun Life) access to the food court.

As for aesthetics, that is a problem you can always throw money at. And frankly, it would be hard to make the rail crossing at Northfield look uglier than it currently is.

Razzie

02-27-2012, 10:02 PM

Just because the Market Square bridges look bad doesn't mean all other structures will. Just look at the new pedestrian bridge spanning the 401 in Pickering. I passed under it yesterday and it wasn't ugly at all

923

DHLawrence

02-27-2012, 10:05 PM

I must be alone in my opinion; that's the part of Market Square I like. It's a shame they can't turn the mall into something more tourist- or traveller-friendly so that they acutally make sense.

BuildingScout

02-27-2012, 10:14 PM

In my opinion the current mall cannot be salvaged. It is ugly architecture that has no relation to its environment. The architectural style was designed once by Eatons at the central office in the early 70s and copied all over Canada. Cities have been busy tearing them down for the last ten years, to great effect.

In a sense it reminds me of the old six story building that used to stand in Waterloo Town Square which was so ugly that the pile of ruble already improved the view. I think the empty lot alone would look better than the current mall. It's that out of place.

DHLawrence

02-27-2012, 11:48 PM

A sea of parking...reminds me of the area around the Flatiron building in Toronto in that era.

WaterlooNative

02-28-2012, 12:50 AM

And slowly, over time the parking disappears. Improve the transit, and maybe fewer people will use their cars less. Or, the parking lots will just get more and more crowded like Conestoga Mall as you eat up the parking lots. Then people will have to take transit.

metropolis

03-02-2012, 03:14 PM

New Waterloo Commons takes shape (http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/community/new-waterloo-commons-takes-shape-3/)
By Bob Vrbanac, Chronicle Staff

The former NCR property is showing signs of life as a major new development called the Waterloo Commons plans to create upwards of 600,000-square feet of office space on the former manufacturing site.
“We’re very excited about this new redevelopment of the NCR site,” said Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran. “We’ve been told by the developers that they are looking at a $150-million investment with the potential of adding 4,500 jobs due to the redevelopment.”
There is already interest from businesses looking to locate to the 40-acre site said John Whitney of DTZ Barnicke, which is representing a group of Western Canadian pension funds seeking to create a campus-like office setting favoured by high-tech companies. It will be mixed with retail opportunities and a potential medical centre.
There are also preliminary discussions to bring a hotel to the site.
“They bought the land three years ago and have been working through the city to get their development approvals,” said Whitney. “Now we’re out in the market looking for prospective tenants.”
Site preparation work at 580 Weber St. N. has begun and the first business could be in place by the end of 2012, said Whitney. The first phase includes splitting up the existing structure into three loft-style office complexes with high ceilings and exposed beams that seem to appeal to potential office tenants.
“We’re hoping to get some tenants to commit themselves in the next few months and that would let construction start sometime in early summer,” said Whitney. “By the end of the year we can be doing some tenant fit-outs and they can move in first thing in 2013.”
Some of the key selling points of the project are its close proximity to the Conestoga Parkway and a proposed new LRT stop. The interior of the project will also be pedestrian-friendly with tree-lined walkways and a central green space tying the project together.
It’s also close to nearby by fitness facilities, like the Northfield Racquet and Fitness club and both restaurants and banking institutions.
“It sounds like they’re going to try to create a beautiful area,” said Halloran. “It will include walkways and pathways.
“It’s going to be a green redevelopment so they’re going to utilize the buildings that are there and reconstruct as much around the buildings.”
Parking won’t be a problem on the site, as its massive footprint will allow ample free parking that has been a struggle for some other development sites around the city.
“It’s going to be a good fit for that neighbourhood,” said Halloran. “We do need more amenities in that area, and it has the potential to create jobs for people that live in the radius of the NCR site.
“The bottom line for us is that it represents good planning with the reuse of a development site in Waterloo while employing many, many people while putting hundreds of millions of dollars into our local construction industry.”
Waterloo has seen the repurposing of these old brownfield sites speed up in the last decade as it abuts its geographical borders. Halloran said these types of infill projects speaks to the health of the local economy and its prospects for the future.
“There is a lot of interest in the development community and by investors,” she said.
“There’s a sense of prosperity and security in developing here knowing that there will be jobs created and there will be companies interested in leasing or purchasing these facilities.
“We’ve been waiting quite a long time for what will happen at that site and there was a lot of rumour and speculation, but this is solid and we’re pleased by the redevelopment that is coming to the site.”

markster

02-20-2013, 03:00 PM

WATERLOO — Construction boarding will soon go up and heavy machinery will move in on the former NCR lands in Waterloo.
A multi-use development is planned for the 580 Weber St. N. (https://www.google.ca/maphp?q=580+Weber+St+N,+Waterloo,+Waterloo+Regiona l+Municipality,+Ontario+N2V+1K4&hl=en&geocode=FViylwIdLOoy-w&hnear=580+Weber+St+N,+Waterloo,+Waterloo+Regional+ Municipality,+Ontario+N2V+1K4&t=m&z=16) property at Northfield Drive. The first phase of office space and restaurants is expected to be completed by the end of the year with more to come
...
Kindrachuk said he didn’t want to give out too many details prior to the public meeting, saying residents should hear about it first.
He did provide a snapshot.
“There’s an existing NCR building, we’re demolishing part of it and keeping part of it,” he said.
...

“We did it at Sportsworld and it worked out well,” he said. “A good idea is a good idea.”
...
Cameron Rapp, general manager of development services, said the site could have up to 500,000 square feet of office space and up to 190,000 square feet of commercial space.
...
The town hall meeting will be held Feb. 20 at Wing 404 R.C.A.F.A. Rotary Adult Centre, 510 Dutton Dr. (https://www.google.ca/maphp?q=510+Dutton+Dr,+Waterloo,+Regional+Municipa lity+of+Waterloo,+Ontario+N2L+4C8&hl=en&geocode=FTSslwIdExIz-w&hnear=510+Dutton+Dr,+Waterloo,+Ontario+N2L+4C8&t=m&z=16) in Waterloo from 5 to 7:30 p.m. There will be a presentation from the developer at 7 p.m.

Lugnut

02-20-2013, 06:03 PM

"Multi Use" "We did it at Sportsworld and it worked out well"

Two phrases that scream that this is another sportsworld crossing/boardwalk type power center. Great.

---------- Post Merged at 06:03 PM ----------

Wait...isn't this the same as this http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=1334

I wonder if that'll be what's unveiled.

ViewFromThe42

02-21-2013, 08:27 AM

Yes, that is the same development.

I attended the presentation yesterday, with mixed feelings. The designs were still very clear on how you could drive and park to use the space. But the developer brought up LRT as an asset to the site well over a dozen times, even having spoken with the region about putting a walkway over the road to get from their plot of land (by the fire station) to LRT (kitty corner). They specifically named the Tannery as a competitor they would like to imitate and compete with. They showed designs for "cool funky" collaborative spaces, spaces for small businesses to grow in (like the Tannery/Accelerator Centre). They also spoke a great deal about creating good pedestrian and cycling flow, separating it from traffic flows.

Lots of good talk, but the impression I was left with was a developer that knows how easily suburban car-centric can sell, even if it does not maximize profits: they admitted the proposed design is a "conservative setup", what would happen if LRT failed completely. They want to utilize it, but are a bit more passive than proactive, which is not what is needed. The first phase includes the repurposing of the old NCR building into ~150,000 sqft of loft, scalable office space, central on the site, and restaurants on the southwest (Weber/Northfield) corner, both starting this year.

I feel that concerned people should ask important questions.
-What can be done to start the pedestrian/cycling connections from the beginning, to start a trend? Show us that level of design, rather than just the building/parking setup.
-What can be done to connect quickly with transit? Let's push for the early adoption of that transit stop as a part of the iXpress line once the first phase opens, as we have done in preparation of the Victoria Intermodal Hub, and should do with King and Allen, Sportsworld, and elsewhere.
-How can we get the "Tannery types" you seek interested in the development? Get the developer of this nine figure project to approach UW about aspects of the plan, seeking planning students to help with cycling/pedestrian uses as a project, or a fourth year engineering project to create wayfinding that helps gauge how long someone at a distant part of the site would need to walk to the LRT stop, or how full each parking area is to minimize parking seeking traffic circulation that causes excess driving and unaware driving, or other ideas which could give some valuable exposure to the project.

The leader of the presentation, Intermarket Real Estate Group's Mark Kindrachuk, invited feedback, and you can reach him at mmk@intermarketinc.com

Speak to him, speak to your council; this project could go either way, but has far more accessible potential for positive change than, say, efforts to reshape 144 Park/155 Caroline.