Proposed Phillip Street Student Housing Complex | 5 buildings | 25 floors

[metropolis]

The influx of bedrooms near the Unis is already altering demand for student housing elsewhere in the city. You only have to look on MLS to see how many ex student houses are on sale Uptown/Glasgow area.

Given the design seems to have improved considerably from the initial proposal (though where are the balconies?) and assuming we have street front interaction in the form of retail (renders indicate we might) to create a more vibrant streetscape, to me the fundamental issue with this project is the single unit type.

I understand the desire to cater to the student population but why not provide a variety of unit types so that a project like this appeals to a variety of people? This project will only exacerbate the issues being experienced by community already.

[RangersFan]

I am happy this project is giving renters somewhere to sit and relax and am surprised that open space is at issue here. It is better than having a parking lot cover the rest of the site, with a 1.5 metre landscape buffer along the perimeter of the property (standard fare for student housing). I also note that this project is the first that proposes glass in a serious way in KW. While I know glass isnt very efficient (failure of seals, heat loss, etc), my hope is that this project shakes up the industry and brings about better rental apartment designs.

It does look like a lot of mass on this site, but in the same breath, while people are still finding things to crap on this project about (lets face it, these forums are really just a bitch-fest, or so it seems to me), I see very few surface parking stalls.

Retail is all around this property. While I wouldnt be surprised if this project has some limited retail or services, why does this site have to have some too?

To recap:
1. Intensification between 2 Universities, on a major transit route, adjacent to a future LRT stop.
2. Retail within 5 metres of this property.
3. More modern design than current rental industry produces.
4. Significant underground parking.

planningthatplannyplan, I really appreciate your positive view on this project.

[Dhussey]

To me the fundamental issue with this project is the single unit type.

I understand the desire to cater to the student population but why not provide a variety of unit types so that a project like this appeals to a variety of people? This project will only exacerbate the issues being experienced by community already.

I couldn't agree more. Why not cater to more than one 'grouping'. I think social issues evolve when you put only one type/group (age, ethnic, profession, etc) together as they re-enforce each others negativities (bad habits), hence encouraging a student ghetto. It would be nice to see this development cater to professors, students, RIM employees, university employees and those that work in the near by retail. Without unit diversification I believe you will deter non-student renters.

[The Comeback Kid]

planningthatplannyplan, I really appreciate your positive view on this project.

I'll second that!

Underground parking is KEY. I'm waiting, patiently, for land value to increase to the point at which surface parking is not viable for new construction. How long do you think we have to wait??

[markster]

Underground parking is KEY. I'm waiting, patiently, for land value to increase to the point at which surface parking is not viable for new construction. How long do you think we have to wait??

Depends on how you value parking.
I would argue that at this location, no parking is viable. It is a development walking distance to two universities, both of which have a mandatory bus pass.

If you remove parking minimums from the zoning, then I guarantee you that the developers will stop building parking for most student developments.

[BuildingScout]

Let me add that in many cities there are no parking minimums enforced, neither for residential buildings nor for commercial space and the do just fine. They let the free market provide them. If there is demand, a builder will dig two or three stories deeper and provide rental parking for the vicinity, or a parkade will be built in some nearby location.

There are no parking requirements in any of the major cities in Europe or Asia, nor in some of the downtown areas in the USA.

For example, the hippest part of Seattle, the Broadway district has no parking requirements. So you either walk/take the bus there or park in some rather expensive private parkade in the vicinity. It is the busiest part of town.

[planningthatplannyplan]

Interesting discussion about parking. Are concerns about impacts to adjacent neighbours an issue that requires parking standards, or should the market make these decisions? What remedy would be available if a developer chose to save money by providing no parking/too little parking, figuring that it would the tenant's fault if they parked where not permitted (ie streets). Of course, on-street overnight parking on local streets could fill that gap as well...

[mpd618]

Interesting discussion about parking. Are concerns about impacts to adjacent neighbours an issue that requires parking standards, or should the market make these decisions? What remedy would be available if a developer chose to save money by providing no parking/too little parking, figuring that it would the tenant's fault if they parked where not permitted (ie streets). Of course, on-street overnight parking on local streets could fill that gap as well...

The vast majority of on-site required parking is used for storage of residents' vehicles. You cannot realistically permanently store vehicles on-street in the vicinity, without racking up endless parking fines. So it's a question of visitor parking, which can be addressed using off-street pay parking and on-street meters for which neighbourhood residents can potentially get some kind of pass.

[BuildingScout]

What remedy would be available if a developer chose to save money by providing no parking/too little parking,

People wouldn't rent the units because of lack of available parking in the vicinity.

[plam]

The vast majority of on-site required parking is used for storage of residents' vehicles. You cannot realistically permanently store vehicles on-street in the vicinity, without racking up endless parking fines. So it's a question of visitor parking, which can be addressed using off-street pay parking and on-street meters for which neighbourhood residents can potentially get some kind of pass.

Waterloo is weird in not permitting on-street overnight parking. But people in Montreal rent places all the time with on-street parking, even though they have to move their cars twice a week in the summer. Indeed, most places even have resident reserved parking on the street.

[BuildingScout]

Waterloo is weird in not permitting on-street overnight parking. But people in Montreal rent places all the time with on-street parking, even though they have to move their cars twice a week in the summer. Indeed, most places even have resident reserved parking on the street.

To the best of my knowledge this was a policy that was approved by city council with the express purpose of hurting student housing. Same with the ban on commercial use on University Av. between WLU and UW. It is hard to believe but city council was actively anti-universities from day one until sometime in the early 2000s.

It was also very common to hear long time residents complaining bitterly about the fact that there were universities in town.

[plam]

To the best of my knowledge this was a policy that was approved by city council with the express purpose of hurting student housing. Same with the ban on commercial use between on University between WLU and UW. It is hard to believe but city council was actively anti-universities from day one until sometime in the early 2000s.

It was also very common to hear long time residents complaining bitterly about the fact that there were universities in town.

I've not lived here long enough, but I did hear that Waterloo did have a referendum about overnight parking.

The condos where I live do have some anti-student feeling. They are quite close to WLU; I think that they're far enough from UW to not be a first choice, given that there is a lot of student housing which is much closer.

I think students are fine in a mixed neighbourhood. This isn't really what we're managing to pull off these days.

[Anderson3133]

Unfortunately, to me, this resembles quite a few areas of Toronto and the GTA that have become awful over the years.

[WaterlooNative]

The vast majority of on-site required parking is used for storage of residents' vehicles. You cannot realistically permanently store vehicles on-street in the vicinity, without racking up endless parking fines. So it's a question of visitor parking, which can be addressed using off-street pay parking and on-street meters for which neighbourhood residents can potentially get some kind of pass.

Parking for students (or other tenants for that matter) is needed because people still need cars to get to large chunks of the city in any meaningful amount of time. I would argue that many students have cars for ease of travel out of town to parents etc.

This is slowly changing.

1. The UPASS which many students view as free, encourages more transit travel.
2. Services like Grand River Car Share offer inexpensive inside the city driving options.
3. Out of town transit connections are slowly improving.

I look forward to the day when we have regular public transportation options in and out of Waterloo Region that are faster than taking a car and that don't rely on the 401.

[plam]

Parking for students (or other tenants for that matter) is needed because people still need cars to get to large chunks of the city in any meaningful amount of time. I would argue that many students have cars for ease of travel out of town to parents etc.

This is slowly changing.

1. The UPASS which many students view as free, encourages more transit travel.
2. Services like Grand River Car Share offer inexpensive inside the city driving options.
3. Out of town transit connections are slowly improving.

I look forward to the day when we have regular public transportation options in and out of Waterloo Region that are faster than taking a car and that don't rely on the 401.

Mostly agree, but not so sure that cars are actually faster than bikes for most trips within the Region, especially when factoring in parking/walking to parking time. It's hard to leave the region without some form of motorized transport; I've done it, but it's not that practical.

[mpd618]

Parking for students (or other tenants for that matter) is needed because people still need cars to get to large chunks of the city in any meaningful amount of time. I would argue that many students have cars for ease of travel out of town to parents etc.

This is slowly changing.

This has already changed. Developers of student buildings have complained that much of the parking they are required to build sits empty -- and that's when the city requires one spot per 5-bedroom unit. If over 80% of the tenants in such buildings do just fine without a car, then it stands to reason that some buildings can be designed to have 100% of such tenants and do just fine.

Most students don't need cars to get to large chunks of the city, because most don't need to or want to go to those large chunks of the city.

The city needs to stop subsidizing parking downtown, stop requiring off-street parking, and let the market provide parking in proportion to demand and where it is a worthwhile use of land or underground space.

[metropolis]

This has already changed. Developers of student buildings have complained that much of the parking they are required to build sits empty -- and that's when the city requires one spot per 5-bedroom unit. If over 80% of the tenants in such buildings do just fine without a car, then it stands to reason that some buildings can be designed to have 100% of such tenants and do just fine.

This is also the case at many recently completed condo projects where parking is also largely empty. Bauer and Kauffman jump to mind. Here we are talking about people who can afford cars but because the minimums are so over the top parking is being overbuilt and sits largely empty.

[BuildingScout]

This is also the case at many recently completed condo projects where parking is also largely empty. Bauer and Kauffman jump to mind. Here we are talking about people who can afford cars but because the minimums are so over the top parking is being overbuilt and sits largely empty.

Add San Francisco and Boston to the list of cities that do not have minimum parking requirements for their projects, nor for their new businesses. If someone tried to build a Haight and Ashbury in Waterloo, city council would stop them dead in their tracks due to the lack of parking (as they did to the HSBC in Uptown a short while back).

[markster]

A fence has just been erected around this property.

[gomesjustin]

They will be starting demolition in the New Year.