U/C 28 University Avenue East | 24 m | 8 fl

[UrbanWaterloo]

June 21, 2011

[mpd618]

8 storey, 13-unit apartment building?! Christ.

[plam]

8 storey, 13-unit apartment building?! Christ.

Thirteen? As in one-three? That seems like a small number for 8 storeys.

[mpd618]

Thirteen? As in one-three? That seems like a small number for 8 storeys.

Probably 5-bedroom student units.

[markster]

Dear city hall,

There are plenty of existing parcels of land currently zoned for this.
Please enforce a higher quality of development around this important, central area.

[Newgrad]

This is all very disappointed to hear. I'm equally disappointed that the small car lot wasn't combined with these lots. Won't be able to do much development-wise with the car lot now.

[WatDot]

This is all very disappointed to hear. I'm equally disappointed that the small car lot wasn't combined with these lots. Won't be able to do much development-wise with the car lot now.

I agree. Would of been a great spot for a decent development. Condos/apartments/office with retail on the main floor. Instead we will probably get another ugly student stucco piece of.... hope I am wrong though.

[T-Bone]

The new sign as you enter Waterloo should say welcome to Waterloo home of boring stucco boxes. This is a major road in the city you figure something better could be designed here. Then again cant say I am too shocked.

[bzmwillemsen]

I am getting more and more disappointed with Waterloo student housing. Soo many 5 bedroom units going up is not going to create a great environment for students.
I hate to have the knowledge that students will end up using these buildings only because of the location of these new buildings.
I had hoped that when Waterloo changed their rental by-law that they would impose a change that would encourage new student housing to have a variety of unit sizes.
But instead we are getting buildings that are built with no variety only because the bylaws make it so that the best way to make the most money is to have only 5 bedroom units through out the entire building. I think it's gross.

[benjaminbach]

.
I had hoped that when Waterloo changed their rental by-law that they would impose a change that would encourage new student housing to have a variety of unit sizes.
But instead we are getting buildings that are built with no variety only because the bylaws make it so that the best way to make the most money is to have only 5 bedroom units through out the entire building. I think it's gross.

The new official plan does encourage units with fewer bedrooms, it just isn't in effect yet. The rental by-law is a separate issue and doesn't deal with development, just low rise tenancies in Waterloo

[UrbanWaterloo]

28 & 30 University Avenue East: Passing of Zoning By-law
October 26, 2011 | City of Waterloo | Link

TAKE NOTICE that the Corporation of the City of Waterloo passed By-Law No. 2011-110, on the 17th day of October, 2011, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990.

AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of the by-laws by filing with the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of Waterloo not later than the 15th day of November, 2011, a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by a fee of $125.00, made payable to the Minister of Finance, as prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act. If you wish to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, a copy of an appeal form is available from the Ontario Municipal Board website at www.omb.gov.on.ca.

AN EXPLANATION of the purpose and effect of the by-law, describing the lands to which the by-law applies is attached. The complete by-law is available for inspection in my office during regular office hours.

DATED at the City of Waterloo this 26th day of October, 2011.

Susan Greatrix
City Clerk

KEY MAP

EXPLANATORY NOTE

By-law No. 2011-110 amends By-law No. 1108, being a Zoning By-law controlling land use development within the City of Waterloo. The purpose of the By-law is to rezone the “Subject Lands” shown on the attached KEY MAP to permit an 8-storey apartment building.

Paragraph 1 of the By-law rezones the subject lands known municipally as 28 & 30 University Avenue East from Light Industrial - 25 “LI-25” to Multiple Residence - 25 “MR-25” with site specific provisions to:
• reduce the front yard setback requirement to 4.0 metres;
• reduce the combined total side yard requirement to 9.0 metres;
• reduce the rear yard setback requirement to 3.5 metres; and
• to reduce the minimum habitable space requirement across the front façade of the building to 60%.

If you require further information or have any question please contact the City of Waterloo Development Services at 519.747.8752.

Laura Dowell, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Development Planner
City of Waterloo

[markster]

Just when you thought they couldn't possibly build another.

[bcwessel]

It'd be great if the City weren't so happy to help the universities externalize their obligation to provide quality housing for their students. These are dorms. Dorms without the inbuilt social programming, health services, or anything else that makes it a tolerable and hopefully even a fun and exciting experience to live in a tiny room with very little money with a bunch of mostly strangers. By-the-by, City of Waterloo, dorms without that support structure are slums designed specifically for the only sector of society that we expect will be poor all of the time.

[BigCityBoy]

It'd be great if the City weren't so happy to help the universities externalize their obligation to provide quality housing for their students. These are dorms. Dorms without the inbuilt social programming, health services, or anything else that makes it a tolerable and hopefully even a fun and exciting experience to live in a tiny room with very little money with a bunch of mostly strangers. By-the-by, City of Waterloo, dorms without that support structure are slums designed specifically for the only sector of society that we expect will be poor all of the time.

I disagree to a degree, if that's sayable. I think the increased density is good for local businesses and footfall in these areas. Also, the new buildings are hardly ghetto-like and will not deteriorate for some time. Sure, in 20 years they may be outdated but ultimately they are easily spruced up with new stucco, etc. I think the increased density in these areas is good, whether from students or other multiple-unit dwellings. Let's not forget that this recent explosion is still very young in these areas and commercial areas are bound to catch-up as the years go by. Infinitely preferable to low-density student rentals that over-take single-family dwelling neighbourhoods, in my humble opinion. The more, the merrier, i'd say. Take the maintenance of the buildings out of the hands of individual lessees and the buildings should be better maintained than, say, an absent landlord with a house in Lakeshore who just let's it go, year after year.

And besides, students bring a lot of income to local businesses that would otherwise not be here or otherwise consumed largely by on-campus enterprises - not to mention the increase in the tax base for the city!

[bcwessel]

I disagree to a degree, if that's sayable. I think the increased density is good for local businesses and footfall in these areas.

This is a large part of the problem: the lack of local businesses, services, and other amenities being provided as this area continues to be redeveloped. Another way of looking at it is that there's no neighbourhood in this neighbourhood. They forgot that cities are messy collections of lots of different elements, and by omitting those other elements we're essentially left with human storage for people either too poor to demand better, or too disengaged from the broader community (a largely institutional arrangement) to care. I can't imagine anybody being excited or proud about that.

Also, the new buildings are hardly ghetto-like and will not deteriorate for some time. Sure, in 20 years they may be outdated but ultimately they are easily spruced up with new stucco, etc.

I don't have any particular problem with the exterior of the buildings in general, as I've indicated here and elsewhere in the past. Although, admitting upfront that most of this is going to look pretty bad within a few decades is enough to make me cringe.

I think the increased density in these areas is good, whether from students or other multiple-unit dwellings. Let's not forget that this recent explosion is still very young in these areas and commercial areas are bound to catch-up as the years go by.

Density should not be a goal all on its own, precisely because when it's taken out of its proper context (i.e. that the higher densities produced by urban living are more efficient, foster more creative and are overall more stimulating than suburban/exurban patterns) you wind up with very little of the good bits (fun stuff), and a lot more of the bad (being crowded for ostensibly no reason). Urban crowding is, generally, less desirable for individuals than having more space. But many people (myself included) are willing to sacrifice the extra personal space for better shared amenities (like parks, squares, libraries, transit, restaurants, etc.). I also see little to no evidence that we'll just wind up with better neighbourhoods eventually "as things catch up." Elements of sprawl repair could be adapted to rehabilitate develop like this, but the question remains: if we're building it new, we know what we want to see, and we know what works, why aren't we doing any of that in the first place? It seems far more likely that this area will be developed, its deficiencies will increasingly make themselves apparent, and it will either remain dysfunctional or we'll tear it down and come up with a more comprehensive and coherent model to redevelop it with. Why not save the time, money and hassle and just build more neighbourhoods like the ones were currently trying to save/restore in the historic cores?

Infinitely preferable to low-density student rentals that over-take single-family dwelling neighbourhoods, in my humble opinion. The more, the merrier, i'd say. Take the maintenance of the buildings out of the hands of individual lessees and the buildings should be better maintained than, say, an absent landlord with a house in Lakeshore who just let's it go, year after year.

I simply don't see why this will be much different from what was produced by earlier strategies. I fail to see much difference between these buildings, and the backyard dorms which dominated student housing last decade. Personally, I'd rather not see either persist, particularly when real urban neighbourhoods is what we want/need.

And besides, students bring a lot of income to local businesses that would otherwise not be here or otherwise consumed largely by on-campus enterprises - not to mention the increase in the tax base for the city!

I'm not suggesting that all students should have to live on campus. I'm suggesting that students who live in dorms should live on campus, because dorm living comes along with a whole host of specific needs (primarily instantly penetrable community life, and health and safety services. Dorms without RAs and intramurals is, to my mind, a terrible idea with a lot more in common with project building than city building). Since the universities are the only ones to have demonstrated the core competencies required to administer these services successfully, and since the universities already have a vested interest in the well-being of students, it only seems natural that dorms are university business.

[BigCityBoy]

This is a large part of the problem: the lack of local businesses, services, and other amenities being provided as this area continues to be redeveloped. Another way of looking at it is that there's no neighbourhood in this neighbourhood. They forgot that cities are messy collections of lots of different elements, and by omitting those other elements we're essentially left with human storage for people either too poor to demand better, or too disengaged from the broader community (a largely institutional arrangement) to care. I can't imagine anybody being excited or proud about that.



I don't have any particular problem with the exterior of the buildings in general, as I've indicated here and elsewhere in the past. Although, admitting upfront that most of this is going to look pretty bad within a few decades is enough to make me cringe.



Density should not be a goal all on its own, precisely because when it's taken out of its proper context (i.e. that the higher densities produced by urban living are more efficient, foster more creative and are overall more stimulating than suburban/exurban patterns) you wind up with very little of the good bits (fun stuff), and a lot more of the bad (being crowded for ostensibly no reason). Urban crowding is, generally, less desirable for individuals than having more space. But many people (myself included) are willing to sacrifice the extra personal space for better shared amenities (like parks, squares, libraries, transit, restaurants, etc.). I also see little to no evidence that we'll just wind up with better neighbourhoods eventually "as things catch up." Elements of sprawl repair could be adapted to rehabilitate develop like this, but the question remains: if we're building it new, we know what we want to see, and we know what works, why aren't we doing any of that in the first place? It seems far more likely that this area will be developed, its deficiencies will increasingly make themselves apparent, and it will either remain dysfunctional or we'll tear it down and come up with a more comprehensive and coherent model to redevelop it with. Why not save the time, money and hassle and just build more neighbourhoods like the ones were currently trying to save/restore in the historic cores?



I simply don't see why this will be much different from what was produced by earlier strategies. I fail to see much difference between these buildings, and the backyard dorms which dominated student housing last decade. Personally, I'd rather not see either persist, particularly when real urban neighbourhoods is what we want/need.



I'm not suggesting that all students should have to live on campus. I'm suggesting that students who live in dorms should live on campus, because dorm living comes along with a whole host of specific needs (primarily instantly penetrable community life, and health and safety services. Dorms with RAs and intramurals is, to my mind, a terrible idea with a lot more in common with project building than city building). Since the universities are the only ones to have demonstrated the core competencies required to administer these services successfully, and since the universities already have a vested interest in the well-being of students, it only seems natural that dorms are university business.

So what then, if not these latest developments and not those of the previous decade? Are you able to offer an equal alternative or merely 'shit-bagging' anything else that comes along? The market is merely responding to market demand. Sure, if we lived in a Utopian society where the ideal developmnet was implemented then it would be so. Needs must, and these needs seem to must quite strongly. I won't deny that your Utopian ideals of redevelopment are just. After all, you must be developing some of these properties yourself with disgust for those around you, no? In short, if it makes sense on paper, it makes sense to those who are willing to invest. Until we change that, then aesthetics and 'ideal' development will go by the wayside. C'est la vie, i'm afraid. Profit is the driver of development, not ideal, to be sure, but there you go.

[bcwessel]

So what then, if not these latest developments and not those of the previous decade? Are you able to offer an equal alternative or merely 'shit-bagging' anything else that comes along? The market is merely responding to market demand. Sure, if we lived in a Utopian society where the ideal developmnet was implemented then it would be so. Needs must, and these needs seem to must quite strongly. I won't deny that your Utopian ideals of redevelopment are just. After all, you must be developing some of these properties yourself with disgust for those around you, no? In short, if it makes sense on paper, it makes sense to those who are willing to invest. Until we change that, then aesthetics and 'ideal' development will go by the wayside. C'est la vie, i'm afraid. Profit is the driver of development, not ideal, to be sure, but there you go.

How about some regular city blocks, ones with regular apartments above regular shops, shops selling regular goods and services. It's a pattern that the market has developed over centuries of humans living in cities, and up until about 80 years ago it is a pattern that even made a few people very rich. Over the last half century in particular, excessive zoning, and massive subsidization for other, in my opinion lesser patterns, has produced some pretty horrific outcomes.

Our current state of development is driven by two things: One, that the city has, for entirely misguided reasons, zoned this area to produce this specific result. Two, that the city has allowed the costs of this type of deficient development to be downloaded to people with very little control over how it was built in the first place, and only slightly more control over where they get to live (no choice, no market).

I agree that it's not up to developers to be socially concious when developing. It would be nice if we still had city builders, developers worth naming streets and sometimes entire towns after, but we don't. We have a few companies, primarily tailoring to the top end, who see value in producing something with intrinsic as well as market value (for them, I suspect, these are one and the same). But mostly we have land speculators who develop whatever is easy, cheap and fast, also known as the tallest thing you can build and still be certain the city will rubber stamp it. Which is to say, developers develop exactly what the city tells them to. No misguided notions of the market's perfection at delivering exactly what is required exactly when it's required necessary.

If, let's say, the city's zoning happened exclusively to entail the kind of traditional, mixed-use urbanisms out of which most rewarding places are made, I suspect we'd see a lot more of that. I'm not looking for Utopian, unless your idea of Utopia is what Uptown looked before it was hollowed out and then boutique-ified. As per John Norquist in The Wealth of Cities (the nod to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is intentional, and Norquist is one of a handful writing on any topic who actually appears to have read Smith, and not merely what Friedman said Smith wrote), Cities have one asset: land. Good cities leverage this form of capital by increasing its value through competent, often inspiring planning which should include quality public space and transit. Bad cities subsidize net-loser development like tract housing and segregated midrise slums by building large arterials, imposing ridiculous minimum parking by-laws or zoning massive city blocks single use, and designed for a single, transient type of user.

[mpd618]

Alas, you seem to have the needed insight into the dilemma that faces this modern community. Bravo, mi amigo. You must be well read. And as such, you must realise that each and every particular area is best suited to its own needs rather than over-laying a template of one case onto another? It's fine to spout ideals of a San Francisco and try to relate it to a Seattle. However, i think you'll find that the two are wholly different in their need for an answer. Show us a plan that will work, will you? Or will you remain on the sideline contiunously chirping about how it should / might be? Is there a reason you can't come through? I suspect it's the same reason why the developers build what they build.

This is childish and wholly inappropriate for this discussion. Particularly considering that it is in response to clearly articulated commentary both about the problems and reasonable approaches to their solutions.

[BuildingScout]

I simply don't see why this will be much different from what was produced by earlier strategies. I fail to see much difference between these buildings, and the backyard dorms which dominated student housing last decade. Personally, I'd rather not see either persist, particularly when real urban neighbourhoods is what we want/need.

If you can't see the difference just drive up and down Lester St and compare the yards of the 5 story buildings with the house rentals. Those buildings are definitely progress over what used to be there. I've complained as much as every one else about the lack of mixed usage, but this doesn't blind me to the fact that the current new buildings are (partial) progress over the status quo.