Advertise Here
  1. Name:  informal-meeting.jpg
Views: 844
Size:  48.8 KB

    This building has been discussed elsewehere on the forum already but it seems details will now be emerging.

    If anyone has more information about what was proposed on Monday please post it here.

    From Melissa Durrell's site:
    A proposed new six storey building will be presented to Council on January 14th. I will add information as it becomes available.
    The staff report follows. If you would like to discuss this proposed building please call me at 226-808-6043.

    From the Public Notice Meeting:

    The Applicant is also requesting a Zoning By-Law amendment to allow this increase in density, an increase in the permitted height from 18m to 20m, a reduction to the at- grade and below-grade building setbacks, inclusion of a rooftop terrace in the amenity area calculation, and the addition of various commercial uses on the ground floor. The lands would remain Commercial Two – 6, “C2 -6”, in By-law 1108. The purpose of these amendments is to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a 6 storey mixed-use building, containing commercial uses and parking at grade, 49 residential units above, and one level of underground parking.
  2. #1
  3. #2
    Sounds promising so far. Interesting how mixed use is prevalent on this part of King Street, yet completely ignored north of University on King. Look forward to any renderings.
  4. #3
    Trying to find out more information on this. There's a mention in the city meeting agenda and packet, but no more substantial information than is on Ms. Durrell's blog.

    The amount and arrangement of the proposed surface parking is going to make or break the quality of this development.
  5. #4
    Would this be another Momentum type like Red is?

    Also there are a couple of nice old homes (from the outside anyhow) on that stretch of King that would be a shame to lose.
  6. From DOWNTOWN | Member Since Mar 2010 | 2,324 Posts
    #5
    I think this may be the project of a Kitchener developer that was mentioned in a Record article last year (can't remember his name but he's the guy developing a former school yard near River Rd and Frederick St.). I recall we wondered at that time whether it would include the Dairy Queen property (it doesn't).
  7. From West-South-West Kitchener | Member Since May 2010 | 1,587 Posts
    #6
    Here's the Street View of the location (centre house and two adjacent).
  8. #7
    This is great news. It's yet one more step towards my dream of a united K-W where there is a complete, uninterrupted medium-density artery from Dowtown Kitchener to Uptown Waterloo. Still a long way to go of course, but little steps are always welcome. I'm excited to see a render.
  9. #8
    I'm all for intensification along King Street similar in size to the Red condos, especially if there is street level commercial. That said, if I was to pick a building to save along King between Uptown and Downtown that doesn't have heritage protection, that duplex at 222/224 might well be at the top of my list. It's fairly unique in style for the area and appears to be in good repair (from the outside, at least).
  10. #9
    The Record has an article with a few more details... and a render!

    http://www.therecord.com/news/local/...ace-challenges

    Opinions? Mine is, I like. Right size, right orientation, right engagement. This looks like it picks up the Red's scale and pedestrian orientation,and extends it along King, which is exactly what I want to see.
  11. #10
    I like the scale and the inclusion of retail and the desire for it to contribute to an urban streetwall (and the setback on the top floor) but I struggle with the look of the building on its site from the rendering shown in The Record. The materials and colours don't look good. It's just a rendering but judging what I see, I am not enthralled.
  12. From West-South-West Kitchener | Member Since May 2010 | 1,587 Posts
    #11
    I love it. Great stuff.
  13. #12
    The structure of the building looks good. Esthetically it's kind of bland though
  14. #13
    I hope that's not the final colour scheme.
  15. #14
    All in all an improvement to that part of town.
  16. #15
    Looks decent and is appropriate. If the City wants a healthy core they are going to need more of this. Those neighbours' concerns... get used to it, you're in the core. I lived right on King and George street before and it was noisy but that's part of living in a vibrant and healthy community. Knowing the noise that exists I'd still move back to that area... specially now that it's becoming so built up. Exciting development, hope it moves forward!
  17. #16
    I leave aesthetic decisions to others. I can't be trusted to pick out paint colour schemes.

    But given the choice between a meh building with good functional design, or a fabulously aesthetic tower-in-park, I know which one I'd choose.
  18. This Member Says Thank You:

  19. From DOWNTOWN | Member Since Mar 2010 | 2,324 Posts
    #17
    The units on the King St side of this one are going to have a rather nice permanent view of the gardens in front of the Mutual, and a lot of sunlight. Good selling points, I should think.
  20. #18
    Sounds like the concern is on the back laneway from the citys point of view. Could a sound barrier not be constructed along the side going into peoples back yard and cure the problem?
    Parking at this one sounds like ti could also be an issue, I know it is on the transit line but lets face it we are a car society. They should have at least 1 spot for each unit in this building and somewhere for visitors to park as well. Not sure how the cost would be to add 2nd level of parking to it but assume it would be quite costly and that is why it was not included.

    I guess they could always buy spots in a building near by like what happens in Toronto.

    The building it self looks to be of proper scale, not sure I am in love with the design of it. Looks like they paln on using stucco on it more glass, brick etc I think would be much better.
  21. From Kitchener | Member Since Oct 2010 | 1,020 Posts
    #19
    The simple solution to traffic concerns is to lower the parking requirements.

    Throwing up your hands and saying "this is a car society" is like laying down an edict that everyone must own a car. Let us choose for ourselves.

    If you lower the parking requirement of the building, yes, you will have many parking-less units. Those units may be less desirable. That lowers the price, makes them more affordable to those who don't require a car, and they put further strain on the road network. I don't see what's wrong with fewer parking spaces. It should be the developer who chooses how much parking they think they need in order to sell the units, and if they can get away with a cheaper building with less parking, they should be able to do so.
  22. 3 Members Say Thank You:

  23. #20
    A friend of mine owns a condo in one of the oldest purpose-built condo high-rises in downtown Toronto. It dates from the late 60s, I believe. As he put it, at the time they didn't really know what kind of parking they would need, so they built underground parking at the rate of 1 parking spot per unit.

    I saw this garage on a Saturday afternoon. The level wasn't even 20 per cent occupied. The parking level beneath it had been closed to public access for many years; a recent elevator replacement neglects to even provide service to that level.

    The difference, of course, is that a condo 15 minutes' walk from the Yonge subway line in downtown Toronto is a lot different than anything in KW. I'm not going to suggest that car ownership rates of a downtown condo owner in KW are anything as low as 10-20%...

    ... yet. And even if it doesn't get down to that, what about 70%? 50%? 30%? Today, in ten years, or in twenty? This is a tremendously walkable location within a minute or two of LRT and a short toddle to Uptown.

    I did note that there was nothing in the zoning change proposal asking for a lower parking requirement. It would have been nice to see, but in this case I will say:

    • One spot per unit is probably what we'll see and probably more than is strictly required.
    • The perfect is the enemy of the good.


    I think today I can still be positive about this development without demanding that it push parking ratios into levels that require a variance. Ask me again in five years.
of 3