U/C 144 Park | 67 m | 19 fl | 80% Sold

[urbandreamer]

Yes I would agree with you to some extent; however just around the corner from where I live in Toront a large lot filled with historic homes and many trees was bulldozed recently for a new condo project. (Most of the trees are still standing but waiting for approval--which will be rubber stamped imo--to be removed. The local nimbies of course are up in arms about the development, the height etc but rarely have they focused on the design other than complaining about all the glass. NimbyTect hopes to work with Nimbies while pushing for creative architectural solutions.) Realistically Waterloo needs as much density as it can get, but density doesn't have to mean height nor eyesores. I have ideas for a much more radical proposal for this site, but really it's just a fantasy as this project is going ahead (unless the market crashes, which I think would still go ahead as rentals.)

[zanate]

I attended the public meeting on 155 Caroline last night. My main concern has been and remains the Iron Horse (which you can read about at length here), but to summarize for folks here, this is what came up:

An alteration: The Iron Horse Canyon design tries to separate foot and bike traffic, and then a 3m trail goes up along Caroline. It crosses one surface parking entrance (62 spaces of the ~460 which must be provided for Bauer use as a condition of building), the main lobby entrance to 155 Caroline and the Allen corner townhouse which has been reoriented to face Caroline.

Another alteration: a lot of effort has been put into minimizing the visual impact of the Caroline wall. On one hand, I'll admit that they've done a commendable job lipsticking a pig, on the other hand, it's still a pig. I would call it "less offensive", but hardly a contributor to a vibrant streetscape. The developer makes the point that a vibrant uptown requires residents as well as business, but I feel this is pitched more as justification.

Concerns raised, apart from the reorientation of the trail itself (and there were a number of bike users unhappy about the trail):

• Traffic
• Parking (too little! too much!)
• Safety issues on the reoriented trail
• Why weren't the 144 Park buyers invited?
• OMG TRAFFIC DID I MENTION TRAFFIC
• Local residents are concerned about... traffic.

If I could sum up my biggest problem with the development: despite the best efforts of the developer to make their proposal palatable, it still requires the city to move the Iron Horse away from where its namesake once ran, replacing a natural trail with mature growth trees with a less direct path that introduces as many issues as it solves. Worse: it sets a really bad precedent that our dedicated public space is negotiable.

In fact, it was stated at the meeting that this proposal is the result of a land swap suggestion that was made... by a general manager at the city. This I find very troubling.

(On a lighter note, I also learned that Ms. Durrell is very particular about how her name is pronounced. That's fair, I get bent out of shape when my name is misspelled. For reference: emphasis on the first syllable, people.)

[urbandreamer]

One thing I don't like about nimbies is their ranting about "traffic." You know it could also be a positive--more foot traffic on the sidewalks in the area for example is a good thing. Public roads are designed to handle cars...traffic!

[zanate]

Ah, but were the shoe on the other foot...

If I owned a house on Norman or upper Belmont and had been there for twenty years, I think I'd be worried too. There's over the top NIMBYism, and then there's plain human nature.

The local residents raised a good point that many of the bigger developments are connected to major throughways-- the Barrel Yards to Erb, for instance. This one is not. If Park congests, it will spill into neighbourhood streets. There were multiple people there supporting intensification-- these are downtown residents, after all-- who still believed that this example may cause trouble for them.

Now on one hand, the developer says that transit and walkability will reduce car use. But while it's enough for the developer to use it as a way to deflect the traffic concerns, it's not enough for the developer to reduce the suburban levels of parking they are building into the structure.

There's a real disconnect that's unresolved.

I know I made light of the fact that the conversation was dominated by traffic concerns because I was not there about traffic, I was there about the trail. But the massive parking load is related to the traffic load that concerns the locals, and the local concerns shouldn't be dismissed. There's a lot of red flags about this development, enough to suggest that maybe some of those red flags need to be removed by a fundamental shift in the development plan.

[urbandreamer]

^Have you ever visited--walked and driven extensively around--Toronto's Yonge and Eglinton neighbourhood? It's a good model for where Uptown should be headed, only with even higher quality architecture. The area has 100x more highrises than Uptown yet the traffic remains reasonable. Many of the buildings are on streets such as Belmont, Park, Norman etc mixed in with SFHs. While the nimbies there hate giant buildings--imagine 60s at King and Union for example (would be cool ) they tolerate 15-40s buildings. It's part of city living.

Is Uptown and Belmont Village just a small town and village surrounded by suburban sprawl, or does it have ambitions to grow up into a small denser city? Personally, I'd rather have more traffic--more people, more cafes, more grocery shops, better transit.

Nimbies must learn to focus on details they can change--quality architecture, landscaping, money given to the area to improve its public realm by the developer, the building's mass and setbacks rather than focus on the obvious--more ppl will be in your 'hood! It's obviously too late for this project, but in the future, the more sophisticated and knowledgeable the locals and condo buyers become, the better the process and results.

[mpd618]

Is Uptown and Belmont Village just a small town and village surrounded by suburban sprawl, or does it have ambitions to grow up into a small denser city? Personally, I'd rather have more traffic--more people, more cafes, more grocery shops, better transit.

I think the people living near uptown are a lot less NIMBY than one might think. There is a lot of support for new amenities and more pedestrian traffic, and many will be happy to see both. Except that this development is bringing suburban levels of car use to this site, which they (and I) do not want to see and which is not the kind of traffic that makes places better. And this proposal includes no any amenities open to the community.

Nimbies must learn to focus on details they can change--quality architecture, landscaping, money given to the area to improve its public realm by the developer, the building's mass and setbacks rather than focus on the obvious--more ppl will be in your 'hood! It's obviously too late for this project, but in the future, the more sophisticated and knowledgeable the locals and condo buyers become, the better the process and results.

Not sure that it is too late for this project, frankly. And again, don't assume that what people object to is density here. People are very aware that density is coming to this kind of area. What they strongly object to is more automobile traffic having an objectively harmful effect on their neighbourhoods and on their enjoyment of their homes. There certainly are places where people object to density because it means "people not like me", but objecting to density because it means streets becoming less friendly is pretty reasonable.

What isn't reasonable is city requirements for parking right next to an LRT station. If there is anywhere where you should drop parking requirements, it has got to be there.

[urbandreamer]

Part of this problem is the developer here. They come from a suburban background. They are likely selling many units to older suburbanites--boomers downsizing--who insist on parking with their unit. Waterloo is still a suburban market, even Uptown feels more like a GTA suburb (old Markham, Stouffville, Streetsville, Oakville) than even an urban area like Yonge and Eglinton. With a developer used to selling to suburban-minded or wealthier uptown folk (for example they have a project on Avenue Road Toronto, which is really sort of like Uptown Waterloo--large SFH, heavy car use and relatively light pedestrian traffic) they don't want to take a risk here. If the demographics change--they should, let's say Uptown is at the c.1999 level of sophistication that was around Toronto then--think precast brick and concrete condos sold to downsizing locals--and condo buyers keep opting out of buying parking, then yes, Waterloo developers will cease this habit. (Although look at those student housing projects--they all supply ample parking--proving Waterloo may simply be too suburban-minded on the whole.)

This is not a put down. I would love to see small-scale beautiful buildings in Waterloo. I think sadly we'll see a bunch of ugly blocks built for a while though--similar to the student housing market--and as the market matures, boutique infill projects of say 6-10s with fewer parking spots will become more mainstream. But it may take a decade or two....

[luckee]

" Then there's the fact that Waterloo already has a traffic problem and by eliminating a major thoroughfare by one lane will undoubtedly increase traffic volumes in other areas (despite the Utopian view that most car users will switch to the LRT)".

...so the LRT is a double edge sword
...but as the quote suggests the LRT will force drivers to other areas. Parks St and Belmont will be stressed out...add to that the extra traffic from 155 Park then we'll have some horrendously serious traffic issues.

[urbandreamer]

Um, doubtful. That's what I hate about Waterloo--everyone thinks of getting around via car.

What about the pedestrian realm? Transit users?

Time to think about why you're living in an urban area.

[Greg Moore]

I am excited by the developments surrounding the King/Allen block. Despite the worries of several people about the second tower, I think the project will be of benefit, and attractive to the neighbourhood.

I think the concerns about traffic make a lot of presumptions about car use in the area after the build. Surely there will be an adjustment period, but I think as the neighbourhood grows, the demand for lots of residential parking will diminish. This area of Waterloo is already quite walkable and with added amenities, there will be fewer reasons to have to pile in to a car to meet your living needs. I think the car issue will become a non-issue quite quickly.

Overall, I believe there are more positives than negatives about the entire 144/155 block. The path is a bit disappointing to me as I think an angular corridor between buildings could be visually interesting and vibrant. It also would have been nice if the Caroline Street side had commercial of some kind.

Frankly though, isn't this a matter of taste. Some people want to live in a dense, modern, urban area, and others want to maintain a smaler town, peaceful side streets a few blocks away from the main part of town. I think there is opportunity for both.

[luckee]

Having lived in the IMMEDIATE area for over thirty years as many of us have, we have every right and duty to express concern about the quality of life at ground level. Where do you live?
The "trail" belongs to the residents of Waterloo to utilize and enjoy as they see fit...
As one who supports "densification" I would encourage the developers to submit a design that not only saves the trail in its present form but challenges ones imagination...155 Caroline does not! There is nothing aesthetic about this proposal...it's simply a concrete, monolithic structure where there is no natural greenery. Oh yes I forgot the the tower residents will have their greenery on their roof top gardens where they can look down and watch the rest of us sweltering amongst the concrete slabs...
And PLEASE enough talk about your so called walkable pedestrian traffic...are you referring to the lattee crowd?
The congestion from the Bauer complex both residential, and commercial is insane and quite frankly anyone who downplays the impact both towers would have because of the increased traffic does not know what they are talking about!
You write about amenities well I've got news for you ...THE TRAIL IS AN AMENITY and it's natural, there is nothing wrong with it and it definitely does not need "IMPROVEMENT"!

[Anderson3133]

Having lived in the IMMEDIATE area for over thirty years as many of us have, we have every right and duty to express concern about the quality of life at ground level. Where do you live?
The "trail" belongs to the residents of Waterloo to utilize and enjoy as they see fit...
As one who supports "densification" I would encourage the developers to submit a design that not only saves the trail in its present form but challenges ones imagination...155 Caroline does not! There is nothing aesthetic about this proposal...it's simply a concrete, monolithic structure where there is no natural greenery. Oh yes I forgot the the tower residents will have their greenery on their roof top gardens where they can look down and watch the rest of us sweltering amongst the concrete slabs...
And PLEASE enough talk about your so called walkable pedestrian traffic...are you referring to the lattee crowd?
The congestion from the Bauer complex both residential, and commercial is insane and quite frankly anyone who downplays the impact both towers would have because of the increased traffic does not know what they are talking about!
You write about amenities well I've got news for you ...THE TRAIL IS AN AMENITY and it's natural, there is nothing wrong with it and it definitely does not need "IMPROVEMENT"!

Having just left Vincenzos not too long ago, I have to agree that this area will be (and is) a complete mess.

[BigCityBoy]

What does BCB hate? Dreamers think that 'presto!', all of a sudden we have changed from a car-based society to a rail-based one (despite the fact that the rail is a singular line running generally from north to south, or vice versa) and that this will evolve the community to be a better place. Time to think about why you're living in a community of 150k residents? Trust me, there will be plenty of time to think of that while you're waiting for your next bus / train and, as consequence, while everyone is waiting for the traffic to move on King Street so that you can make a left turn next to KCI while wating for someone to make a right into Central Meat Market.

[BigCityBoy]

The 'trail' should be the new route for the LRT. That would elliminate all the recent murders (1) and the congestion on King. Perfect.

[zanate]

You know a thread has arrived, when it gets BCB'd.

[metropolis]

Ok so back on topic... Coun. Durrell's meeting presentation is online and can be viewed here (pdf). It contains high quality renders of the project. Maddy is listening it seems and moving in the right direction as mentioned by zanate.

Compared to the original proposal I like the trail changes with the cycling and pedestrian realms separated. Guest suite and gym windows it seems will also face the trail making it more part of this project. The conversion of sidewalk to paved trail along Caroline is great, as is the replacement of two garage entrances with one. Having the corner brownstone unit entrance face Caroline is a nice touch. The width dedicated to the trail is increasing from what we have now too.

The parking here is excessive, no doubt and Maddy claims its part and parcel to their acquisition of the gravel lot from the Bauer property owners so this may be as good as it gets unless the project is scrapped...

[metropolis]

Here are the render screen captures for those who can't open the pdf mentioned in my previous post:

[.FLH.]

They should keep the trail on the current course and just build a cool tunnel under the building

[mpd618]

2.0 metres for a two-way cycling path? You have got to be kidding.

Want to ensure sufficient parking onsite; avoid overflow on surrounding streets.

What? Overflow parking is a problem with commercial uses - there is no way to own a car and not have a place to park it for more than two hours at a time. As they say, this project is entirely residential, so this does not add up to me.

[luckee]

Notice in the drawings how at the end intersection of Caroline and John where the ugly Sun Life parking garage is located there is green space instead of the garage...I assume its green because the developers want to make it more appealing...after all the "Trail" would look more appealing with green as opposed to a concrete canyon...