Advertise Here
  1. 150 King Street South
    City of Waterloo
    Demolition Control Application DC2012-006

    Old 10 Storey Glass Tower Proposal

    4-storey mixed-use building containing 12 residential and 2 commercial units




  2. #1
  3. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban_Enthusiast86
    Hmm, I do like Uptown...I like the building. However, *flips open Remax booklet*...look what I can get out here for $1.2 million. There's so much more square footage and acreage! Oh well, uptown is only a 15 minute drive from there anyways. And that's not a problem...I have plenty of nice cars!
    If people bought real state like this the Seagram's lofts and the houses in Lion's Gate would have never sold.

    It's all about prestige. If the address comes to be associated with status people will fight for the units.
  4. Spokes's Avatar
    From Kitchener | Member Since Dec 2009 | 4,277 Posts
    #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Floor2012
    Don't forget that the 144Park that has been marketing for 15 months now, recently removed the 18th floor penthouse suites (somewhat comparable to these units), in favour of a floor plate of 700-1150 sq. ft units. So where have the people who are in the $900K-$1M plus range been during the past year. One would have thought that they would have bought at 144Park, but obviously they didn't. Love the architecture, but think they missed the market here. Should be targeting the 2 bedroom, 1000 sq. ft. at $375-$400./foot market. Location, glass walls, outdoor space, good finishes...could easily be a winner, in a nice boutique size 35 unit building.

    BTW, I don't see this project on the city's list of projects and applications.
    Ding Ding Ding Ding!! Exactly! It's a beautiful project, just 10 years (at least) too soon. As others have said, chop up each floor into smaller units and you've got a winner!
  5. #43
    What hasn't been said is how much the condo fees are going be for these units. Which would be roughly be $700 or so, maybe more. People who I know that live well in this area always say that is a negative to huge condos. Be interesting to see what happens here but I think they should re-design the units.

    As for the Seagrams comment... The Seagrams Lofts were not crazy expensive, so you can't even compare this to that.
  6. Spokes's Avatar
    From Kitchener | Member Since Dec 2009 | 4,277 Posts
    #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jay
    What hasn't been said is how much the condo fees are going be for these units. Which would be roughly be $700 or so, maybe more. People who I know that live well in this area always say that is a negative to huge condos. Be interesting to see what happens here but I think they should re-design the units.

    As for the Seagrams comment... The Seagrams Lofts were not crazy expensive, so you can't even compare this to that.
    Depending on how serious the developer is about getting this thing built, and what kind of response there is, I think it will be, down the road that is.

    I think if a few of the units get bought it stays as is. If none of them do, I think they break it up, don't use as high end materials, and relaunch it.
  7. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by jay
    As for the Seagrams comment... The Seagrams Lofts were not crazy expensive, so you can't even compare this to that.
    The Seagram's lofts were selling for twice the price per square foot as comparable units at the time. If that is not crazy expensive I don't know what is.
  8. Rowe's Avatar
    From Kitchener | Member Since Aug 2010 | 192 Posts
    #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke-of-Waterloo
    Care to elaborate, please?
    The area, price and size. Plus the fact that Waterloo and pretty much the region is largely suburbian. I agree with the comment.. why would a millionaire leave their cheaper castle home in Mannhiem. It just seems silly. OR why would millionaires who work in the region move from other cities (Many GTA) for Waterloo.

    Just too overrated.
    “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” - Winston Churchill
  9. #47
    Well they were affordable for most people is what I meant. You didn't need to be rich.

    People in the area who might want to buy into this will have to sell there house first. There is roughly 60 homes in the area for sale in the 900k-3million range. So that may be a issue. If you look at MLS or read the realtor book you see the same homes in there every week and if you open a random page there is usually 3 homes over 500k for sale. The baby boomers are starting to retire so there is a bunch of big homes (Or what I like to call "white elephants") for sale now..

    I wonder if the builder will let them buy on the contingency that they need to sell their home first. I know they did this to one person on 45 Degrees. Problem is if the builder wants 10-20% down, you would need to re-mortgage your place 100-200k. Few people have that amount of money on hand.
  10. IEFBR14's Avatar
    From H2OWC | Member Since Mar 2010 | 1,283 Posts
    #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowe
    why would a millionaire leave their cheaper castle home in Mannhiem. It just seems silly. OR why would millionaires who work in the region move from other cities (Many GTA) for Waterloo.
    Suppose...

    Said millionaire is a boomer and either near or at retirement. He and his spouse no longer want to have to drive into town, whether from Mannheim to Uptown or from Bayview and York Mills or Markham/Aurora down to the centre of the universe in order to work, shop, dine, be entertained, visit a healthcare professional, etc.

    Their kids are grown up and no longer live at home. They no longer need or want the hassle of looking after their monster home and all that entails. Etc, etc, etc.

    The move to an Uptown condo apartment would enable them to live a simpler, less hassled lifestyle. They'd be able to walk (or take a bus/LRT) to shop, dine, be entertained, etc. The move would allow them to become snowbirds in the winter and spend lots more time at the summer cottage without the responsibilities of also taking care of a suburban monster home on an estate sized lot. It would allow them to move to a residence that's better suited to their aging bodies before they have to move to a retirement home or even a nursing home. Etc, etc, etc.

    If I were the condo developer I'd tailor my offering to this market. I'd make sure the entire building, including the suites, were wheelchair accessible even if none of my prospective buyers needed it (yet.) I'd also make provision for other amenities to address this demographic, e.g. bathtubs with doors, intercoms designed to work with hearing aids, recreation centre that caters to older rather than younger people. Boomers realize they're getting older and may/will soon need these sorts of amenities.

    Again, it can't be that hard to find ten to a dozen people who fit this demographic. They don't all have to be from RIM (or OpenText, Dalsa, etc.) There are lots of executives and professionals who, unlike the younger crowd, have the money. They can probably sell their existing home to pay for most or all of the cost of the condo. They'd have no problem with paying $100s a month in maintenance fees providing the services were of value to them.
  11. Rowe's Avatar
    From Kitchener | Member Since Aug 2010 | 192 Posts
    #49
    I'm not against building condos...I'm against the price. This region needs more condos because that is what new professionals want. Keeping graduates and professionals in the region is a major goal for the area. The issue is.. the lack of lifestyle and living conditions these professionals want.

    I'm all for condos in Downtown and Uptown.. but at that price.. I would rather buy something in Toronto and gain a better quality of life. I know a lot of professionals from all different kinds of professions who can't believe how lifeless the region is.. and its true.

    Its the price that is the issue, not the condo.
    “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” - Winston Churchill
  12. Urbanomicon's Avatar
    From Kitchener, Ontario | Member Since Feb 2010 | 981 Posts
    #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowe
    I would rather buy something in Toronto and gain a better quality of life.
    That depends on your definition of "Quality of Life". I for one wouldn't want to live in the concrete jungle that is downtown Toronto.
    "Only the insane have the strength enough to prosper. Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane."
  13. Quote Originally Posted by Rowe
    I'm not against building condos...I'm against the price.

    Its the price that is the issue, not the condo.
    Ditto. I'm all for more condos. But whether people will pay the $1 million plus, let alone $2.7 million for a the "prestige" of an uptown address (especially when they can get better deals elsewhere in the region) is another matter. Power to them if they can pull it off, but I'll be surprised.
  14. Urbanomicon's Avatar
    From Kitchener, Ontario | Member Since Feb 2010 | 981 Posts
    #52
    Quote Originally Posted by IEFBR14
    They no longer need or want the hassle of looking after their monster home and all that entails. Etc, etc, etc.
    I figure if they're rich enough to own a multi-million dollar home, they more than likely have a cleaning/maintenance staff to look after the grounds. I'm not sure this argument would work.
    "Only the insane have the strength enough to prosper. Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane."
  15. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Urbanomicon
    I figure if they're rich enough to own a multi-million dollar home, they more than likely have a cleaning/maintenance staff to look after the grounds. I'm not sure this argument would work.
    It does work. There are people in this world who want to switch to a more urban lifestyle, they DO exist... as otherworldly as it may sound. Especially in a region with such growth and opportunity, I'm quite confident there is a market for this type of developments.
  16. UrbanWaterloo's Avatar
    From Kitchener-Waterloo | Member Since Dec 2009 | 5,693 Posts
    #54
    August 26, 2010

    I can't wait to see the tower added to this view.




  17. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by mpd618
    I have to wonder whether parking requirements factored in to the decision to have very few units. The zoning is C2-12, and I believe that requires 1.25 spaces per unit. If the units were split into three each, the city would require about twice as much parking as their current plans, which would likely mean digging another below-ground level of parking or two. Currently they probably have just one.

    If any planners are reading this: get rid of the damn minimum parking requirements already! They are skewing our urban housing towards the luxury end, and preventing development of more affordable housing downtown instead of the suburbs.
    Fun stuff from the Zoning Bylaw (BLERGH):
    10.2.2.1 - Off-Street Parking - shall be provided at the rate of three (3) spaces for every one hundred (100) square metres of Building Floor Area except as required in Section 8.12.9.

    Mixed-use Buildings (This one should count as one, right?):
    10.2.5.2 - Each Dwelling Unit shall be provided with off-Street parking at the rate of one parking space for every unit.

    10.2.5.3 - Four (4) off-Street parking spaces provided to satisfy a requirement for residential Uses, may be considered to equal one parking space required to satisfy a parking requirement for a commercial or institutional Use.

    If there's ten units of dwellings, then we only need 10 spaces of parking for the residential component. Speaking to a professor earlier back in February, the city is likely to waive off off-street parking requirements for commercial and institutional uses (because of the large paking lots and the parking garage nearby), but they aren't likely to for residential uses.

    In a sense, the fact that's it ten units of expensive condos works in that a large portion of the space won't be dedicated to parking.
  18. IEFBR14's Avatar
    From H2OWC | Member Since Mar 2010 | 1,283 Posts
    #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Urbanomicon
    I figure if they're rich enough to own a multi-million dollar home, they more than likely have a cleaning/maintenance staff to look after the grounds.
    Sure they can afford it, but it's still a hassle. I know a lot of people, my wife and I included, who'd like the convenience of a condo apartment where we can simply go on a trip without having to arrange anything (stopping mail excepted.) You can't do that if you live in the boonies.

    In any case that objection, even if valid, doesn't address the other issues I mentioned. There's a need for high end retirement or near-retirement living.

    As for price, even a modest home in a nicer part of Toronto now sells for almost $1M or even more. And in Waterloo there are currently two condos in Bauer Lofts for sale listed at $900k each. There's also a couple of detached houses on Roslin Ave currently listed at $600k and $700k. That's hardly an exclusive part of town.
  19. From Waterloo, ON | Member Since Jan 2010 | 2,292 Posts
    #57
    Quote Originally Posted by DKsan
    Speaking to a professor earlier back in February, the city is likely to waive off off-street parking requirements for commercial and institutional uses (because of the large paking lots and the parking garage nearby), but they aren't likely to for residential uses.
    Of course, that's the really weird thing. For commercial and institutional, if people don't find parking on-site, the city has to deal with the demand for parking on or off-street in the vicinity. But for residential, if you choose a unit without a spot, you're not bringing a car.
  20. IEFBR14's Avatar
    From H2OWC | Member Since Mar 2010 | 1,283 Posts
    #58
    Quote Originally Posted by mpd618
    But for residential, if you choose a unit without a spot, you're not bringing a car.
    Until you sell the unit and the buyer needs a parking spot. Maybe a generation from now that won't be such a big issue but it certainly is today. Few people, even if they live in Uptown, can walk to most amenities and have access to public transit for the rest, are willing to forgo a car altogether. And especially if they have a $1M+ to spend on a condo in the first place.
  21. From Waterloo, ON | Member Since Jan 2010 | 2,292 Posts
    #59
    Quote Originally Posted by IEFBR14
    Until you sell the unit and the buyer needs a parking spot.
    If you're selling the unit, you're selling a unit without a parking spot. That means you paid less for it, and that means it costs less to whoever is buying -- and if they need a parking spot, they're going to go somewhere else. If you need a two-bedroom condo, you're not going to buy a one-bedroom one and then look for a place to stash a second bedroom.

    Few people, even if they live in Uptown, can walk to most amenities and have access to public transit for the rest, are willing to forgo a car altogether. And especially if they have a $1M+ to spend on a condo in the first place.
    Whether or not you personally are part of a market for a condo without parking (or for a one-bedroom condo), there is such a market. Given the opportunity, developers will figure out what that is. The city has no business dictating that there ought not to be such a market.

    I'm not talking about people who would buy a $1M+ condo. My point is that per-unit parking requirements seriously skew housing development in favour of higher square footage and higher prices. Each underground space costs $30-40K. That has a higher impact on lower cost units, and with a per-unit requirement, that's two incentives to build fewer, larger units.
  22. From West-South-West Kitchener | Member Since May 2010 | 1,589 Posts
    #60
    Quote Originally Posted by mpd618
    Whether or not you personally are part of a market for a condo without parking (or for a one-bedroom condo), there is such a market. Given the opportunity, developers will figure out what that is. The city has no business dictating that there ought not to be such a market.
    Precisely. The market should be allowed to determine what sort of parking residents need, this rule is completely pointless. Especially within a city and region that are looking to increase density.
of 11