Proposed Riverfront Condominiums | 25 m | 8 fl

[RangersFan]

Neighbourhood to meet on Cambridge condo proposal
September 21, 2010 | Record Staff

CAMBRIDGE — Plans for a pair of eight-storey condominium towers overlooking the Grand River will be presented at a neighbourhood meeting Tuesday.

Options for Homes wants to build 182 condominium units on the former CMC factory property at 155 Water St. S., just south of Concession Street.

The site has city zoning to allow multiple residential housing, but city staff aren’t happy with the way the buildings are proposed to be constructed parallel to Water Street.

The preliminary plans presented at city hall show two big buildings along Water Street, surrounded entirely by asphalt with a driveway to Ainslie Street. The only greenspace proposed is on the roofs, said planning commissioner Janet Babcock.

The developer has built projects in other cities with greenspace for residents to use, she said.

Babcock is also worried about nearby homes on Ainslie Street being in the shadow of the towers in the late afternoon.

The city has some control over details of how buildings are constructed, under site plan rules.

Company officials will present their plans in the foyer of new City Hall, 50 Dickson St., starting at 7 p.m. The public is welcome to attend, ask questions and offer comments.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

While I do like the sound of that on one hand...on the other hand, it has some justification for NIMBY. Just picture yourself living in a townhouse that backed onto one of those buildings. Not exactly possible to have much of a buffer there either. People could see right into your backyard with no difficulty whatsoever. And in any case, the site will need some major remediation before anything gets built.

[DHLawrence]

I'll grant them that accessible greenspace isn't in abundance down that end of Water Street, but I'm not sure that eight storeys is appropriate for that block. Knock two or three off and then we'll be in business.

[UrbanWaterloo]

It was quite a feisty meeting tonight at Cambridge City Hall. Concept A is preferred by the developer, Concept B is preferred by the city. More photos/commentary to come...

Neighborhood Meeting - September 21, 2010

[Spokes]

Interesting looking project. Could really help Galt.

What were the arguments for A vs B?

[mpd618]

But no concept with less pavement?

[DHLawrence]

One would think that the developer and the Grand Lofts(?) developer would work together on a common parking strategy to avoid duplication of efforts.

I'm quite fond of plan B. Gives some room between the buildings to develop later on. All the same, there doesn't really to be all that much difference between the two. Either way you look at it, they're building mid-rises with acres of surface parking.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

At least from what can be seen in the renderings, the design says "typical 1970s apartment buildings".

As for the people complaining about the design including lots of surface parking...you're right. However, this is actually pretty far from where the commercial core of downtown Galt is located, so it's not really breaking any continuity between streetwalls.

It's pretty amazing to think that the entire block was until recently nothing but an abandoned industrial wasteland of blight. Once these projects are finished, it will be home to several hundred people. I guess we can't complain about the change.

[Galtonian]

I personally prefer plan B but would like to see more green-space and some underground parking. If this goes through this would be good to anchor the South gateway and to re-create some density in this side of downtown. After the flood of 1974 a large amount of housing and buildings were damaged and most of them were demolished. These actions ripped out the urban heart of Galt. The downtown was really large before and with all these new developments we will hopefully see more momentum in the rebirth of this central business district.

[Spokes]

When is this being decided?

[Spokes]

Realistically, what differences do people see between proposal A and B? The site's the same size, so are the buildings, it's just their alignment, so what's the difference? Maybe Im missing something?

[DHLawrence]

Lighting. Proposal A is a solid wall of building that blocks sunlight out on the east side of the lot, but Proposal B opens it up so that more light flows between the buildings.

[Spokes]

Ahh yes, that makes sense. Hadn't thought of that.

Is the remainder of the space surface parking?

[DHLawrence]

I think they plan to do a 'tower in the park' thing, but aside from parking there won't be too much in the way of amenities. For now at least--that land will be too valuable not to build on sooner or later.

[KevinL]

I think they plan to do a 'tower in the park' thing

And 40 years of architecture innovation gets ignored again. Sigh.

[Spokes]

I think they plan to do a 'tower in the park' thing, but aside from parking there won't be too much in the way of amenities. For now at least--that land will be too valuable not to build on sooner or later.

Ya it definitely is, especially as the Grand Condo project nears completion. The public space is nice, the lack of amenities, not so much.

There would definitely be the demand there as the projects finish up.

[Spokes]

And 40 years of architecture innovation gets ignored again. Sigh.

How do you mean?

[KevinL]

I've never seen the appeal of the tower-in-the-park model, and repeated analysis says it's flawed. Yet they keep building them...

[Spokes]

Im not arguing what you're saying, but how is it flawed?