Ontario Table and Chair, 19 fl, Proposed

[BusyBerliner]

The problem is the way Waterloo regulates density.

Rather than use a floor space ratio like most cities, Waterloo still has an old units per hectare cap in place from about 20 years ago, maybe more, that seems to have been completely overlooked when they did the height and density study.

The Waterloo density cap only restricts residential units, so if this structure was a 25-storey office building on the same site, it wouldn't be a problem. Similarly, if it was student-oriented housing with nothing but 4-bedroom units it also wouldn't be a problem. It's just a really dumb way to control density that treats a bachelor apartment the same as a 2500 SF penthouse. The only reason Bauer didn't have this issue is because it has office and retail uses that don't count.

I'm not certain, but I think this might be the first project to really have a problem. Most older apartment buildings have massive parking lots that water-down the density calculations and the new stuff near King and Columbia is mostly large student suites which means fewer units to count despite being a similar height.

oh, and thanks doing up the diagram Koops. Looks great!

[koops65]

Thanks. I'm regularly adding to the KW & Cambridge Diagrams now, hopefully there won't be any more gaps left in them soon. Can't wait for more new Proposals! We need more in Kitchener though, Waterloo is getting a ton of them lately, and they have these restrictions on height and density that Kitchener doesn't. (at least in the downtown core)

[WatDot]

Great work koops65. Thank you for it!
Get used to Waterloo though... Kitchener has too much land and no major synergies/communities to warrant height and density at the moment.

Originally Posted by WatDot

Great work koops65. Thank you for it!
Get used to Waterloo though... Kitchener has too much land and no major synergies/communities to warrant height and density at the moment.

Not to play the devil's advocate here, but I prefer downtown Kitchener in some ways. It's busier (in the day), has a wider spectrum of business for different income groups, is larger, and is used by a population other than yuppies and students. It just feels more...let's say...REAL!!

But even if you're right and demand is lacking in downtown Kitchener, the excess demand in Waterloo is bound to spill south of Union street.

[WatDot]

I won't argue the Uptown vs. Downtown dispute... I'll let the developments prove that.

Honestly though, I'd like to see more development in the Union area too, leading all the way to downtown. I'd like to see developments along this major corridor which would all benefit from and support a rapid transportation system. This "Park 144" project included.

[DHLawrence]

Given enough time, the distinction between Kitchener and Waterloo in the Victoria-Union stretch will be even weaker than it is now, and it will appear to be a seamless development. (I hope CTV gets a better building out of it; the sight of a transmission tower on top of a boarded up house doesn't send a really great message.)

[KW4Life]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

By the way, did you take pictures of NYC while you were there? If so, you should post them under "My City Photos" in the main menu of SSP. I'd be really interested to see them.

I finally put up a few shots of Manhattan from my trip.

Buildings around Manhattan

[BusyBerliner]

The key piece along this corridor will be the sunlife parking block. If something ambitious happens there, the whole corridor will likely follow.

Hopefully once the LRT line and station are built, the City will have a good enough reason to relax the parking requirements for the sunlife tower to free up this site for redevelopment. The only way I can see it happening sooner is if sunlife is willing to build a massive structure towards Park St. to free up the King St. frontage.

EDIT - Does anyone know how to change the name of this thread? Should be 144 Park St. / 67 m / 19 fl / Proposed

Also, nice pics.. exactly how I imagine this neighbourhood after its been 'manhattanized'

[DHLawrence]

Edit the first post you made at the start of the thread, and it should change the title of the whole thing.

[koops65]

I'm interested to know where you got that 67 metre figure for the height. I drew the Diagram at 63 metres. (purely a guess)

[notmyfriends]

Originally Posted by BusyBerliner

The key piece along this corridor will be the sunlife parking block. If something ambitious happens there, the whole corridor will likely follow.

Hopefully once the LRT line and station are built, the City will have a good enough reason to relax the parking requirements for the sunlife tower to free up this site for redevelopment. The only way I can see it happening sooner is if sunlife is willing to build a massive structure towards Park St. to free up the King St. frontage.

EDIT - Does anyone know how to change the name of this thread? Should be 144 Park St. / 67 m / 19 fl / Proposed

Also, nice pics.. exactly how I imagine this neighbourhood after its been 'manhattanized'

Sun wanted to and wasn't allowed. With the restrictions that were put on th land, and what buildings they aren't allowed to knock down, etc, I can't imagine they'd be in a hurry to help the city without getting major funding for said parking structure.

[BusyBerliner]

Originally Posted by koops65

I'm interested to know where you got that 67 metre figure for the height. I drew the Diagram at 63 metres. (purely a guess)

I got a look at the elevation drawings. Its actually proposed for 67.6 m (including the rooftop cap). The ground floor and some of the upper floors have higher ceilings.

[koops65]

Thanks, thats great info. If possible, can you post the info here? or pix of it somehow? I'll modify the Diagram too...

[BusyBerliner]

Originally Posted by koops65

Thanks, thats great info. If possible, can you post the info here? or pix of it somehow? I'll modify the Diagram too...

I just looked at a hard copy. If I can get a digital version I'll be sure to post.

I do remember that the townhouse podium is 11 m tall and the rooftop cap is 5.5 m.

[Masonjar]

Originally Posted by BusyBerliner

I just looked at a hard copy. If I can get a digital version I'll be sure to post.

I do remember that the townhouse podium is 11 m tall and the rooftop cap is 5.5 m.

Where did you get to look at the elevations? Are there floorplans available?

[BusyBerliner]

I just know someone that's been involved with the project (insider ). The city should have the drawings though so you could just ask someone in the planning department to view the proposal or to get added to the consultation list.

[koops65]

144 Park diagram has been updated...

[ForestryW]

I don't think this has been posted yet...

Detailed site plan from the City of Waterloo website:

Link

From what we've seen so far I'd say this project couldn't be more suited to the location. I hope it gets built and I hope it sets a precedent for the Barrel Yards development.

Looks like this area has a lot of potential:



That's a map showing (I) the Bauer Lofts, (II) 144 Park, and (III) the Auburn-owned lot on Alexandra that presently is involved in a land use change application (see this thread).

I imagine the develper behind 144 Park will do something about the ugly gravel lot beside it (IV), even if there isn't any indication of that yet. I'd like to see something done with the parking lot on the other side of the Iron Horse Trail (V), which I suspect is owned by Clarica. I'd also like to see some development on the parking lot on the North corner of Caroline/Allen (VI), which is owned by the community centre and the Brick Brewery. Obviously this is a long way off, if it happens at all, but a man can dream.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

Originally Posted by van Hemessen

I'd like to see something done with the parking lot on the other side of the Iron Horse Trail (V), which I suspect is owned by Clarica.

Interestingly enough, the same developer doing the Bauer Lofts (Laurence Development LP) owns this parking lot as well, not Clarica.

[Bauer_buyer]

pWhen we purchased into the Bauer complex we were told that the lot in question (lot V) was to be used for extra surface parking. The piece of land is irregular and not too large, probably why it's slated for surface parking.

If and when 144 Park is built, the tree levels of garage parking will abut close to the "Iron Horse Trail"...the complex will need some green space, a buffer if you will, and it certainly will be welcome by those who use the trail and not intimidated by the proximity of the garage. Safety is an issue as well. There is also a concern that some open space is necessary to address environmental/aesthetic isues.

What is interesting is lot V1, the parking lot behind the community centre.
The land and building are underused and if a new multi story structure were to be built on the site then the seniors centre could be incorporated into the new structure as well as underground parking and certainly other retail/commercial/residential uses.

Since Laurence Developments is part owner of the "Brick" who knows what possibilities exist for the entire area.

Finally we are looking at the corner opposite 144 Park (lot11). There is a new player on the scene who wants to build some townhouses from the neighboring Chippendale Townhouses around the bend( Park St. ) to that ugly metal shack on Park St.The only holdup appears to be the corner house where the owners are asking for an exorbitant price for the dwelling. In the meantime residents have had to live with the rundown mess of homes for years.
This corner is suffering and is often overlooked by many "skyscraper" members who are extremely "height conscious" and nothing else.
I admire the concerns echoed over the "barrel lands" couldn't agree more but there are other areas which need our attention as well.Thanks.