Wonderful Waterloo Archive

This site is maintained by Sam Nabi as a record of the vibrant Wonderful Waterloo community, which was taken offline in 2014. This site is a partial archive, containing some posts from 2009-2013. To read more about the recovery effort and access the data in a machine-readable format, check out the GitHub page.

It Looked Good at the Time.

Post #43606 Unknown date Unknown Author	This Urban Issues building review in the Toronto Star does not have a direct parallel with any particular development in our area. http://www.thestar.com/business/real...es_no_joy.html Its suggestions about context and connection could be applied to projects in parts of our towns which still have context. The characterization of the the “painful anonymity of the architecture” does seem to stick to a number of undertakings in the Waterloo Region, where choice and visible development parcels are being quickly snapped up and occupied by mediocre structures. But to veer away from the temptation to apples and oranges comparisons, what struck me was not the article itself, but the comments below it from readers. Of particular interest were those by people who had initially been attracted by the novelty of the development, but had soured on it when a few years had given them perspective and the novelty had worn off: "When i first moved to Liberty Village for work in 2007 I was blown away. It was such a breath of fresh air. New small businesses moving in, a reasonable number of new developments and the bare essentials to serve them - a supermarket, blockbuster video, a couple bars/restaurants/coffee shops etc, with green space and relatively calm quiet sidewalks with a reasonable density. I hate it there now, it completely sucks. It went from one of my favorite to my absolute least favorite part of the city in 4-5 years. The traffic is a nightmare, the noise and added congestion from construction is brutal." "Over the last 7 years I have watched Liberty village degrade into an absolute disaster. I once spent a great deal of time in that area, going to the gym, groceries, and bars there. And what once was a charming little enclave has degraded into ugly high density, high traffic mess. I feel sorry for anyone who had bought a condo there only to watch the neighborhood turn into its present state." "I checked out Liberty Village back in 2007, at that time there was one condo up, and all the others were planned. The mock-ups in the sales office all looked so nice and shiny. Bliss was one of the condos I was considering. Driving past on the Gardiner now - wow. Just wow. As said, an ugly ghetto of identikit high-rises, complemented with cheaply made townhomes with ridiculously thin walls. I imagine this is what St. Jamestown looked like back in the glory days. I would hate to live there in the shadows of the towers around you, your once unobstructed view of the lake now 40ft away from someone else's bedroom window." "Liberty Village had a golden period about 5 years ago where it seemed like the revisioning of this area was working - was well thought and well executed. Then came the wall of condos on the south side of the development and it became clear that it was all about cramming as many units into the afforded space as possible with no regard for aesthetics. Liberty Village is now an ugly ghetto of high rise dreck -- a joke played on this formerly handsome area. It doesn't matter how many chic resto-bars inhabit the old warehouses and factories, the wall of monstor condos has spoiled the soup. Oh well, at least the developers and estate agents have gotten rich, and that's what is important in Toronto these days, isn't it?" So the legitimate cautionary message from the city which is a bit “ahead” of us is that not every crane is in retrospect a good news harbinger. We still have the opportunity to get some things right here if approval bodies dig in their heels and resist the call of the crane on occasion. Which projects here do you think will stand the test of time, and which will soon be regretted?
Post #43607 04-13-2013 09:29 PM Unknown Author Metropolis Member DOWNTOWN Joined Mar 2010 1324 posts	I have my doubts about Barrelyards. I think that despite the eventual density, there may be a certain suburban sameness about the development. I don't get the sense that it will be very animated at street level.
Post #43608 04-14-2013 01:16 AM Unknown Author Town Member Joined Dec 2009 481 posts	Originally Posted by panamaniac I have my doubts about Barrelyards. I think that despite the eventual density, there may be a certain suburban sameness about the development. I don't get the sense that it will be very animated at street level. I think the point in the comments that eizenstreit posted and that you're getting at is that density ought not to be a goal in itself: it's got to be well-planned density. Actually, the comments sort of seem anti-density in general, which I'm not sure is a productive angle to take. I see density as being something that we will need to figure out how to do in the figure (rather than sprawl), although it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of massive towers. But I'm not sure what makes a development good. This is a discussion that's worth having...
Post #43610 04-14-2013 06:32 AM Unknown Author Urban Issues Moderator Joined Jul 2010 1260 posts	I also don't see that area of Toronto as particularly bad. While it is not about to win any architectural awards why single this part as opposed to any other one as being bad. In fact I think the low density in the central core of T.O. is way more scandalous.
Post #43616 04-14-2013 12:25 PM Unknown Author City Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 584 posts Benjamin Bach \| Read my real estate investment blog Real Estate Sale Rep @ Cushman & Wakefield Waterloo Region Ltd. brokerage. Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by BuildingScout I also don't see that area of Toronto as particularly bad. While it is not about to win any architectural awards why single this part as opposed to any other one as being bad. In fact I think the low density in the central core of T.O. is way more scandalous. Have you spent time in and around Liberty Village since it has been fully built out? The write up seems pretty accurate. Which parts of the the central core of T.O. do you think has scandalously low density?
Post #43618 04-14-2013 01:51 PM Unknown Author Urban Issues Moderator Joined Jul 2010 1260 posts	Looking north from around Queen and Spadina the tallest building was three stories high. The current gridlock is just a natural result of having densities that low so close to the core.
Post #43633 04-15-2013 09:41 AM Unknown Author Hamlet Member Joined Mar 2013 2 posts	I think the gridlock in Toronto is due to the huge amount of jobs located in a small area, so that even if only 10% of people drive there, that's still a large enough number to cause problems. Of course, if the gridlock is only being experienced by 10% of the population (and mostly during rush hour), I don't see that as such a huge problem. The main problem with Liberty Village imo is that there's very few ways out of the place considering the huge and exploding population. I think Barrelyards has something like 1000-2000 units? Well Liberty Village will have something like 20,000 in a few years. There's only one street exiting LV to the East (East Liberty), none to the South and only King to the North. East Liberty is just a 2 lane street, not very well suited for huge amounts of traffic. King Street is maybe a bit better, but you still get held up by streetcars and most LV residents will still need to use East Liberty St to reach King. Transit is also inadequate, with only infrequent GO trains, not to mention that the Exhibition-Union section of the Lakeshore West route is by far the slowest, and the King streetcar is overcrowded and not very fast either, maybe the Waterfront streetcar is a bit better. The best option is almost certainly biking during rush hour. They are supposed to build a new street to Strachan at least, although Strachan will probably still be quite congested. It will probably be a long time before King's streetcar gets upgraded to a proper LRT or the Waterfront LRT gets build, and will probably be a long time before that section of Lakeshore West is sped up and has more frequent service, and will probably be a long time before the DRL is built, let along the Western part of the DRL (Eastern part seems higher priority atm).
Post #43638 04-15-2013 10:21 AM Unknown Author City Member Kitchener Joined Oct 2010 760 posts	Toronto is currently seeing the correction from 4 decades of over-construction of Commercial in the core. It used to have a balance of residential and commercial, but after the subways came in, residential moved out, and commercial intensified greatly. Now there's a new condo every other block, bringing residents back. As for the title, and how it applies to KW, I'd say that you're unlikely to find any member on the forum who would be universally supportive of any of the large projects under construction right now. Barrelyards is an inward facing parking garage. Many of the student towers are ruining potential for streetscapes on University and King. The level to which these developments are wrong makes the few adequate developments (Sage, Red) look downright outstanding. And nothing will change the relative merits. Red and Sage will simply always be better than so many of the projects we've been stuck with.
Post #43650 04-15-2013 02:10 PM Unknown Author Urban Issues Moderator Joined Jul 2010 1260 posts	I disagree with Memph. The problem is that the city is too flat and too big to begin with. Same problem as Chicago: because suburban land is cheap the city expands forever making the average commute hours long. Tighter densities with well placed LRT/subway lines go a long way towards reducing the length of the average commute.