I am writing in regards to the proposed new developments on the former Co-Operator’s daycare property. As you know, there are plans to erect a condominium tower of as much as 18-storeys on this lot, creating what has been described as a “gateway to downtown”. Far from being a gateway, I believe that a building of this size will form a barrier to downtown, both visually and physically. It will block sight lines to the core, especially to the Church of Our Lady, a defining feature of the Guelph skyline, and is out of character with the human-scaled architecture of downtown.
Wishing to get a better sense of the impact of such a development, I built a digital model. I based my model on a structure of 180 feet in height on the daycare property, with a building footprint of 106 x 130 feet. While this may not be the exact dimensions of the actual building, the intention was not to be precise but rather to model the impact of the structure on the skyline.
Newspaper articles about the project have quoted city staff and others as stating that the slope of the land will minimize the visual effect of the building height. My model places the new building at the lowest elevation of the property. Indeed, the impact is less than if the building were sited on higher ground, but as you will see from the images I have attached, the impact is significant. Each image is rendered from the perspective of a person 5’8″ from the ground using the actual topography of the downtown area.
I am not against higher density development in downtown Guelph. I believe that increasing residential density in the core is the best way to bring life back to the city center, but there are better ways to increase density than this. Few buildings in the downtown core or even at its periphery are more than four or five storeys. It is that very human scale that gives most of downtown Guelph a pleasant, walkable atmosphere. Spreading density across the core rather than placing it in a single location would produce a similar overall population density but would better maintain the character of the city center. Guelph needs more development like the new residences on the former Stuart Lumber yard or like the Matrix building at the corner of Woolwich and Eramosa, and fewer like the Cardigan Street apartments or the Park Mall.
The city should not be lured into accepting inappropriate development simply for the sake of increasing density on a single parcel of land. Guelph is growing fast, but that shouldn’t mean that the decisions guiding its growth should be hasty. Surely a developer could profitably build on the site in question at a smaller scale. Although it is tempting to embrace any new residential development, it is important that the character of downtown Guelph be preserved.
I hope that you will find the attached images useful. I trust that you will give appropriate consideration to this issue.RD
Proposed residential development downtown
Filed under Going Downtown, Growth
Now Available! Guelph City Council meetings are broadcast live online at 
Height equals profit equals tax revenue and increased density which the province wants. You’d think they’d have learned from the Cardigan street embarrassment. I just shake my head and moan. Maybe if all nearby residents moaned together …someone who actually cares about people over profits might listen.
TD
There is another side to this. I work with someone from downtown Toronto who is used to condo life. He says that condos are over-priced in Guelph and have very few amenities (i.e. pool, gym, party rooms, etc) because they are too small. He thinks that an 18 story building will be big enough to attract him and his wife to the downtown core—-which is where he wants to live.
I looked at your digital pictures, and frankly, I cannot see the problem. One thing that big condo towers will bring downtown, however, is a “captive” source of people who will shop downtown and who will be “canaries in the coal mine” to react against drunken hooliganism in the core on weekend nights. They will also be people who are able to live their lives without an automobile.
I think a lot of the opposition to condominiums comes from people who have single, detached homes and who are scared of anything that looks different from what they are used to. Guelph is a city, get used to it. If you want to live in a small town, move to one. I’m sick of the whining from people who want the amenities of a city but also want to live in “Hooterville”.
I have no problem with condos downtown. I do however have a problem with very high density and lack of greenspace. It looks like a concrete jungle now even without any high rise condos. party rooms and gyms in a high rises will not make up for greenspace with trees. I used to live in downtown Toronto and know how hot it is and how bad the local air quality can be because of all the pavement and and cars., It would be naive to think that the majority of people who relocate downtown and will not have a car.
Then there is the issue of the proposed grants and property taxe rebates for the developers. Just the grant back of development charges on 6000 residential apartments at $15,000 ( this $15,000 number is taken from Ian Pannabaker’s presentation last Monday night) each will equals $90 million
dollars shortfall in dowtown property taxes over the next 20 years if the proposed incentives to buils downtown are implemented. During the 10 years holiday from property tax reassessment this $45 million ( 1/2 of the predicted 6000 units) where will the city make up the shortfall? Cuts in services or increased property taxes? It has to come from somewhere!
The Woods property is already receiving a $7 million incentive and it is my understanding that if the new incentives are approved the developer will be eligible for more incentive money to build aprtment buildings. If there really is a market for condos downtown why should public money subsidize the profit driven development industry?
Laura – Further to the financial ends, to which you speak, is a thought that all those who might move downtown, would work downtown, act as the canaries in a coal mine, or even remain downtown and go without vehicles. These assertions maybe unrealistic. Guelph, to me, is a small town feeling trying to grow into a city status. The size or even the existence of these buildings is not what I would object to. I do object to the incentives that city hall feel necessary to attract such facilities. If the facilities were such a great deal, why wouldn’t they be built without us subsidizing to the tune of millions of dollars. Subsidize as such and even I would come and build.