Let’s start out by saying that there are many good things about the Krug project. It brings badly needed density to our city, preserves a historic building, and will help rejuvenate the downtown. The neighbours are not against the project, but they have some major concerns. They wanted concessions from the builders.
Henroy Bailey spoke for his family, who have lived 40 years in the Krug neighbourhood. He said he appreciated need for housing, but the sheer size of the ten story building dwarfs their neighbourhood. The aesthetics of having a 37-meter building next to family homes does not respect the aesthetics of the area. He asked councillors to consider how truly huge a ten storey building is, and to think about the impact of the exit road, which he believes will become a thoroughfare. The Baileys also asked for protection of the huge tree on their property, and asked for more trees for shade and privacy.
Robert Ritz presented his outline of the problems the City will encounter by accepting this project with no modifications. He’s an architect, and had good things to say about the design, but he does not see it as responsible intensification. Ritz believes the project lacks respect for neighbourhood and for the City itself, and will set a precedent that threatens every home in Stratford. Ritz spoke approvingly of the efforts of Council to demand respect from all participants at Council meetings, and suggested that developers should also be held to showing respect for neighbourhoods, particularly in regard to height and parking.
He was particularly informative on the 10-story tower: “It’s a bargaining chip to allow flexibility in building design. This project’s size requires it to be developed in stages, with a projected completion date of 2030. The existing building will be developed first, with the other 5-storey buildings to be developed later, along with the 10-storey feature. The 2030 date extends into the next term of council. Your decision as councillors will handcuff the next council to any precedent set with a decision made on this development.”
“It may go something like this: The developer approaches the next council in 2027, saying ‘We need higher density and taller buildings to make the project feasible.’ And since a ten-storey building was approved, they want the other buildings to become higher, or change the townhouses into apartment buildings. The next council is going to find it difficult to disagree with that, since this council has already set the ten-storey precedent: handcuffed.”
GCS’s Mike Sullivan was there, too, and he spoke about actions that a responsible City should be taking. There should be no greenhouse gases coming from the property, and each parking space should have a charging facility. Mike is also concerned that heat pumps are being disregarded in this project—heat pumps are now the same price as a gas furnace, and also serve as air conditioners. They run for the same cost, and as the Canadian government is actively working to remove gas heating from new builds, future owners may be forced to put in an extra heat source, instead of just getting it right the first time.
Noise will also be a problem, as the housing will be adjacent to CN’s railyard. The 10-storey building will be particularly vulnerable, and without heat pumps, provision needs to be made for air conditioning, as residents won’t be able to leave windows open. Mike had suggested the developer build a noise wall, bu that has apparently been dismissed by the builder.
The provincial policy statement requires a needs and alternatives test. There doesn’t appear to be one. Housing is supposed to be prohibited less tha 300 meters from the property line of a freight railyard. According to the developer, CN Rail is 117 meters from the site, while CN says the distance is actually 37 meters. CN asked for an answer on these issues, but as far as we know, none has been supplied. CN also expected a development agreement securing noise and odour mitigation to be executed before the City approved the zoning for this project, as well as an easement agreement regarding emissions from CN Rail. Staff apparently believes that the noise & odour issues can be handled at the site plan stage, but did not explain how it was possible to ignore CN’s demand for agreements before zoning approval. (Note that no councillor asked about the needs and alternatives test.)
The Krug project is a big concession — the city has taken some risks, doing the developer a big favour by allowing them to bypass zoning and parking regulations, and maybe environmental ones as well. Council also accepted this huge project at the speed of light: the plan was only introduced in April. The project will have a big effect on our city, so it’s not unreasonable for residents to expect councillors to stand up for them, and to get a few favours back, especially in quality of living and environmental issues.
Several councillors made speeches in favour of accepting the project as it is, tower and all — most notably Councillor Beatty, who argues that towers are the answer to our problems.
Councillor Beatty and the other councillors supporting the project don’t seem to understand the true nature of the objections from residents. No one is against the Krug project: the need for housing is urgent, and neighbours want to see sane development. However, many people want improvements in this deal. They want to see housing that respects the needs of residents, and they want to see shelter that offers Krug occupants room to breathe, a quiet place to think, and responsible parking and traffic. In such a situation, we look to our councillors to work things out for us.
Tuesday’s council meeting was certainly a disappointment in that regard. There was no question of a compromise over the unacceptably high density of the 10-storey tower. There were no motions from councillors to reconsider the parking density, to preserve or shade trees, or to think about environmental modifications to the plan that would doubtless save residents a great deal of money in heating and cooling costs and reduce unhealthy pollution with an easy transition to electric vehicles.
Councillor Sebben responded with the frustration that many of us are feeling these days, revealing what he believes to be the real problems our city is facing — a long history of sprawl into farmland, and a disregard for our Official Plan and our zoning bylaws, traditional tools for controlling our growth, coupled with a city budget that is out of control.
It’s a developer’s job to build the most profitable project they can. Blaming a developer for making a profit is like blaming a wolf for eating meat. However, we could use a few good guard dogs to make sure that some respect is shown to the residents of Stratford.
The recording of the meeting is here. See the accepted project as presented by Caroline Baker, at the 35-minute mark. Find the Krug design drawings here.
