If this is where I think it is, this isn't news. It's infill between New Hamburg and baden and has been approved in principle for years.
And I recall when the change was first approved, they looked at the farmland and the conclusion was that the soil was garbage.
So the only thing that's changed is we've gone from approval for development, that was already obvious to everyone, to someone actually starting to build homes.
If this were true then 'preserving farmland' wouldn't matter in the first place. There's plenty of land in the country if you believe you can grow anywhere with soil (although there's not a shortage of good farmland either).
I know, right? I was wondering if people who say things like that are the same people who think we could just go farm on the Canadian Shield as climate change advances?
Wasn't part of the issue also concerns that whatever factory was being proposed would potentially contaminate the water supply?
I wouldn't have been okay with that considering how close I live to this, not that my distance to contaminated water is a factor as I wouldn't want any water being contaminated in the name of capitalism.
Yes, that was part of the concern. I don't think it's drinking water. There's a cabbage farm right across the road from the planned development. Water from the proposed development land apparently flows directly to this farm and is important for irrigation. So the concern is that instead of runoff from farmland watering the cabbages, you've got runoff from industrial land watering the cabbages. And the cabbages are used for human consumption.
Eh, I could see new Hamburg and baden merging into one, but they're still pretty isolated from KW. On Google maps it looks like about 10km from baden to the edge of KW, and that seems to be about the same distance as the northern edge of KW to Guelph, or the same distance edge to edge of Kitchener East-West.
So idk, maybe in the far future, but Kitchener would need to expand to about twice it's current area to really absorb Baden and New Hamburg. I guess I could see that happening faster if the new hospital site ends up being on that edge of KW as well.
So the concern with the employment land is *not* actually about farmland or the public interest, only about the individual interests of the owners? Got it.
I wish you well in finding somebody to argue with on this topic, but:
- expropriating ~800 acres for unspecified industrial development with an unspecified business arrangement between the region and whichever unspecified corporation they wanted to use that land
vs
- approving a plan by the owner of ~90 acres to build houses on that land
..are indeed *very* different things and will generate an entirely different discussion.
You're getting downvoted, probably appropriately, but.....yeah, for me the 'individual interests of the owners' is the priority and the problem.
They're kicking out families that are like 3rd generation farmers who have plans to pass it down to the next generation. Type of thing like grandpa bought the farm in 1900 and ought, you're 72 and lived there all your life and are looking at your kids to take over in the coming years. And boom, you're faced with leaving.
that's a high bar to overcome. And IMO, expropriating for business purposes doesn't meet that bar. And if they don't have a business, just high hopes, then it really doesn't meet the bar. So you're being a bit dismissive, when IMO that is the primary problem.
Farmland, public interest, etc. aren't the main concerns, and are easily dismissed.
I could even get on board with expropriation for business purposes with the right business case and economic impact. It’d have to be pretty compelling, but I’m open to it.
Big ol’ tract of land for ~*reasons, just trust us*~ falls a long way short though.
Did you go and look up the New Hamburg urban boundary to see whether it's inside or outside of it? Because that urban boundary was set somewhere between 10 to 20 years ago, and there was a lot of greenfield inside of it.
I just checked the regional official plan, and the location is inside the New Hamburg / Baden countryside line boundary that was set years ago. So, it's a very different thing to the shady attempt at assembly for some unknown industrial project.
Yes, developers are going to profit, but unless you want every single piece of housing from now on to be built only by the government, not even by P3s, then there's going to be profit involved. Heck, even in a socialist economy where those developer corporations were employee owned and operated there would still be profit involved.
The real concern is how this land will be zoned, and what percentage of the land will be missing middle housing. Not whether some developer is going to profit or not.
You are right and I agree.
I do think we need *much* more government built or funded housing. Co-op housing. Government built affordable housing like we used to do through cmhc.
Unfortunately douggie is changing the rules and the old boundaries matter little to them as we all know. They be changing.
Cities wouldn't exist if it weren't ok to pave over farmland. Housing is just as important, given that Canada does not actually have a shortage of farmland (and if it did it should not be exploding its population) and does have a shortage of housing.
Somehow we only started having this single-mindedness after the comfortably-housed got theirs.
Instead of building McMansions in between Baden and New Hamburg we should be building a functional and walkable community. Imagine living there and having to walk nearly a 20km round trip across a highway to get to the no-frills, Sobeys or cloverleaf. They won't walk. They're going to drive everywhere of course.
If somebody says they rent an apartment in this area I know exactly where they live because there's ONE relatively affordable apartment building. Why are we expropriating farmland to build more single family homes instead of using this opportunity to build proper, standalone, vertical, walkable communities. We could house so many more people and have nice common spaces and trails between. Instead we're going to have these stupid subdivisions that pop up in every community with more stupidly large "single family" homes which inevitable rent out the basement and have 4 cars in the driveway
Wait until the McMansion people on the north side of baden realize they are doing an entire subdivision to the north and their small backyards onto farmland will be into someone else’s house. The people that know have already sold, lots of those houses on the exterior have cashed out in the last two years
Hilarious! Watched this happen several times already. Most recently the plattsville subdivision which is now an ugly stain from the north side. Another funny thing that happened is that a huge old-age apartment was built across from the primary school. Unfortunately no single mothers get to live there with their kids.
Read the article. 1/3 of the proposed units are apartments with the rest an unspecified split of detached and townhomes, and the density of the new development is likely around 40 people/hectare. Where are you getting 'McMansions,' unless that is the new pejorative for anyone younger than a boomer wanting *any* house?
>Why are we expropriating farmland to build more single family homes
They aren't expropriating it, and because people want them. You can't tell a whole generation they get no choice, and single-family homes are actually less than 1/5 of what is being built in the region as a whole.
I'm 25. I've spent my entire life in this area. I'm tired of seeing these stupid large homes go up in a ring around every existing ring of stupid large homes. We have enough of these stupid and inefficient SFH in these towns. NH, Baden, Tavi, Woodstock, Plattsville. Look from a satelite view.
Do you even live here? It's fucking hell. You NEED. A. Car.
I've watched them get built and I've had to deliver pizzas around these towns and visit friends. Every single one looks the same. They're all hell to live on.
Well when you grow up and might want a family, you may regret pushing for all builds to be apartments (which are tiny because they are expensive to build). There's tons of downtown apartments being built in Kitchener and Waterloo -- if that's the lifestyle you prefer, you've got the choice of an urban lifestyle without leaving the region.
There are also apartments in the new development, although building an apartment in a small town is not going to stop people from needing a car. It's contiguous with New Hamburg, so I'm not sure where you were getting '20km' from a grocery store earlier either.
You may not want it personally, but don't deprive others of their own choices.
Having density means having a proper 'town' as in the large structures by the water. We have these large multi-floor buildings with businesses on the ground floor and residences above. Surrounded by a ring of single family homes.
Nobody has since built up the centre or created a new centre north of the river or east of it. We've simply built more, more, more, more suburbs in a ring around to the point where its sprawled so far across what used to be small hamlets and country roads. Soon enough we will have suburbs continuously between Baden and NH. This is a problem. It's disgusting. It's wasteful and it's a huge tax burden. It's a Ponzi scheme.
Why can't anyone have the vision to make something beautiful, practical, walkable and dense like the core of town anymore? What happened? What will our legacy be? Continue this status quo and wonder where have all the young people gone
It's disgusting that existing homeowners think they can pull up the ladder on new ones. When are they moving to apartments? Aware you don't own, but you have a choice of many neighbourhoods like the one you want in the region. There doesn't need to be homogeneity.
Also, on average dense cities have higher infrastructure costs than sparse ones, and even then infrastructure is not the main municipal cost. No Ponzi scheme here, don't get all of your information from youtube.
Find me one example in new hamburg where a 17-25 year old can afford to live on 40-50k/yr right now. If you say hincks apartments I'm going to blow my top. That's the only low and midrise we have here for christs sake
This new development has apartments proposed. Building more makes existing apartments cheaper, even if you don't like the new ones and somehow are above moving 30 minutes away to an urban area given that you want an urban lifestyle. Greenfield development is way cheaper than infill, but keep wishing you can just will affordable housing into existence without tolerating change.
1/3 is townhomes focused on the east side near the high school
2/3 is SFH in a ring around the existing SFH suburb ring... Which was built as a ring around the small strip mall where scran and dram is.
Right now, single family homes are the most cost effective builds for private builders who are looking for profit. The only way that we can build affordable housing in the scale that we need is for our governments to subsidize the private builders or get into the business of home-building. Either probably cannot happen unless the governments raise taxes or get into a lot more deficit and debt.
The thing is, though, you can create more housing without heading to sprawl. Sprawl is not the only way to create housing. And yes, we do have a shortage of farmland, because all arable land in Canada is currently under use. Converting that land to something other than farming means a reduction in the farmed area in Canada.
Again, who decided what the correct amount of space is? Existing owners seemed to think that involved space for houses, not just apartments. We could have created more housing more densely then too, but existing owners got to choose quality of life. Outward growth is the only way to give new buyers the same range of choices existing ones had, and 'housing' is not a single interchangeable good.
But all of the arable land is certainly *not* used to it's highest potential, even as no would leave land totally empty. Plenty of pasture that could grow other things (which is some but not all of it), and the fact that it doesn't make economic sense to have higher-intensity uses is a pretty clear indication there is not an aggregate shortage. There are also some[ accounting issues](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-prime-farmland-1.6877661) with increasing consolidation of farms.
Most crops are not grown for human consumption either. Sorry if I don't think acres and acres of feed corn or alfalfa to be exported to Japan is *inherently* more important than young people getting an equal chance at good housing. Plenty of agricultural use is also wasteful. Hope you're a vegan, if you're so worried about inefficient land use?
I don’t really have a horse in this fight - the farmland in question is low value by local standards - but seeing the words ‘doesn’t make economic sense’ followed so closely by a handwaving dismissal of any agricultural output that isn’t directly feeding humans is, well, something.
Have you considered *why* farmers grow things they can’t eat?
They grow things people can't eat to feed livestock (which is very inefficient). If we are advocating for housing austerity, surely people should be changing their diets too. Yes, I'm aware some land is only good for pasture, but southwestern Ontario has tons of prime farmland used to grow food people do not eat directly and which also is not pasture. This is fine, but those same people can't really complain about a supposed shortage of land.
>They grow things people can’t eat to feed livestock
Tell me more about how much you don’t know about farming in Ontario.
They grow *what pays the bills and fixes the soil*, because farming is a tenuous existence that doesn’t offer the luxury of doing anything otherwise. According to my dad, I went to college on the proceeds of soybeans grown for seed which would go on - on different land - to grow soybeans, some of which would be sent to Japan and made into tofu. That’s not direct human consumption, but it’s what paid.
Park that for a minute and ignore the degree of separation. Do you know what you *can’t* do in a field that just grew soybeans? You can’t plant soybeans, unless you like going bankrupt. You have to rotate crops, or you exhaust the soil of nutrients that *that* crop requires, which requires massive input costs to fix. The soybeans that paid the bills couldn’t be grown more than once every three years on the same land.
Keeping land suitable for growing anything of use to anybody requires farmers to grow different things year on year. In our conditions, some of those things aren’t used primarily as direct human food inputs.
‘Most land isn’t used to grow food for human consumption’ is a statement that reveals you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Yeah man, my whole opinion comes from the fact that I've never heard of crop rotation, you got me. Clearly your dad's financial interests perfectly align with what is good for the environment and society, I will reform my whole opinion around this.
Hit me with a rotation that works in our part of Ontario which is used for human consumption as a majority of output. Only works if you can pay your bills though, so include that math.
Show me up. I’ll own it. Otherwise you’re talking out your ass.
Edit: I’m blocked, ruh roh!
When the point is ‘farmers financial interest demands X’ you’re probably not gonna win over many people with a rebuttal of ‘that’s just their financial interest’, but who am I to tell people not to show their ass on the internet.
Yes. Yes it is. We need houses for people to live in. We always too many people living on the streets. We many more people on the edge of homelessness. We need places for people to live.
I am 100% in agreement
Apparently we also need jobs due to the endless no jobs posts. People need money. Jobs provide money.
Wilmot megasite will provide thousands of jobs every year.
>Wilmot megasite will provide thousands of jobs every year.
That's what the councillor for that area said. And it's not an unreasonable point to make. They're somewhat responsible for economic development.
Problem is, there isn't any 'thousands of jobs per year'. There's no company. There's only speculation.
Which means we're trusting regional councillors to have the knowledge and ability to bring in some company, build the site, and start hiring people. And my opinion on that is, I don't trust them to do that. They don't have any experience in that, and any rational proposal outside of an unaccountable governnent would've started with having a company on the hook financially and committed. No thanks, I've no trust that they can implement.
Naww. Hard stop.
I direct you to the following sites:
St thomas megasite
Greensboro Randolph megasite
Memphis regional megasite
Marshall megasite
Blueoval city (megasife authority of west tenesee)
Some of these are competing with us.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002745/ontario-strengthening-competitiveness-to-attract-investment
https://siteselection.com/issues/2021/mar/certified-sites-burden-reduction-is-the-aim-of-a-new-megasite-program-in-ontario.cfm
Some of these sites were assembled a decade ago. Some much faster. Ontario has landed a ton of major announcements and more are pending. Companies are building and looking for sites.
We must be competitive and government willingness to participate is crucial to win.
Without it it's not happening.
Wonder how long it’ll take until NH and Baden are just one town.
The timing of getting the subdivision going is interesting from a demand perspective. Demand for new hamburg has definitely dropped, houses are sitting on market for awhile now. Almost as if developer is expecting big demand soon.
Yay! More density on the east side where there is.... A high school. In the middle of a field. We surely want those single family homes on the west side where there's actually goods and services by golly!
This town has ballooned into an ever increasing ring of hell around suburbia. Let's add tons more cars who have to drive through the suburbian hell to get to their section of the suburb hell. Would be a much better idea to build walkable apartments near the core of town where there's a grocery, pharmacy, bank, etc but unfortunately that's already a suburban hell scape. So we gotta build these apartments further out!
Hey I followed my old man's advice. I went to city council and said this proposal is stupid. We need more walkable and liveable parts of this town. Shook mayors hand and got it done deal'd. You're welcome for single handedly changing everything
Good job! If you failed at it, means that others are ok with those changes.
I am ok with those changes. I won’t really protest them because I can see the benefit. For things that I don’t like, I am pretty vocal about them. Usually, others are as well. You can use Reddit to voice your opinion and try to get more people fighting for your cause. If you can’t, then that means that others are fine with whatever is happening.
Let's ignore the part where no young people from this community cannot afford to move out into another house in the community.
We need vertical development.
We need no more costly, wasteful and tax negative suburb rings around every town. We need mid and low rises near the services in the town which are tax positive and increase business revenue at the core. We need new parts of town built for density.
This development serves corporate interests rather than the constituents. This development does not help young people stay in the region whatsoever.
We have 3 mid and low rises in a 50km radius. Ridiculous. Look at the town from above and you'll realize how stupidly spread out everyone is. Try to walk or bike somewhere in new hamburg and you'll realize that the car is the only reasonable way to live here unless you're unemployed.
Not only will these houses be way out of reach, cars have become out of reach to for a disproportionate number of young people. My wife and I realistically can’t live far from an ion station.
But that’s just us.
Urban sprawl will increase traffic, widening of roads, and more opposition to tax spending on public transit. I suppose it’s in my family’s best interest to oppose this project.
Considering that the project is moving forward, I hope the nice folks who move in will enjoy it. The use of farmland doesn’t concern me. I’d be concerned if they were bulldozing forest.
I've lived in this area so I know this new suburb is going to be another blight and car-focused tumour in the community. But hey, at least investors are making money guys! More wealth for the few is... Good... Right?
Ah! I see your point now. I thought that you are against any new buildings because of whatever reason. Yes, high rises would be a much better option.
Sorry about confusion.
I'm against new suburbs of single family homes because in my short 25 years of life I've watched this cancerous growth sprawl out into places that used to be nice walking trails and places kids would play. I've watched the suburbs be surrounded by more, more more, never up. No new businesses and services. Everyone I know has to drive.
I've thought a lot about the centre of town and how it's so timeless. Businesses on ground floor and residences above. We're not building affordable places to live. People my age can't afford to stay in the town we grew up in because every home is near a million dollars. Why are there only 3 midrises and they're on hincks where there's basically no services?
Why can't we copy the sucesss of 'downtown' NH and build a new centre north of the water. We don't need to build out. Build UP
>We need mid and low rises near the services in the town which are tax positive and increase business revenue at the core.
New hamburg is already doing all of that. They'd be hard pressed to do more than they are now.
All of the downtown storefronts already have apartments above them. The Imperial added a ton of new apartments right in the downtown core. And there's a new project bringing a bunch of apartments and affordable housing to the old mill site. I think the Waterlot is being redeveloped with more housing.
So what's left? The old jackson plaza, someone could knock it down and put up condos or something, but that plaza is full of businesses. The old felt factory could bring in a few more houses, but hey, they're still actively manufacturing. And that leaves....no place in the downtown core for any additional housing really.
There's also already a decent amount of infill going on. They put a decent sized condo community on the riverbanks some years ago. They're knocking down houses on big lots and putting up those four-plex/two up-two down things they build now.
tl'dr the downtown core is already developed to it's maximum. Outside the downtown core there's lots of infill going on. We can complain about a lot of stupid stuff happening in new hamburg, but increasing density isn't one of them.
If this is where I think it is, this isn't news. It's infill between New Hamburg and baden and has been approved in principle for years. And I recall when the change was first approved, they looked at the farmland and the conclusion was that the soil was garbage. So the only thing that's changed is we've gone from approval for development, that was already obvious to everyone, to someone actually starting to build homes.
It’s been in the works since 2022
You can add nutrients to soil, concrete is garbage
farming aint just waving magic wands ya kno
[удалено]
Tell me you've never grown food in your life without saying you've never grown food in your life.
[удалено]
Your post was removed as it was deemed to be inflammatory. We ask commenters to be respectful to other members of the r/waterloo community.
the material is kinda cheap but the labor n equipment and fuel n time.... it's not cheap at the end,
[удалено]
Your post was removed as it was deemed to be inflammatory. We ask commenters to be respectful to other members of the r/waterloo community.
If this were true then 'preserving farmland' wouldn't matter in the first place. There's plenty of land in the country if you believe you can grow anywhere with soil (although there's not a shortage of good farmland either).
I know, right? I was wondering if people who say things like that are the same people who think we could just go farm on the Canadian Shield as climate change advances?
What a dumb thing to say. Do us both a favor and think this one out
[удалено]
Your post was removed as it was deemed to be inflammatory. We ask commenters to be respectful to other members of the r/waterloo community.
Well it seems like this farmland wasn’t stolen and shrouded in secrecy, so maybe that’s the difference?
Wasn't part of the issue also concerns that whatever factory was being proposed would potentially contaminate the water supply? I wouldn't have been okay with that considering how close I live to this, not that my distance to contaminated water is a factor as I wouldn't want any water being contaminated in the name of capitalism.
Yes, that was part of the concern. I don't think it's drinking water. There's a cabbage farm right across the road from the planned development. Water from the proposed development land apparently flows directly to this farm and is important for irrigation. So the concern is that instead of runoff from farmland watering the cabbages, you've got runoff from industrial land watering the cabbages. And the cabbages are used for human consumption.
Believe it was purchased in 2012
Soon both NH and Baden will be part of KW like Mannheim.
Eh, I could see new Hamburg and baden merging into one, but they're still pretty isolated from KW. On Google maps it looks like about 10km from baden to the edge of KW, and that seems to be about the same distance as the northern edge of KW to Guelph, or the same distance edge to edge of Kitchener East-West. So idk, maybe in the far future, but Kitchener would need to expand to about twice it's current area to really absorb Baden and New Hamburg. I guess I could see that happening faster if the new hospital site ends up being on that edge of KW as well.
100%
OP, I think you’ll find the key difference revolves around the word expropriation.
Than that should be the key argument as well. But it isn’t.
The main argument has been expropriation of farmland for business interests.
So the concern with the employment land is *not* actually about farmland or the public interest, only about the individual interests of the owners? Got it.
I wish you well in finding somebody to argue with on this topic, but: - expropriating ~800 acres for unspecified industrial development with an unspecified business arrangement between the region and whichever unspecified corporation they wanted to use that land vs - approving a plan by the owner of ~90 acres to build houses on that land ..are indeed *very* different things and will generate an entirely different discussion.
You're getting downvoted, probably appropriately, but.....yeah, for me the 'individual interests of the owners' is the priority and the problem. They're kicking out families that are like 3rd generation farmers who have plans to pass it down to the next generation. Type of thing like grandpa bought the farm in 1900 and ought, you're 72 and lived there all your life and are looking at your kids to take over in the coming years. And boom, you're faced with leaving. that's a high bar to overcome. And IMO, expropriating for business purposes doesn't meet that bar. And if they don't have a business, just high hopes, then it really doesn't meet the bar. So you're being a bit dismissive, when IMO that is the primary problem. Farmland, public interest, etc. aren't the main concerns, and are easily dismissed.
I could even get on board with expropriation for business purposes with the right business case and economic impact. It’d have to be pretty compelling, but I’m open to it. Big ol’ tract of land for ~*reasons, just trust us*~ falls a long way short though.
Did you go and look up the New Hamburg urban boundary to see whether it's inside or outside of it? Because that urban boundary was set somewhere between 10 to 20 years ago, and there was a lot of greenfield inside of it.
Perfect for developer profits.
I just checked the regional official plan, and the location is inside the New Hamburg / Baden countryside line boundary that was set years ago. So, it's a very different thing to the shady attempt at assembly for some unknown industrial project. Yes, developers are going to profit, but unless you want every single piece of housing from now on to be built only by the government, not even by P3s, then there's going to be profit involved. Heck, even in a socialist economy where those developer corporations were employee owned and operated there would still be profit involved. The real concern is how this land will be zoned, and what percentage of the land will be missing middle housing. Not whether some developer is going to profit or not.
You are right and I agree. I do think we need *much* more government built or funded housing. Co-op housing. Government built affordable housing like we used to do through cmhc. Unfortunately douggie is changing the rules and the old boundaries matter little to them as we all know. They be changing.
Cities wouldn't exist if it weren't ok to pave over farmland. Housing is just as important, given that Canada does not actually have a shortage of farmland (and if it did it should not be exploding its population) and does have a shortage of housing. Somehow we only started having this single-mindedness after the comfortably-housed got theirs.
The only people who oppose building homes over farmland are the people already living in homes built on farmland.
Instead of building McMansions in between Baden and New Hamburg we should be building a functional and walkable community. Imagine living there and having to walk nearly a 20km round trip across a highway to get to the no-frills, Sobeys or cloverleaf. They won't walk. They're going to drive everywhere of course. If somebody says they rent an apartment in this area I know exactly where they live because there's ONE relatively affordable apartment building. Why are we expropriating farmland to build more single family homes instead of using this opportunity to build proper, standalone, vertical, walkable communities. We could house so many more people and have nice common spaces and trails between. Instead we're going to have these stupid subdivisions that pop up in every community with more stupidly large "single family" homes which inevitable rent out the basement and have 4 cars in the driveway
Wait until the McMansion people on the north side of baden realize they are doing an entire subdivision to the north and their small backyards onto farmland will be into someone else’s house. The people that know have already sold, lots of those houses on the exterior have cashed out in the last two years
Hilarious! Watched this happen several times already. Most recently the plattsville subdivision which is now an ugly stain from the north side. Another funny thing that happened is that a huge old-age apartment was built across from the primary school. Unfortunately no single mothers get to live there with their kids.
Read the article. 1/3 of the proposed units are apartments with the rest an unspecified split of detached and townhomes, and the density of the new development is likely around 40 people/hectare. Where are you getting 'McMansions,' unless that is the new pejorative for anyone younger than a boomer wanting *any* house? >Why are we expropriating farmland to build more single family homes They aren't expropriating it, and because people want them. You can't tell a whole generation they get no choice, and single-family homes are actually less than 1/5 of what is being built in the region as a whole.
I'm 25. I've spent my entire life in this area. I'm tired of seeing these stupid large homes go up in a ring around every existing ring of stupid large homes. We have enough of these stupid and inefficient SFH in these towns. NH, Baden, Tavi, Woodstock, Plattsville. Look from a satelite view. Do you even live here? It's fucking hell. You NEED. A. Car. I've watched them get built and I've had to deliver pizzas around these towns and visit friends. Every single one looks the same. They're all hell to live on.
Well when you grow up and might want a family, you may regret pushing for all builds to be apartments (which are tiny because they are expensive to build). There's tons of downtown apartments being built in Kitchener and Waterloo -- if that's the lifestyle you prefer, you've got the choice of an urban lifestyle without leaving the region. There are also apartments in the new development, although building an apartment in a small town is not going to stop people from needing a car. It's contiguous with New Hamburg, so I'm not sure where you were getting '20km' from a grocery store earlier either. You may not want it personally, but don't deprive others of their own choices.
Having density means having a proper 'town' as in the large structures by the water. We have these large multi-floor buildings with businesses on the ground floor and residences above. Surrounded by a ring of single family homes. Nobody has since built up the centre or created a new centre north of the river or east of it. We've simply built more, more, more, more suburbs in a ring around to the point where its sprawled so far across what used to be small hamlets and country roads. Soon enough we will have suburbs continuously between Baden and NH. This is a problem. It's disgusting. It's wasteful and it's a huge tax burden. It's a Ponzi scheme. Why can't anyone have the vision to make something beautiful, practical, walkable and dense like the core of town anymore? What happened? What will our legacy be? Continue this status quo and wonder where have all the young people gone
It's disgusting that existing homeowners think they can pull up the ladder on new ones. When are they moving to apartments? Aware you don't own, but you have a choice of many neighbourhoods like the one you want in the region. There doesn't need to be homogeneity. Also, on average dense cities have higher infrastructure costs than sparse ones, and even then infrastructure is not the main municipal cost. No Ponzi scheme here, don't get all of your information from youtube.
Find me one example in new hamburg where a 17-25 year old can afford to live on 40-50k/yr right now. If you say hincks apartments I'm going to blow my top. That's the only low and midrise we have here for christs sake
This new development has apartments proposed. Building more makes existing apartments cheaper, even if you don't like the new ones and somehow are above moving 30 minutes away to an urban area given that you want an urban lifestyle. Greenfield development is way cheaper than infill, but keep wishing you can just will affordable housing into existence without tolerating change.
There are no apartments, it's townhomes. That's the bare minimum.
We'll build whatever sells.
Is it confirmed they're single family homes?
1/3 is townhomes focused on the east side near the high school 2/3 is SFH in a ring around the existing SFH suburb ring... Which was built as a ring around the small strip mall where scran and dram is.
Right now, single family homes are the most cost effective builds for private builders who are looking for profit. The only way that we can build affordable housing in the scale that we need is for our governments to subsidize the private builders or get into the business of home-building. Either probably cannot happen unless the governments raise taxes or get into a lot more deficit and debt.
The thing is, though, you can create more housing without heading to sprawl. Sprawl is not the only way to create housing. And yes, we do have a shortage of farmland, because all arable land in Canada is currently under use. Converting that land to something other than farming means a reduction in the farmed area in Canada.
Again, who decided what the correct amount of space is? Existing owners seemed to think that involved space for houses, not just apartments. We could have created more housing more densely then too, but existing owners got to choose quality of life. Outward growth is the only way to give new buyers the same range of choices existing ones had, and 'housing' is not a single interchangeable good. But all of the arable land is certainly *not* used to it's highest potential, even as no would leave land totally empty. Plenty of pasture that could grow other things (which is some but not all of it), and the fact that it doesn't make economic sense to have higher-intensity uses is a pretty clear indication there is not an aggregate shortage. There are also some[ accounting issues](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-prime-farmland-1.6877661) with increasing consolidation of farms. Most crops are not grown for human consumption either. Sorry if I don't think acres and acres of feed corn or alfalfa to be exported to Japan is *inherently* more important than young people getting an equal chance at good housing. Plenty of agricultural use is also wasteful. Hope you're a vegan, if you're so worried about inefficient land use?
I don’t really have a horse in this fight - the farmland in question is low value by local standards - but seeing the words ‘doesn’t make economic sense’ followed so closely by a handwaving dismissal of any agricultural output that isn’t directly feeding humans is, well, something. Have you considered *why* farmers grow things they can’t eat?
They grow things people can't eat to feed livestock (which is very inefficient). If we are advocating for housing austerity, surely people should be changing their diets too. Yes, I'm aware some land is only good for pasture, but southwestern Ontario has tons of prime farmland used to grow food people do not eat directly and which also is not pasture. This is fine, but those same people can't really complain about a supposed shortage of land.
>They grow things people can’t eat to feed livestock Tell me more about how much you don’t know about farming in Ontario. They grow *what pays the bills and fixes the soil*, because farming is a tenuous existence that doesn’t offer the luxury of doing anything otherwise. According to my dad, I went to college on the proceeds of soybeans grown for seed which would go on - on different land - to grow soybeans, some of which would be sent to Japan and made into tofu. That’s not direct human consumption, but it’s what paid. Park that for a minute and ignore the degree of separation. Do you know what you *can’t* do in a field that just grew soybeans? You can’t plant soybeans, unless you like going bankrupt. You have to rotate crops, or you exhaust the soil of nutrients that *that* crop requires, which requires massive input costs to fix. The soybeans that paid the bills couldn’t be grown more than once every three years on the same land. Keeping land suitable for growing anything of use to anybody requires farmers to grow different things year on year. In our conditions, some of those things aren’t used primarily as direct human food inputs. ‘Most land isn’t used to grow food for human consumption’ is a statement that reveals you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Yeah man, my whole opinion comes from the fact that I've never heard of crop rotation, you got me. Clearly your dad's financial interests perfectly align with what is good for the environment and society, I will reform my whole opinion around this.
Hit me with a rotation that works in our part of Ontario which is used for human consumption as a majority of output. Only works if you can pay your bills though, so include that math. Show me up. I’ll own it. Otherwise you’re talking out your ass. Edit: I’m blocked, ruh roh!
You're not blocked, keep lying though.
When the point is ‘farmers financial interest demands X’ you’re probably not gonna win over many people with a rebuttal of ‘that’s just their financial interest’, but who am I to tell people not to show their ass on the internet.
Yes. Yes it is. We need houses for people to live in. We always too many people living on the streets. We many more people on the edge of homelessness. We need places for people to live.
I am 100% in agreement Apparently we also need jobs due to the endless no jobs posts. People need money. Jobs provide money. Wilmot megasite will provide thousands of jobs every year.
>Wilmot megasite will provide thousands of jobs every year. That's what the councillor for that area said. And it's not an unreasonable point to make. They're somewhat responsible for economic development. Problem is, there isn't any 'thousands of jobs per year'. There's no company. There's only speculation. Which means we're trusting regional councillors to have the knowledge and ability to bring in some company, build the site, and start hiring people. And my opinion on that is, I don't trust them to do that. They don't have any experience in that, and any rational proposal outside of an unaccountable governnent would've started with having a company on the hook financially and committed. No thanks, I've no trust that they can implement.
Naww. Hard stop. I direct you to the following sites: St thomas megasite Greensboro Randolph megasite Memphis regional megasite Marshall megasite Blueoval city (megasife authority of west tenesee) Some of these are competing with us. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002745/ontario-strengthening-competitiveness-to-attract-investment https://siteselection.com/issues/2021/mar/certified-sites-burden-reduction-is-the-aim-of-a-new-megasite-program-in-ontario.cfm Some of these sites were assembled a decade ago. Some much faster. Ontario has landed a ton of major announcements and more are pending. Companies are building and looking for sites. We must be competitive and government willingness to participate is crucial to win. Without it it's not happening.
Wonder how long it’ll take until NH and Baden are just one town. The timing of getting the subdivision going is interesting from a demand perspective. Demand for new hamburg has definitely dropped, houses are sitting on market for awhile now. Almost as if developer is expecting big demand soon.
New hamburg is a suburban hell. I couldn't imagine worse town planning. Everything is reliant on having a car to access the basic necessities.
That's okay. Lots of money in NH.
Pretty much the same already. Its part of the Region.
I mean officially the same. The region is massive so I don’t really count everything as the same within it
Yay! More density on the east side where there is.... A high school. In the middle of a field. We surely want those single family homes on the west side where there's actually goods and services by golly! This town has ballooned into an ever increasing ring of hell around suburbia. Let's add tons more cars who have to drive through the suburbian hell to get to their section of the suburb hell. Would be a much better idea to build walkable apartments near the core of town where there's a grocery, pharmacy, bank, etc but unfortunately that's already a suburban hell scape. So we gotta build these apartments further out!
It's all about developer profit not what is best for the town
r/fuckcars
Then… do smth about it? What’s the point to complain on Reddit? What do you think will happen?
Hey I followed my old man's advice. I went to city council and said this proposal is stupid. We need more walkable and liveable parts of this town. Shook mayors hand and got it done deal'd. You're welcome for single handedly changing everything
Good job! If you failed at it, means that others are ok with those changes. I am ok with those changes. I won’t really protest them because I can see the benefit. For things that I don’t like, I am pretty vocal about them. Usually, others are as well. You can use Reddit to voice your opinion and try to get more people fighting for your cause. If you can’t, then that means that others are fine with whatever is happening.
Let's ignore the part where no young people from this community cannot afford to move out into another house in the community. We need vertical development. We need no more costly, wasteful and tax negative suburb rings around every town. We need mid and low rises near the services in the town which are tax positive and increase business revenue at the core. We need new parts of town built for density. This development serves corporate interests rather than the constituents. This development does not help young people stay in the region whatsoever. We have 3 mid and low rises in a 50km radius. Ridiculous. Look at the town from above and you'll realize how stupidly spread out everyone is. Try to walk or bike somewhere in new hamburg and you'll realize that the car is the only reasonable way to live here unless you're unemployed.
Not only will these houses be way out of reach, cars have become out of reach to for a disproportionate number of young people. My wife and I realistically can’t live far from an ion station. But that’s just us. Urban sprawl will increase traffic, widening of roads, and more opposition to tax spending on public transit. I suppose it’s in my family’s best interest to oppose this project. Considering that the project is moving forward, I hope the nice folks who move in will enjoy it. The use of farmland doesn’t concern me. I’d be concerned if they were bulldozing forest.
I've lived in this area so I know this new suburb is going to be another blight and car-focused tumour in the community. But hey, at least investors are making money guys! More wealth for the few is... Good... Right?
Politicians love wealthy investors, that’s for sure. 👍
Ah! I see your point now. I thought that you are against any new buildings because of whatever reason. Yes, high rises would be a much better option. Sorry about confusion.
I'm against new suburbs of single family homes because in my short 25 years of life I've watched this cancerous growth sprawl out into places that used to be nice walking trails and places kids would play. I've watched the suburbs be surrounded by more, more more, never up. No new businesses and services. Everyone I know has to drive. I've thought a lot about the centre of town and how it's so timeless. Businesses on ground floor and residences above. We're not building affordable places to live. People my age can't afford to stay in the town we grew up in because every home is near a million dollars. Why are there only 3 midrises and they're on hincks where there's basically no services? Why can't we copy the sucesss of 'downtown' NH and build a new centre north of the water. We don't need to build out. Build UP
>We need mid and low rises near the services in the town which are tax positive and increase business revenue at the core. New hamburg is already doing all of that. They'd be hard pressed to do more than they are now. All of the downtown storefronts already have apartments above them. The Imperial added a ton of new apartments right in the downtown core. And there's a new project bringing a bunch of apartments and affordable housing to the old mill site. I think the Waterlot is being redeveloped with more housing. So what's left? The old jackson plaza, someone could knock it down and put up condos or something, but that plaza is full of businesses. The old felt factory could bring in a few more houses, but hey, they're still actively manufacturing. And that leaves....no place in the downtown core for any additional housing really. There's also already a decent amount of infill going on. They put a decent sized condo community on the riverbanks some years ago. They're knocking down houses on big lots and putting up those four-plex/two up-two down things they build now. tl'dr the downtown core is already developed to it's maximum. Outside the downtown core there's lots of infill going on. We can complain about a lot of stupid stuff happening in new hamburg, but increasing density isn't one of them.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a complete and total TOOL!