Cambridge councillors debate over possibility of 28-storey building in Galt

Residents and councillors are pointing out potential problems with a proposed high-rise tower in Cambridge. CTV’s Jeff Pickel reports.

In a public meeting on Tuesday evening, City of Cambridge council discussed a proposed residential building that would bring hundreds of additional units to the community.

Scott Patterson of Patterson Planning Consultants represented a developer at the council meeting and brought the idea forward to councillors.

He said a 28-storey high rise could bring 328 residential spaces as the Waterloo Region grows closer to a population of one million people.

Patterson said the building could be placed in the lot of 32 Grand Avenue South, 36 Grand Avenue South and 38 Grand Avenue South, as it has a space of 2,044.8 square metres.

The three properties currently held offices, with one building using the second floor as a residence.

Patterson proposed that of the 328 units, 274 of them could be one-bedroom or bachelor spaces, while 54 could be two bedrooms.

For parking, 150 parking spaces were proposed for the development, including visitor spaces, with an additional 16 for the existing restaurant at 44 Grand Avenue South.

For those who ride bicycles, Patterson proposed 83 sports for indoor bike parking, with an additional 6 spaces outside.

Unit concerns

Coun. Helen Shwery asked Patterson if there was any research done in terms of the plan to have the building mostly hold one-bedroom and bachelor units.

He said there wasn’t any conducted.

“My client is a developer who does a lot of projects, a lot of residential projects and commercial projects,” said Patterson. “I believe they understand the market just through the history of their development, so I’m taking their lead on the design of the building and the type of units they’re including.”

Jan Liggett, Cambridge’s mayor, said she isn’t sure if the project is what the city needs when it comes to the type of units it has.

“So that’s for a cost efficiencies for building. But that’s not what the public needs because the housing needs, assessment shows that that’s not what’s needed. Three, four-bedroom units is what’s really needed by the public,” Liggett said, the day after the meeting.

Parking concerns

Patterson said more one-bedroom and bachelor units could mean less need for parking spaces.

“The benefit of one-bedroom units is it actually decreases the parking demand. That’s been my experience. When you go to two-bedroom units the parking demand actually goes up, which exacerbates the perceived traffic impacts,” he said.

Despite this, Patterson faced some questions towards the parking to unit ratio from councillors.

“We do represent the large part of the community which is made up of a lot of families,” said Coun. Adam Cooper. “On the flip side of what you’re stating…it essentially puts up a barrier for the families that we also represent.”

Cooper added only four in 10 units would have a parking spot excluding any visitor parking.

Later in the council meeting, one delegate said thinking this parking plan was going to work was not realistic.

“One person does not mean one car,” she said.

As council moved on, they asked Patterson what the layout of parking would look like, with an inability to have underground parking due to bedrock.

He said the proposed building will not see full floors of parking in the building’s podium.

“There is a mix of residential units incorporated with the parking. It’s not just six floors [in the podium] of straight parking,” said Patterson. “There are residential units that actually are intertwined with the parking to provide that façade that has active space. That’s an urban design factor where you don’t just have the parking levels. You actually intertwine the residential.”

With this layout, Coun. Mike Devine said carbon dioxide levels could be a “huge issue.”

“If we’re going to have residence and parking on the same floors how are we going to handle the CO2 problem,” he asked.

Patterson said during any future construction, this issue would have to be worked through with an architect.

“I can’t speak to it myself but it is something, yes, we will have to address,” said Patterson.

Issues on maintaining Galt’s historical look

With Galt’s historical landscape, Coun. Sheri Robberts asked what protections would be in place for the heritage homes near the development to ensure they weren’t damaged.

Patterson said the onus would be on the developer to ensure the surrounding buildings and area was not impacted by construction.

Still, some delegates were concerned about the historical look of the community being damaged.

“If we continue to tear down what makes Galt beautiful and historical and one-of-a-kind, we will be a concrete jungle like other boring cities,” said Carrie Thomas.

She also added that Galt was known for its charm, as seen through some film shoots that have taken place in the area.

“It’s why Galt is Galt. [It’s] rich in history and culture,” she added.

Chair Nicholas Ermeta did share his thoughts on the development and said he could not support it due to the unrealistic parking plan as well as the historical aspect.

“This is a very prime location downtown and having excellent design is paramount,” he said.

He also mentioned that while staff continue to look into the proposal, he wanted them to think about the potential for different unit types.

No decisions were made for the project by the end of the meeting.