Three letters on Belmont Village: The goings on in Belmont Village are indeed a bellwether for how we discuss development

Belmont Village conversation: a bellwether for development in Waterloo Region

A high-quality development proposal on the edge of Belmont Village has repeatedly been the subject of tremendous criticism. Despite Belmont Village’s proclaimed character, warmth and friendly neighbourhood feel, the backlash against additional housing opportunities within the community is persistent. I can’t help but ask — why?

Many stakeholders and opinions shape the public rhetoric surrounding housing developments, especially within Belmont Village. However, over the past few years, it has become increasingly evident that NIMBYs (Not In My Backyards) are dictating the narrative of development in Waterloo Region. Bolstered by the media and a few conservative politicians, they represent the voice of the few.

With very little insight into the full development and planning process, as well as the positive impact intensification will have on the region, the basis of their arguments focuses on subjective feelings and misinformation.

Typically, NIMBYs are affluent individuals who bought their homes in core neighbourhoods many years ago for a fraction of today’s value. Their preference is to ignore that we are a growing region, desperate for housing of all kinds. They are protecting their past and do not care to recognize the housing needs of our future. The current housing crisis takes a back seat to “problems” such as highrise shadows, park congestion and more vehicular traffic.

When I first saw the redesign of the Zehr project in Belmont Village, I was blown away. It is esthetically beautiful and perfectly scaled. It’s a 10 out of 10 design, and I have told them so.

Skeptics will say I am a close friend of the Zehr family and, as a partner in Momentum Developments, a biased developer in my own right. Actually, that is true. However, as a friend, I know this proposal is a project intended to benefit the village over any thought of profit.

Ask any retailers in the village if they think more residential density is a good thing for their businesses. You don’t need an economics degree to answer that one.

Ask any young professionals looking to access career opportunities in Kitchener’s downtown core what type of housing they would need to enter the market. A condo in proximity to a booming tech centre is the obvious choice.

Or ask any families in the village if more pedestrian spaces, public gathering locations and access to key trail systems would better serve them. A development designed to improve living for new and current residents should be seen as a priority and welcomed with open arms.

As I push forward new development proposals in different areas of the region, I look to the Belmont Village conversation as a bit of a bellwether. How is our greater community going to treat the need for residential density? Are we going to open our arms to the thousands who need homes? What stance will our politicians take? How does society as a whole feel about growth?

The majority of arguments against development focus on height and calls for esthetic design, with little insight as to what would visually fit the bill. Only one solution seems to be provided within the bulk of these arguments — don’t build it here. This argument will continue to delay the essential growth and innovation our region desperately needs.

This is not your father’s Waterloo Region, so be careful about your objection to a very high-quality development proposal in Belmont Village. This is the future, and our community needs it.

Brian Prudham, Kitchener

___________________________________________________________________

NIMBYism isn’t driving opposition to Belmont project
Waterloo Region Record

24 Jan 2022

Opposition to highrise development is typically portrayed by financial stakeholders and their supporters as hysterical NIMBYism. This is flagrant projection.

The 660 Belmont Ave. W. debate is a prime example.

Fulsome dialogue with well-informed citizens reveals concerns rooted in housing equity, sustainable innovation and long-term value for the broader community. The proposal before council fails meaningful achievement in all these respects: affordability, inclusivity, innovation and sustainability are all absent.

Luxury condos are not needed in Belmont Village, but affordable family housing, rental options and green space development would be enthusiastically welcomed.

That the applicant and institutional enablers refuse to address these needs, choosing instead to ignore or misrepresent residents’ legitimate objections, speaks to the tacit NIMBY is inherent in profit driven planning. This, however, is conspicuously absent from the public discourse.

Such analysis, it would seem, is too long and complex a conversation to have.

Hélène Beaulieu, Kitchener

_________________________________________________________________________

Re: Belmont Village conversation a bellwether for development in Waterloo Region — Jan. 18

Waterloo Region Record

24 Jan 2022

In Belmont Village, our understanding is that by seeking amendments to the zoning bylaw and official plan, the developer is required to have neighbourhood consultations. Had their proposal complied, they would have avoided this process.

It is not a simple dichotomy of new building vs. no building as implied, but a discussion about how much the new building can deviate from zoning by engaging the community about their needs.

With so many new proposals requesting substantial amendments to zoning and official plans, the argument that volunteer neighbourhood groups are “dictating the narrative of development” seems disingenuous at best.

Mr. Prudham is privileged to play a large role in how the region evolves. We hear his frustration as someone who is creating housing so desperately needed, but little is gained by disparaging those with less privilege seeking a voice at the table.

The Belmont conversation is certainly becoming a bellwether for how intensification is discussed; we hope that others will not take polarized stances and use a more respectful tone. An “us vs. them” approach is a losing proposition for everyone, and makes it difficult to find common ground.

The region is evolving quickly, but conversations need not be so adversarial.

Jacqueline Brook and Sheldon Atos, Kitchener