
Cambridge councillors debate over possibility of 28-storey building in Galt
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.
Renderings 28-storey tower in Galt
Renderings show was a proposed 28-storey tower for west Galt could look like. (Courtesy: Patterson Planning Consultants )
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.'
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
11 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Pembina Pipeline Reports Q2 2025 Results and Strategic Expansions
Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. An update from Pembina Pipeline ( (TSE:PPL)) is now available. Pembina Pipeline Corporation reported its second quarter 2025 financial results, highlighting earnings of $417 million and an adjusted EBITDA of $1,013 million. The company has updated its 2025 adjusted EBITDA guidance and announced several strategic initiatives, including enhanced propane exports, acquisitions in gas infrastructure, and pipeline expansions. These developments are aimed at improving market access, reducing costs, and meeting growing transportation demands. Pembina's capital investment program for 2025 has been revised to $1.3 billion, reflecting its commitment to expanding infrastructure and securing long-term agreements. The most recent analyst rating on (TSE:PPL) stock is a Buy with a C$56.00 price target. To see the full list of analyst forecasts on Pembina Pipeline stock, see the TSE:PPL Stock Forecast page. Spark's Take on TSE:PPL Stock According to Spark, TipRanks' AI Analyst, TSE:PPL is a Outperform. Pembina Pipeline's overall score reflects strong financial performance and positive corporate events. While technical analysis shows mixed signals, the company's valuation is attractive, and the earnings call indicates confidence in future growth despite some challenges. To see Spark's full report on TSE:PPL stock, click here. More about Pembina Pipeline Pembina Pipeline Corporation is a leading energy infrastructure company in North America, primarily engaged in the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons. The company focuses on providing integrated solutions for the oil and gas industry, with a significant presence in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Average Trading Volume: 3,588,461 Technical Sentiment Signal: Buy Current Market Cap: C$29.86B For detailed information about PPL stock, go to TipRanks' Stock Analysis page. Disclaimer & Disclosure Report an Issue


Globe and Mail
11 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Don't be fooled by the ‘yield on cost' fallacy
Why would you not calculate your model dividend portfolio's yield based on its book cost instead of its current market value? I'll calculate the yield both ways in today's column. Then I'll explain why I prefer one method over the other. Let's use my model Yield Hog Dividend Growth Portfolio as an example. This is an opportune time to do so, because the portfolio just reached a key milestone: Thanks to a 6-per-cent dividend hike from Capital Power Corp. (CPX) on July 30, the portfolio's annual income has now officially doubled since inception. When I launched the portfolio with $100,000 of virtual money on Oct. 1, 2017, it was throwing off $4,094 of income annually based on dividend rates at the time. Owing to scores of dividend increases and regular reinvestments of cash over the years, it's now generating $8,199 of income – an increase of 100 per cent. These dividend ETF picks diversify your portfolio while saving on currency-conversion costs Down on dividend investing? Here's why you shouldn't be Now, to your question about yield: The traditional way to calculate the yield of a portfolio or individual stock is to divide the projected annual income by the current market value. Dividing the model portfolio's annualized income of $8,199 by its market value of $192,896 (as of July 31) produces a yield of about 4.3 per cent. In other words, for every dollar of capital in the portfolio today, about 4.3 cents of income is being generated annually, based on current dividend rates. This is what is known as the 'indicated yield,' and it is by far the most common way to calculate yield. But some investors prefer to measure yield in a different way. They calculate the 'yield on cost' by dividing current annualized income by the original cost of the stock or portfolio, not by the current market value. Using this method, the yield on cost of the model portfolio is $8,199 divided by the original value of $100,000, or about 8.2 per cent. The main benefit of using yield on cost is that it illustrates the growth of income over time. Indeed, despite the tariff-related volatility that has swept financial markets this year, dividend increases have continued to roll in from utilities, power producers, banks, real estate investment trusts and other companies in the portfolio. This is one reason I invest in dividend growth stocks: They bring some stability and predictability to an uncertain world. But here's the problem: Some investors don't always interpret yield on cost properly. They make the mistake of comparing the yield on cost with the current yields available in the marketplace. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison that can lead investors astray. Let's look at a stock in my personal portfolio to see why. Back in 2010, I bought shares of the utility, Fortis Inc. (FTS). At the time, the stock was trading at $27.58 a share and paying $1.12 of dividends annually, for a yield of about 4.1 per cent. Fortis (which I also hold in the model portfolio) has raised its dividend every year since then and is currently paying $2.46 annually. My yield on cost is therefore about 8.9 per cent (calculated as $2.46 of current income divided by my original purchase price of $27.58). Some fans of using yield on cost might argue that I could never find a dividend yield that high in the marketplace, especially from a company as solid as Fortis. I've even seen investors use a high yield on cost to justify hanging on to a stock they might otherwise want to sell. But am I actually earning 8.9 per cent on my investment in Fortis? No, absolutely not, because – this is the key part – my investment is no longer worth $27.58 a share. That price is 15 years out of date. Thanks to steady appreciation in Fortis's stock price over the years, my investment is now worth about $70 a share, as of Friday morning. So, if I currently have about $70 of capital tied up in each Fortis share, and each share is generating $2.46 of dividends, the yield of my Fortis shares is actually 3.5 per cent, not 8.9 per cent. The higher yield is misleading because it is derived by applying a current dividend rate to an old share price, which makes it useless for comparing Fortis's yield with the yields of other dividend stocks. Let's look at a more extreme example to drive the point home. Imagine you purchased a rental apartment building 50 years ago for $100,000. At the time, the building was generating rental income of $10,000, for a yield of 10 per cent. Now, let's assume the apartment building's market value and its total rental income have both increased tenfold, to $1-million and $100,000, respectively. Would you calculate the apartment's yield by dividing the current rental income of $100,000 by the wildly out-of-date market value of $100,000? Of course not. The price you paid 50 years ago is no longer relevant. What matters for the purposes of calculating the apartment's yield, and comparing it with the yield of other apartments, is the property's current market value and annual income potential today. The building's true yield is therefore 10 per cent ($100,000 divided by $1,000,000). A high yield on cost is a nice reminder that your income has grown, but it should never be used as a metric to compare with other investments. So, the next time someone tells you they don't want to sell a stock because it has a high yield on cost, show them this column. E-mail your questions to jheinzl@ I'm not able to respond personally to e-mails, but I choose certain questions to answer in my column.


CTV News
11 minutes ago
- CTV News
Updated unemployment numbers from Statistics Canada
Atlantic Watch Young workers and the private sector bore the brunt of Canadian job losses in July.