Pre-Construction Renderings vs. What Actually Got Built

[Snark]

Just a little study.... and perhaps a cautionary tale...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/7903220176_91c514a0c7_b.jpg

[Simpseatles]

The sad truth about developers in London.:(

There should be regulation in place that prevents a developer from building anything other than what the final rendering displays. If they propose something that gets approved, they should be held responsible to build exactly what was proposed to the city and it's residents. No more cheapening!

I've tried to defend "Revo on King" so much, but the truth is, the end result is much worse than what was proposed.

[FazDeH]

I don't "hate" Revo, in fact I find the final product more aesthetically pleasing then Harriston by a mile, but wow.. when you have the side by side comparison.. you can really see that we were sold a brand new Mercedes and ended up with a 90's Ford..

[GreatTallNorth2]

What's troublesome is that our city leaders just don't care about design. As long as a developer wants to build something, it's fine no matter what it looks like. This city, for the most part, has no class. I guess that we can't totally blame politicians though as there is no outcry from the people of London. Londoners want the cheapest taxes possible and that's the main goal of the city - to have low taxes. Everything else is secondary.

I think the lack of good design will have the opposite effect of what the city desires long term. If you want people to live downtown, make the downtown a beautiful place, full of buildings we are proud of. Don't just throw up towers that are the equivalent of cookie cutter subdivisions in the suburbs.

[Stevo26]

To my way of thinking, submitting a nice-looking rendering to gain approval to build something a whole lot less nice-looking (and consequently cheaper) borders on fraudulent.

It seems to me that developers in London have got some 'splaining to do with some of the buildings they've been putting up lately.

[manny_santos]

Basically, it seems as though the City of London has given developers free reign to do what they want. They pay no development charges towards expanding arterial roads, they can get away with anti-pedestrian cookie-cutter subdivisions with no character and no local commercial development. One place I have long believed does it right is Halton Region and the Town of Milton. Halton Region has development charges for developers, which have allowed roads like Derry Road to be widened to four lanes when the development is first going in (rather than 30-50 years later), and there are low-density commercial developments at every corner along Derry Road. There's no need to drive to get to Mac's Milk.

Trouble is, London has allowed developers free reign for so long that it's hard to suddenly force them to do things the way they do them in Halton. We've heard talk about these kinds of developments coming to London for the past 10 years, but not a single one has been built. I saw a presentation to the City for this kind of development around Commissioners and Hamilton Roads back in 2007, and there hasn't been any word about it since.

[haljackey]

Rendering Vs. Reality. How sad... how does this shit fly?

Development charges wouldn't hinder this city's growth since it's done in practically every other city our size or larger.

[LondnPlanr]

Honest questions:

Do you all give planning staff at City Hall zero credit for their education/qualifications? Do you all think that it's just a rubber stamp approving everything development-wise that comes across their desks? Do you all not think that planning/site plan staff realize that the buildings being constructed are not the ones that were proposed in the first place?

Developers got their way when Joe Fontana was elected, and even further when Jeff Fielding abruptly accepted another job with the City of Burlington. The developers won, and now you're seeing the results. Honestly, folks.

[K85]

They got their way BEFORE Joe got in as well.. Hate for Joe, strong in you it is.

[haljackey]

I have no beef with the city planners. It's the policies/politics that mess things like this up.

K85 is correct to point out that the mayor has little to do with this subject, and I will go so far to say that our former mayor(s) were in a similar boat. It's council/chamber of commerce that cause this as well as good old politics/government as usual.

Business doesn't operate like this. When something isn't done right something is done about it.

[LondnPlanr]

If both of you think the Mayor has nothing to do with the development community getting their way, then I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you both.

The first thing I hear when policy or guidelines are 'in the way' of a developer's progress is 'I'll just have to call the Mayor's office...'

I am not kidding, guys.

I didn't say anything about my like or dislike of Joe Fontana, it's just that he is a well known supporter of development, in any form. Growth, growth, growth.

[MolsonExport]

Greenfield growth is generally gross.

[K85]

What I was getting at is those things that have been built of late were not either submitted or approved during Joe's time. As far as I know, amdb's time was where a lot of it was.