London Construction - Development News Thread#1

[MolsonExport]

Northwestern London has the single most important asset in the city: UWO. This is where the growth is, where the expansion is greatest, not only in terms of people, but also in terms of high-paying jobs. The city has never capitalized on UWO like our sister city down the 401 has with it's universities (KW).

Northwest London is also where the infrastructure is most inadequate. I am so sick and tired of reading about really expensive projects/proposals in South/east London where manufacturing is shrinking. Throwing away money. Why is it so damned important to shave 5 minutes off a truck route by spending millions on some overpass where nobody fucking lives? WHY does council keep talking about developing more industrial land? That ship has fucking sailed to China, and we already have enough slack, ready-to-go industrial land. For crissakes, St. Thomas has a freeway running through the city, and it did little to staunch the outflow of manufacturing.

Goddammit, I am fed up with the lousy leadership in this city, and the lack of attention bestowed upon it by the Province/Feds.

Stupid/ugly concrete blocks announcing you are in London do diddly squat for our city. Ditto for the metal trees, and the Witch-Queen of Angmar's fountain. I think the idea of more shopping malls/big box zoning is INSANE given our overcapacity. It amounts to little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let's think about what kind of city we want, to attract/retain the knowledge population. First things first: We have to move away from 1970s thinking.

[manny_santos]

What I do not understand is why London has not asked for money to help build a freeway, Sunningdale could have easily been a freeway without a problem had people properly planned for it. Seems like London is just content to continue sprawling hoping for the best.

I have never heard about the west-end expressway, so would it connect from the 402 to basically over the river or do you know anything else about it?

And to haljackey, I agree and would much rather see development to the south and past 401, at least that way the highways can be utilized to move traffic a little better compared to the rest of the city.

The plans, which have been conceptually around since the mid-90s, involved an expressway running roughly along Westdel Bourne, crossing the river west of the Oxford/Westdel intersection. In 2001 a revised plan came out that showed the expressway ending at Oxford. It has rarely come up since then.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Northwestern London has the single most important asset in the city: UWO. This is where the growth is, where the expansion is greatest, not only in terms of people, but also in terms of high-paying jobs. The city has never capitalized on UWO like our sister city down the 401 has with it's universities (KW).

Northwest London is also where the infrastructure is most inadequate. I am so sick and tired of reading about really expensive projects/proposals in South/east London where manufacturing is shrinking. Throwing away money. Why is it so damned important to shave 5 minutes off a truck route by spending millions on some overpass where nobody fucking lives? WHY does council keep talking about developing more industrial land? That ship has fucking sailed to China, and we already have enough slack, ready-to-go industrial land. For crissakes, St. Thomas has a freeway running through the city, and it did little to staunch the outflow of manufacturing.

Goddammit, I am fed up with the lousy leadership in this city, and the lack of attention bestowed upon it by the Province/Feds.

Stupid/ugly concrete blocks announcing you are in London do diddly squat for our city. Ditto for the metal trees, and the Witch-Queen of Angmar's fountain. I think the idea of more shopping malls/big box zoning is INSANE given our overcapacity. It amounts to little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let's think about what kind of city we want, to attract/retain the knowledge population. First things first: We have to move away from 1970s thinking.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

[MolsonExport]

^why not. What is the point otherwise? Do you have something to say to me personally?

[GreatTallNorth2]

^why not. What is the point otherwise? Do you have something to say to me personally?

Chill out Mr. 19,856 posts. I was kidding.

[haljackey]

http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/attachments/f35/715d1348219178-2012-what-my-chances-interview-not-sure-if-serious.png

[MolsonExport]

Chill out Mr. 19,856 posts. I was kidding.

http://www.oldskoolhooligans.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/f/u/funnyguyclose.jpg
oldskoolhooligans.com

[GreatTallNorth2]

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb13/Funkmaestro/Serious-Cat-Joker.jpg

Now please can we get back to bashing London?

[Snark]

Unless the province gets it's fiscal house in order and starts running huge surpluses, or it is built as a toll road, there will be no new freeway. The much discussed ring road freeway around the city would cost at a minimum $400M and quite possibly over $550M (depending on land valuations) - not including the cost of upgrading the VMP.

Even if the funding did appear and there was a political will, land acquisitions, environmental assessments, court challenges, OMB challenges, and political challenges would mean a likely process of at least 20 years before a shovel ever went into the ground. Hamilton's Red Hill Valley Expressway is a fine example.

London would far more likely see an LRT system before a new freeway, and that's a long way off itself.

[ericlewis91]

They really need to invest into the bus system

The express bus from Masonville to Downtown is an improvement

but it needs to extend to White Oaks

also introduce a East/West Line down oxford street

[Pimpmasterdac]

The fact that they've only established a northern leg of an express routes is completely ridiculous. When they launched it within it's first 2 weeks it made a fare return that LTC expected in 7 months!. God knows how much a full north-south Maisonville to White Oaks would take in..

Problem is, like many transit services in Ontario, LTC is hamstrung by political influence. Last year, and I'm sure this year, during budget discussions some of the loser, low ridership, milk routes will be considered for a reductions/cancellation. Residents from fringe areas will piss and moan how their routes cannot be cancelled, yet continue to not use the LTC routes in their area. More money being pissed away on full-sized buses carrying maybe a handful of people. As well Larry Ducharme is well past his best before date as Chairman of the LTC, always finding faults or complaints about anything new rather just stick with the status quo. Hell he wasn't much of a supporter for the 90 express route..

LTC ought to be focusing on its core routes, Richmond, Wellington, Dundas, Oxford(s) and Westmount routes. This is where much of the ridership exists, fortifying these routes with express service at comparable times to cars is what will make the return on the farebox. It doesn't require dedicated lanes or large buses, just using the current fleet more effectively to generate more money!

[GreatTallNorth2]

So what is going on with the BRT system then? Isn't the 90X basically what the BRT system will look like? It's almost as if the LTC works behind closed doors and don't really show the city what it's dream is. Completely agree that Larry Ducharme is well past his time there. He has no vision and no clue what he is doing. The fact that he implemented park and ride a couple of blocks from downtown shows he is clueless. They need to hire someone from Waterloo Region or another bigger transit system that can help bring London in the 1990s.

[Pimpmasterdac]

A true BRT has a bit more to it. Dedicated and exclusive ROW lanes, priority traffic queues at intersections, actual constructed stations (not just a bus shelter) and large super-sized buses. City just finished its plans for the BRT strategy, and will be formally conduct EAs in 2014-2015 of the detailed BRT routes. While I'm sure the EAs will pass, it's financing the project that will be the true bitch of the bunch ($383 million+ $100 million operating), as well as the mass expropriation needed. That's why IMO express routes are the way to go until either senior government steps up and funds it. While the price is quite high, the report suggests every $1 spend will see a $1.80 return in development, benefits, increased property value.

Here are the plans:

City Staff BRT Report: http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=115910

Detailed BRT PowerPoint: http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=115911

[GreatTallNorth2]

That BRT route on Wellington should extend to the 401 and have Park and Ride from there. Then it would be a real alternative for St. Thomas, Woodstock, etc commuters to park there and get fast transit to the city centre.

[manny_santos]

So what is going on with the BRT system then? Isn't the 90X basically what the BRT system will look like? It's almost as if the LTC works behind closed doors and don't really show the city what it's dream is. Completely agree that Larry Ducharme is well past his time there. He has no vision and no clue what he is doing. The fact that he implemented park and ride a couple of blocks from downtown shows he is clueless. They need to hire someone from Waterloo Region or another bigger transit system that can help bring London in the 1990s.

Heck, someone from Kingston could do a better job. Kingston's city council has something London's city councils past and present have lacked, and that's the courage to do the right thing for the long term in spite of short-sighted rejections from residents who bemoan the so-called "war on cars". London's politicians have long seemed to be too worried about offending taxpayers and businesses.

I think London Transit has too long been held back by car-centric residents and the politicians that represent them. Those people are always very quick to point out apparently how much "better" traffic flowed in London during the 2009 lockout. (Mind you, to this day I still can't explain why there wasn't a large increase in vehicular traffic during that lockout. Perhaps there was more carpooling? I know I was carpooling up to Western when I worked there and I drove a student up from Byron.)

[manny_santos]

I drove into London last night, and checked out Southdale Road. I'm quite impressed with the newly widened section between Wharncliffe and Wonderland. I especially like that London is finally using LED lights for its new installations. I'm hoping to also drive Oxford Street West while I'm here.

[north 42]

I drove into London last night, and checked out Southdale Road. I'm quite impressed with the newly widened section between Wharncliffe and Wonderland. I especially like that London is finally using LED lights for its new installations. I'm hoping to also drive Oxford Street West while I'm here.

Windsor is replacing all of their old street lights in 2014 with LED, which will save the city millions of dollars each year.

[HillStreetBlues]

Someone linked to this (http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/urban-design/Documents/2014-Urban-Design/Urban-Design-Brief-447-Old-Wonderland-Road.pdf)in the Talbot/Fullerton thread. This is a proposal for a medical centre on the corner of Wonderland and Teeple Terrace (just north of Commissioners).

I just wanted to say that I am usually pretty critical of the kind of crappy development that the municipal government approves, which detracts from walkability and adds to sprawl. That having been said, this kind of development, although small in the grand scheme, gives me some modicum of hope. The building will evidently have very little setback from Wonderland, and parking will be in the rear (and off to one side). That’s not bad. This stretch of Wonderland is not walkable at all (think about the huge parking lot in the plaza at Wonderland and Commissioners, and the distances between buildings). It’s too bad to have any parking ride up on Wonderland, but at least the building itself is not separated from the sidewalk by rows of cars.

For London, not bad, all things considered.

[MolsonExport]

None of London's arteries are walkable. Sarnia Road is wretched. Wharncliffe is even more so, and dangerous. Forget about Wonderbread Road and unFunshawe Park Road, and as for Hyde Parking Lot Road, the sidewalk up and dies in numerous spaces.

They are still allowing buildings with their ass-ends facing the street (e.g., the awful redevelopment of Oakridge Mall).

I visited Westmount mall yesterday. Things are getting worse quickly, despite the addition of Target. Laura Secord has closed. Much of the centre court is boarded up. half the storefronts on the first floor are vacant. Of course, the second floor is mostly offices now.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop, when Sears vacates.

[HillStreetBlues]

Yep, you’re dead-right. And the vast majority of developments that are approved are absolutely brutal. My standards for London’s planning department are so low that I can be pleased by nearly anything. They truly don’t understand, so we’re not any time soon going to get enough tolerable development to improve walkability perceptibly.

Shame about Westmount. Time to think about not redeveloping it a la Wonderland Road South big box hell.

By the way, on the topic of arterials in London: Wharncliffe could easily be saved. Wharncliffe South between, say, Horton and Baseline has some stretches of fairly good street wall (broken, of course, by London-style Timmie’s double-drive-throughs and a couple of used cars lots). If traffic could be slowed down, or if it could be given some sort of a “street diet” so the sidewalk weren’t right next to the road, it would be a fairly safe and tolerable place to walk.

[LondnPlanr]

...the vast majority of developments that are approved are absolutely brutal. My standards for London’s planning department are so low that I can be pleased by nearly anything. They truly don’t understand, so we’re not any time soon going to get enough tolerable development to improve walkability perceptibly.

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

[manny_santos]

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

There is something to be said about London having greater difficulty with these things than other cities. I used to think London's problems were normal, but since moving elsewhere I've discovered that London's City Hall tends to try and please everyone, while other municipalities take a stand and aren't afraid to offend some people.

[HillStreetBlues]

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

You might have read the post previous to that in which I noted positively that the municipal government required a bit of attention to walkability of a new development on Wonderland near Commissioners. It wasn't much, and I shouldn't be so enthusiastic just because it approaches what should be the minimum, but I gave credit.

London is particularly deficient in these issues. It's a balancing act everywhere, and there are challenges to dictating to developers everywhere, but in neighbouring municipalities, planning staff and committees have increasing standards that they are willing to actually apply from time to time.

[K85]

This is what the Renaissance should have been :(

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/harmony-village-sheppard

[haljackey]

Let's not forget City Place too

...And while we're at it, the Crown on King developments.


Ah well, at least we're getting something.

[MrSlippery519]

At least we are getting something, at this point is the way I am looking at it. Also if the development continues and these buildings sell out we will see higher end proposals no doubt.

I think the Renaissance buildings are nice and the new 33 story highrise looks to be of better quality.

[HillStreetBlues]

Renaissance was good, and the new high rise looks good, too. Good, not great- obviously getting something with the style of that building at Warden and Sheppard would be fantastic...

That having been said, what London needs is not a handful of high rises, but rather more mid-rise development (5-10 storeys), ideally commercial on the main floor with residential above. That's what contributes to vibrant street life, and will attract people to live and do other things downtown.

[ssiguy]

I agree. I too think London should concentrate on more mid-rise infill that tall towers. There are many small parking lots and gaps in the urban fabric downtown that are ideal for mid-rise developments.

[haljackey]

The problem is the city is focused on building up the downtown and can offer lavish incentives to make it as dense as they can.

These policies make high rise projects a lucrative investment for developers, which reduces the amount of mid-rise infill developments.

The Southwest Area Plan originally called for a lot of mid-rise developments on the main roads (Wonderland, Warncliffe, Southdale and Bradley) but it looks like this has been bartered by developers to make way for more big-box retail.

I forget where I saw it, but I think the vacant NE corner of Wonderland and Oxford will be used for midrises, so at least that's something.

[Snark]

I agree. I too think London should concentrate on more mid-rise infill that tall towers. There are many small parking lots and gaps in the urban fabric downtown that are ideal for mid-rise developments.

When you say "London should concentrate..." who are you referring to? The City is not a developer (with rare exceptions). As for zoning downtown, the City generally wants density.

I don't disagree with your premise, however the private sector will try to build whatever optimally fits their business model. In the downtown, that typically has to be a fairly tall structure. You may recall that Rygar said that they had to have 33 stories for their new development in order to make the business model work, and that is on a piece of land that could definitely be termed "medium sized" (50m X 50m).

There are always a handful developers out there who's business model is to do boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one else is interested in touching, but they are generally the exception. If anyone is going do the sort of work you are referring to however, it will be this sort.

[HillStreetBlues]

When you say "London should concentrate..." who are you referring to? The City is not a developer (with rare exceptions). As for zoning downtown, the City generally wants density.

I don't disagree with your premise, however the private sector will try to build whatever optimally fits their business model. In the downtown, that typically has to be a fairly tall structure. You may recall that Rygar said that they had to have 33 stories for their new development in order to make the business model work, and that is on a piece of land that could definitely be termed "medium sized" (50m X 50m).

There are always a handful developers out there who's business model is to do boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one else is interested in touching, but they are generally the exception. If anyone is going do the sort of work you are referring to however, it will be this sort.

Although the municipal government is not a developer, it can choose what to approve or not approve; what to support in planning documents; and where to offer financial (and other) incentives. Of course developers are always going to look for what they feel is highest and best use of any parcel of land, and it’s the municipal government’s responsibility to decide whether it is called for. If all it wants is “density,” then I guess it should let developers do whatever they want downtown, the higher the better. That’s not going to result in a vibrant inner city that people want to live in and stay in, however- that’s going to lead to a lot of towers with lots of parking so residents can drive to more interesting places with more amenities.

I think we’re talking about different things. When I say “mid-rise,” I don’t mean “boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one is interested in touching.” I mean mixed-use mid-rise development (defined as between four and twelve storeys). This is the kind of building that has characterized lively downtowns for a long time, and composes places where people actually like to live, work, and spend their leisure time. These are the buildings that form interesting street walls. And they contribute a lot of density.

You can’t have high-rise buildings (particularly not single-use high rise buildings without even retail at the ground floor, and particularly not when they are setback from the road) with the occasional “boutique-type” building, and expect that to result in a vibrant downtown. It will be sorely lacking in the amenities that actually keep workers or residents in the area.

[BIGGUY2891]

Looks like Tricar is finally going ahead with plans for their properties on Ridout St. Here are the links to the zoning amendments:

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/land-use-applications/Documents/londoner/2014-03-27/Z-8330na.pdf

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/land-use-applications/Documents/londoner/2014-03-27/Z-8332na.pdf

Looks like two buildings, one will be 4 floors and the other 22 floors.

[ssiguy]

This is the first I've heard of this.

I'm not sure a 22 storey tower would fit well in Old South.

[bolognium]

@ssiguy: Literally anywhere else in Old South I'd agree, but this lot seems totally capable of accepting a tower like this. Ridout already has a significant amount of height as it approaches downtown, and this tower really doesn't feel out of place with the twin 16-storey Gartshore towers next door.


Here are some detailed PDFs:

22-storey tower (https://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/urban-design/Documents/2014-Urban-Design/2014-04-02/Urban-Design-Brief-96-Ridout-Street.pdf)

4-storey midrise (https://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/urban-design/Documents/2014-Urban-Design/2014-04-02/Urban-Design-Brief-89-Ridout-Street.pdf)


Render of the tower as seen from Grand Ave.
http://i.imgur.com/INlXjWP.jpg

[MolsonExport]

Densification is generally good. The tower is kinda 'meh' but I hope it will not change into something like the Harriston when it actually goes up. Thanks for the info.

[LondnPlanr]

I'm not sure a 22 storey tower would fit well in Old South.

You mean directly next to the existing twin 16 storey apartment towers ? I think it's an ideal location along a bus route, close to downtown, and on a prime piece of vacant infill land.

I live within a short walk of this site, and I welcome the development with open arms.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Looks like a great proposal. Decent design, great location. The only thing I would like to see is a bit of street level retail with this.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like some great infill projects for these vacated lots. What use to occupy both lots were old, shitty dated buildings that needed to be torn down, big improvement planned.

However knowing how pissy Old South residents are about any developments, big or small, the local NIMBYs will be out in full force when they get wind of this, pitch forks and all...

[BIGGUY2891]

However knowing how pissy Old South residents are about any developments, big or small, the local NIMBYs will be out in full force when they get wind of this, pitch forks and all...

I remember reading a newsletter update from the head of the Old South Community Organization. He was aware that a developer intended to put up a high rise over a year ago and the newsletter stated that the organization felt it was a good fit for the location. Well they could change their mind, the organization didn't express any concerns at the time.

[Pimpmasterdac]

If that's the case I would be pleasantly surprised.. The association might not challenge it, but individual busy bodies may. Just based on recent situations like 3 story condo on Wortley & Bruce; 9 unit condo near Wortley & Craig, the NIMBYs fight ferociously like their nuclear waste sites.

CTV2 had a report Friday that Woodstock takes approximately 2-3 weeks to approve plans, meanwhile London takes 4-6 months. While residential development in Old South is a go based on location, Londons slow pace of approving plans cost it many industrial developments..

[ssiguy]

Densification is generally good. The tower is kinda 'meh' but I hope it will not change into something like the Harriston when it actually goes up. Thanks for the info.

I hope not.

It seems like maybe this is a good fit but I pray it isn't just a nice rendition of an ugly concrete bunker ala Harriston or Oxford/Wonderland. If they aren't careful with the details it will greatly detract from the charm of the area.

[MolsonExport]

Oxfart and Wonderbread intersection has bragging rights to being the ugliest corner in London, perhaps Canada. The world? Well, there are uglier intersections in Kinshasa, Irkutsk and perhaps Kabul. But they have excuses (i.e., Soviet central planning, extreme poverty). What is our excuse for allowing the extreme profusion of such monotonous, commie-block concrete slabs? Hurts my eyes every time I drive through this part of town, which is almost every day.

[can00k]

Oxfart and Wonderbread intersection has bragging rights to being the ugliest corner in London, perhaps Canada. The world? Well, there are uglier intersections in Kinshasa, Irkutsk and perhaps Kabul. But they have excuses (i.e., Soviet central planning, extreme poverty). What is our excuse for allowing the extreme profusion of such monotonous, commie-block concrete slabs? Hurts my eyes every time I drive through this part of town, which is almost every day.

Speaking of that area, who owns the empty cornfield on the northeast corner of Oxford and Wonderland? Seems weird to me that a high traffic spot like that has sat vacant for so long.

[MolsonExport]

I don't know. Farhi? The guy seems to own everything. But then, if he owned it, we would know b/c he would have his name plastered on a sign.

[middeljohn]

I don't know. Farhi? The guy seems to own everything. But then, if he owned it, we would know b/c he would have his name plastered on a sign.

You can't see it from the street, but when you fly over it you can see he mowed his name into the field. Visible all the way from the International Space Station I bet.

[ldoto]

http://storage.lfpress.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297542106526_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1395925301685

Two apartment complexes planned for the north edge of London both got the green light.



A three-building complex at Adelaide St. and Sunningdale Rd. proposed by Drewco Development Corp. will have 314 units. One building is seven storeys facing Adelaide St. while two others on the south side of Sunningdale will be four storeys.

Opposition from homeowners to the south prompted the developer to reduce the height of the latter two to four storeys from six. A recreation centre also has been included and the developer says it will be accessible to area residents.

Drew Smith, of nearby Blackwater Rd., said he’s “frustrated” Drewco didn’t reduce the number of units in its project and simply reduced the height of two buildings while increasing the size of the third.

Residents were pleased, he said, that road accesses were changed to lessen the impact on local streets with improved entrances to the buildings from Adelaide.

Drewco also agreed to modify lighting and increase landscape buffers to reduce the impact on adjacent homeowners.

York Developments sought approval for a $58-million complex of two condo towers of 13 and 14 storeys on Fanshawe Park Rd., just east of Wonderland, in a public participation meeting.

The upscale development immediately west of the Amica seniors residence and on the property of a former retreat, would contain 135 units.
Planning committee approved the project conditionally on it being tweaked and coming back for another public meeting before final approval of the site plan.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Typical London, letting NIMBYs reduce and delay developments. Both these developments are the type of smart, intensification that the city ought to promote. Just seems like every development is stalled or held back by the local yokels complaining about the same x,y,z NIMBY issue. London needs to have a standard by which they approve and streamline developments quickly, instead of long drawn out protracted battles. No wonder business and industry are pulling out/hesitant to be in London, as opposed to friendlier business towns!

[GreatTallNorth2]

^Hope you feel better for getting that off your chest, but I wish all residents were concerned and vocal about their concerns. Because they were vocal, the residents got what they wanted and even better, there seems to be a shift of control moving from developer to citizens. When developers realize they don't have carte blanche in this city, they will have to build better developments. If you were referring to new industry coming to London, you might have an argument, but since we are talking about residential buildings, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. The city has favoured developers for a long, long time and its time citizens had a voice in building their city.

[MolsonExport]

Agreed. If only to avoid more of the concrete commie-block monstrosities of Proudfoot lane, Wonderland, and Oxford intersections. Casts an ugly pall on the western side of the city.

[can00k]

Typical London, letting NIMBYs reduce and delay developments. Both these developments are the type of smart, intensification that the city ought to promote. Just seems like every development is stalled or held back by the local yokels complaining about the same x,y,z NIMBY issue. London needs to have a standard by which they approve and streamline developments quickly, instead of long drawn out protracted battles. No wonder business and industry are pulling out/hesitant to be in London, as opposed to friendlier business towns!

I know for a fact that Sifton recently cancelled plans of a possible high-density development on Old Wonderland Road due to NIMBYism.

Note that I'm not talking about the controversial cleared woodlot on the corner of Wonderland Road and Teeple Terrace. That's an unrelated property.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Developers won't play these games. Honestly around 95% proposed developments that come before Planning are both within Provincial guidelines, and meet City Planning guidelines. Developers have satisfied these requirements, and while some complaints are valid and do deserve redress, most of local yokels that come complaining are full out NIMBY complaints (x area was never suppose to be developed that's what the realtor said, privacy will be affected, area they don't own is better as a vacant lot etc.)

Rather than call a spade a spade, and these NIMBYs are what they are, Planning or Council takes weak-kneed mushy positions that defer, delay, postpone making decisions or let the OMB do the necessary of getting the projects. There's no partitioning of whether it's Residential vs. Industrial for developers point of view. Rather it paints London has a poor reputation getting developments from plans to shovel ready. Rather than waste time and play games, they'll go to better organized cities to do business.

Because they were vocal, the residents got what they wanted and even better, there seems to be a shift of control moving from developer to citizens. When developers realize they don't have carte blanche in this city, they will have to build better developments.

Where on Old Wonderland was that proposed? I didn't hear about that project, wouldn't be surprised though.. Ironic considering when Guy Lombardo Bridge was being build it was once suggested to keep Wonderland running straight, bulldozing all the west side for the road widening (rather than the massive curve it does to avoid Old Wonderland). Thorn in the side the city that has never stopped..

I know for a fact that Sifton recently cancelled plans of a possible high-density development on Old Wonderland Road due to NIMBYism.

Note that I'm not talking about the controversial cleared woodlot on the corner of Wonderland Road and Teeple Terrace. That's an unrelated property.

[can00k]

Where on Old Wonderland was that proposed? I didn't hear about that project, wouldn't be surprised though.. Ironic considering when Guy Lombardo Bridge was being build it was once suggested to keep Wonderland running straight, bulldozing all the west side for the road widening (rather than the massive curve it does to avoid Old Wonderland). Torn in the side the city that has never stopped..

A currently-for-sale private property at the north end between Old Wonderland and Sifton's current properties on Berkshire. (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/42%C2%B057'43.3%22N+81%C2%B017'27.0%22W/@42.9620278,-81.2908333,2706m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0) They had a couple of meetings with the current tenants and neighbours in the community and had concepts for a 12 storey tower and a few 2-3 storey buildings. I guess Sifton decided to pull out after deciding that the fight to change the zoning from medium density to high density wasn't worth the purchase price of the land.

At one of the meetings, some of the neighbouring property owners stated that they would rather Sifton be the developer than any other company, but would also prefer a smaller development and would fight any zoning changes.

Others stated that would like to see Sifton buy the land and not develop it because they've been using it as parkland. Because, you know, that's how companies stay in business. :koko:

[GreatTallNorth2]

I'm pretty sure Sifton has done well in this city. They are a good company, but I'm not going to shed any crocodile tears if they can't get rezoning. Are you saying that citizens don't have every right to fight zoning changes? I say good for them. The city has zoning for a reason. Why do developers think they have more rights than citizens?

[manny_santos]

I'm pretty sure Sifton has done well in this city. They are a good company, but I'm not going to shed any crocodile tears if they can't get rezoning. Are you saying that citizens don't have every right to fight zoning changes? I say good for them. The city has zoning for a reason. Why do developers think they have more rights than citizens?

Changing existing zoning to something never before expected is one thing. But one thing I notice happens all too often is re-zoning applications that are in line with the municipality's Official Plan, and people coming out of the woodwork complaining about the re-zoning application saying they "never expected" their beloved field would ever be converted into an expansion of their subdivision. I recall last year there being a property along Commissioners west of Wonderland that nearby residents were up in arms about when the property owner announced that it wanted to build condos there. The property in question was shown to be medium density residential on the Official Plan. In my opinion, if these residents wanted their green space preserved, they should have been participating in the last Official Plan amendment, not waiting until a developer applies for rezoning. They ought to have known the property could become medium density residential.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Changing existing zoning to something never before expected is one thing. But one thing I notice happens all too often is re-zoning applications that are in line with the municipality's Official Plan, and people coming out of the woodwork complaining about the re-zoning application saying they "never expected" their beloved field would ever be converted into an expansion of their subdivision. I recall last year there being a property along Commissioners west of Wonderland that nearby residents were up in arms about when the property owner announced that it wanted to build condos there. The property in question was shown to be medium density residential on the Official Plan. In my opinion, if these residents wanted their green space preserved, they should have been participating in the last Official Plan amendment, not waiting until a developer applies for rezoning. They ought to have known the property could become medium density residential.

Hey, in the case of Sifton here, it already is medium and the residents don't want high density. I certainly don't blame them for fighting for that. Sifton is simply saying they don't want to buy the land unless it's high density. Fine, lots of land in the city that they can work with I'm sure.

[Pimpmasterdac]

@GreatTallNorth2 There's no problem with citizens participating and getting involved with the planning process necessarily. They have every right to express their beliefs and opinions on projects, regardless of how either valid and thoughtful they are; or self-serving and egotistic they may be. That is our open democratic process, that allows people an outlet.

It's more the issue of Planning and ultimately Council indulging too many of these blatant self-serving arguments and opinions. Rather they propose further study, consultation or defer to another meeting so they can hope to get a convoluted mushy compromise they neither side is pleased with, which waste everyone's time. Instead Council needs to tell these citizens/groups/associations that proposed developments meet government guidelines, are the sustainable development of smart growth and infill projects and to proceed with development. Hopefullly this years election will significantly change the make up of council!

---

@can00k Sounds like London alright. People who don't own land trying to tell property owners they like x lot being vacant but won't pony up the money to preserve it as is. Something similar in my area happened like that, vacant lot that sat that way for at least 25 years. Proposals to build some semi-detached were shot down for years, neighours bitched and complained, assumed the lot as an extension of their backyard when it clearly wasn't.. Well with changes to policy to promote for more infill, the developer got and passed a 3 story condo complex development... Having your caking and eating it, the London NIMBY mantra.

[can00k]

I'm pretty sure Sifton has done well in this city. They are a good company, but I'm not going to shed any crocodile tears if they can't get rezoning. Are you saying that citizens don't have every right to fight zoning changes? I say good for them. The city has zoning for a reason. Why do developers think they have more rights than citizens?

I don't expect neighbouring residents to roll over and accept just any zoning changes. But at least Sifton consulted them and was willing to work toward something that could be accepted by all sides. It's obviously not realistic to expect a private empty lot to stay as empty greenspace either. Residents might wish they had tried to work with a company that was wiling to listen if someone else buys that property and doesn't give them the same opportunity to voice their opinions.

[K85]

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/06/25/land-at-the-forks-of-the-thames-is-owned-by-middlesex-county-and-leased-by-the-middlesex-london-health-unit




The future of downtown’s most valued property will be in the hands of county politicians not yet elected.

The corner of King and Ridout streets sits in an enviable position. On one side is the forks of the Thames and the city heritage that represents. On the other is Budweiser Gardens, the most visible reminder of the more than $100 million city taxpayers have spent to breathe life into the core.

But while the site is entwined in the city’s past and future, its fate will be decided by whatever Middlesex County council is elected in October.

For while the 1.6-hectare property has had city politicians dreaming of grand developments and even a splashy new city hall, the site is owned by the county and leased by the Middlesex-London Health Unit.

And do county voters care about what happens there? The issue isn’t even a blip on the election radar.

“I haven’t had any calls or face-to-face inquiries (about the site above the forks of the Thames). I don’t think ever,” said Southwest Middlesex Mayor Doug Reycraft, who’s held his seat for 14 years. “I would dare say there’s even a minority in Southwest Middlesex who even know the property belongs to Middlesex County.”

They will know soon. The county took its first step this month towards redeveloping the property when officials filed documents with the city to change the zoning to allow for a 30-storey tower.

County officials expect the city’s planning committee to consider its zoning application in September, and once zoning is decided, for the next county council to seek proposals for developing the site.

“It’s a very unique piece of property, and we want to make sure we are good stewards of that property for years to come. We don’t enter into anything lightly,” said Warden Joanne Vanderheyden.

She said the county will work with the city: “We’ve been in contact with the city regarding what their economic development plans are for downtown and especially the forks of the Thames.”

She’ll find eager partners such as Coun. Joe Swan, who has championed core development.

“We’re looking for an iconic development that showcases our history,” Swan said.

A highrise would replace the 45-year-old health unit, a building with little curb appeal and big maintenance bills, with public health seeking a new home for when its lease expires in 2016.

Even before the county sought a zoning change, Middlesex officials were inundated by public and private parties inquiries. But interested parties should know the county wants control over what is built and won’t simply sell to the high bidder, officials say.

jonathan.sher@sunmedia.ca

- - -

BY THE NUMBERS

Middlesex County has asked the city to rezone its site overlooking the forks of the Thames to allow for:

110-metre-high, 30-storey building
200 apartments on 21 floors
375 parking spaces on three floors
Ground floor retail, restaurant and entertainment (4,500 square metres)
Five floors of offices (6,000 sq. metres)

[K85]

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/06/26/fanshawe-college-reveals-662-million-plan-to-buy-kingsmills-building-in-london-core



Fanshawe College is bringing an additional 1,600 students to downtown London — and wants $10 million from the city to speed it along.

The college took the wraps off Thursday on a $66.2-million plan to buy Kingsmill’s department store and turn it into a new downtown campus.

“It’s super exciting news for us,” Fanshawe president Peter Devlin said.

The city is committed to spending $10 million on the project and Fanshawe is asking for an additional $10 million.

But the extra cash from the city isn’t a deal breaker, Devlin said.

“If the city isn’t able to support us, we would adjust the scope and timing of the project.”

The Kingsmill’s location is across the street from Fanshawe’s downtown campus that opened in January. The digital and performance arts campus houses 400 students in 3-D animation and character design, interactive media design and production, theatre arts and other programs.

Fanshawe officials will pitch the Kingsmill’s project in July to city council’s corporate services committee.

“It sounds very exciting, it sounds positive,” Mayor Joni Baechler said Thursday.

“To have 1,600 more people in the streets is an incredible resource . . . but we have to understand the financials. We want to see the business plan and return on investment, and see if we can afford this.”

Baechler will meet Friday with Devlin.

Fanshawe would expand the digital and performance arts program in the Kingsmill’s space and move its school of tourism and hospitality there.

“When you look at the potential impact of this it could be huge,” Coun. Paul Hubert said.

City council must deal with the issue before Sept. 12 because of the Oct. 27 municipal election, he said.

“I think it will get a fairly positive response. We have a number of capital projects on the docket, but this one is shovel ready.”

norman.debono@sunmedia.ca

THE PLAN

Fanshawe to spend $66.2 million to buy and renovate Kingsmill’s department store
three stories added
the historic facade, with the Kingsmill’s name etched in stone, preserved
information technology program, now offered across the street at 307 Dundas St., expanded in Kingsmill’s space and school of hospitality and tourism moved there

WHO PAYS

- Fanshawe on the hook for $46.2 million

- city of London already committed to chipping in $10 million and college asking for another $10 million

KINGSMILL’S

Canada’s oldest family owned and operated department store
opened in 1865 by Irish immigrant Thomas Frazer Kingsmill
about 60 employees
selling off inventory and will close next month

What They Said

“If it was appropriate for me to dance a jig on Dundas Street, I would. I think the impact will be huge. It’s a game changer, 2,000 students in one block, and we want to integrate them into the city and keep them here.”

Janette MacDonald, director Downtown London

“This is so timely, and right. It comes at the right time for us, we exit honorably. Not everyone wants to operate a specialized department store downtown, it’s difficult to sell mattresses on a Friday night.”

Fred Kingsmill, 85-year-old patriarch of the Kingsmill family

“It’s great to know if this deal proceeds, the college may be here 150 years from now, a major anchor in downtown London. The Kingsmill’s name will remain etched in stone on the front. It will act as a sparkplug for other downtown development, There will be more housing, more people.”

Tim Kingsmill, Kingsmill’s president

“It’s a great building, the (building and business) plans are good. . . This is something London will be proud of, the college is extremely proud of it.”

[HillStreetBlues]

Those are some classy quotes on the part of the Kingsmills. Too many business owners seem to say something silly on their way out, “blaming” something-or-other. It's nice to hear such grace and positivity that could easily be viewed from their perspective entirely as bad news.

Fanshawe’s move is great news for the downtown. I rarely feel even a bit of optimism for London, but smart moves like that could make a huge difference sooner than later.

[MolsonExport]

I will miss the dept store (I browsed, but never bought anything) but this is a very positive development. Dundas st. is back. Storefront vacancies along the two-block stretch should vanish.

[ssiguy]

This is nothing but great news.

It brings more students and vitality downtown and maintains the integrity of the venerable Kingsmill's store. That is a large store and finding tenants for it would be very difficult and if it was left empty for too long it would decay and eventually have to be torn down and that would be a real loss for the city and the core.

This is the kind of development that the core desperately needs and with a good demographic. The young will want to live near school especially if it's downtown and they will also be shoppers and be eating out a lot giving a real boost to Dundas and the entire core. This would be $10 million VERY well spent. Now if only Western would do something.

[tolosulode]

Enrollment at Fanshawe is down for a third year running.

Why the excitement to house a diminishing entity?

[sparky212]

Something big starting up
http:// http://metronews.ca/news/london/1171528/london-planners-to-ask-council-to-approve-high-rise-on-health-unit-lands/ (http://metronews.ca/news/london/1171528/london-planners-to-ask-council-to-approve-high-rise-on-health-unit-lands/)

[MrSlippery519]

Certainly a great spot for a new development there, i am not sure I understand that height cap of 95m to keep it in line with the Renaissance towers though?

Hope this gets built and hope they push it past 1000, they are talking about the importance with the forks, etc so make the tower a staple to downtown.

[MolsonExport]

LFP article on the proposed 30-storey condo tower at the forks:
Forks Fight: Renaissance residents angry about proposed 30-storey downtown London highrise (http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/01/residents-of-the-renaissance-towers-condominium-buildings-are-angry-about-a-proposed-30-storey-200-unit-highrise-they-say-would-spoil-their-view-of-sunsets-and-the-nearby-thames-river)

[Honest Scientist]

I will be VERY disappointed if this is limited to 95m. They should be encouraging a building in the 120m - 140m (or even higher!) range, IMHO.

I agree with all the other design stipulations they are talking about for this (glass not concrete, tower up against Ridout, narrow SQUARE floorplate, get rid of the slab parking, etc.), but this is the PRIME lot for something really tall.

Imagine how the 'face' of downtown (which to me is the view from the west, with the forks of the Thames at the fore) would look with a 45+ story, well designed, single tower as the focal point. It would give us a much more identifiable skyline. Otherwise, we're going to get a 'clump' of buildings around the same size - something we have way too much of. It may as well be the third twin to the Renascence towers if they make this one the same size.

The taller this project (and any other new ones are ) the better the chances of a downtown grocery store, and an overall increase in vibrancy and 'life' in the core.

London just refuses to think big. JLC only 9,000 seats (should have been 11,000 to 12,000), a new Preforming Arts Centre that would only have 1400 seats (as opposed to say a 2000 seat Bass Hall in Fort Worth - look it up, its spectacular!), and this at only 95m. This city refuses to step up, stand out and inspire. That is a big part of why people leave and businesses overlook us when choosing locations.

And as for the owners of Renascence condos complaining about losing their views? What a spoiled lot! They expected that nothing tall would go on that site, and they think they should be 'guaranteed' a permanent view? Hypocrites didn't much care when their building blocked out the south view from the north tower!

I'm afraid this will be another 'typical London under-build' and a real missed opportunity.

HS

Certainly a great spot for a new development there, i am not sure I understand that height cap of 95m to keep it in line with the Renaissance towers though?

Hope this gets built and hope they push it past 1000, they are talking about the importance with the forks, etc so make the tower a staple to downtown.

[MolsonExport]

probably end up being another stubby stucco-and-concrete banality. London looks a lot like Irkutsk or Novosibirsk.

[MrSlippery519]

I will be VERY disappointed if this is limited to 95m. They should be encouraging a building in the 120m - 140m (or even higher!) range, IMHO.

JLC only 9,000 seats (should have been 11,000 to 12,000),

Well said, I agree with most of your points as well. That said when they built the JLC @ 9000 seats it was a big risk, certainly I would have liked to see bigger and looking back now that would have been the right call but it was a big risk at the time for London.

I really hope the height of this tower changes, it is a no brainier to approve something on this land but completely agree it needs to be 100m+ and be something "big" for the city and downtown. Not just another concrete 95m tower to "match" the height of other buildings.

Screw the people complaining at the Renaissance, that is a joke, you want to complain about views go talk to some people in NYC losing their park views to massive high-rises haha.

[MolsonExport]

Think of the pain of not being able to see AMdeCicco-Worst's fountain from your window.

[haljackey]

Wasn't the Health Unit lands considered for a new city hall?

People who live in the Renaissance towers will hate this proposal though, blocking their views.

[MrSlippery519]

Wasn't the Health Unit lands considered for a new city hall?

People who live in the Renaissance towers will hate this proposal though, blocking their views.

Yes it was considered for a new city hall, seems that is dead.

To the people in the Renaissance, too bad. Nothing in life is guaranteed, its not like those people didn't know a tower could block their views at some point nor would Tricar have ever guaranteed them that.

The few comments in the LFP article are hilarious...a women on the seventh floor is upset she wont get to see the sunset anymore...seriously the seventh floor??? Give me a break, the city needs to go down and tell her to shut her mouth, was likely the same women cheering for downtown development...but better not block my magical 7th floor view. Unless you have a place directly on the water or directly on a park (again going back to NYC) how can you ever think your "view" will remain?

Sorry for the slight rant :cheers:

[Symz]

It sounds like there are a lot of NIMBY's and such in London, but all is not lost, London has been building in the last decade.

I think this is kind of an interesting project and I like it's location. If that lady in the article wants an unimpeded view of the water she should move into the new tower closer to the water..

Another interesting part was this

'The city’s growth blueprint, its official plan, and council, have encouraged downtown highrise development, he said.'

I honestly wish Windsor would do the same thing, you guys might think London development is slow, but this seems to be working, whereas there's nothing going in Windsor of this sort.

Is the London media playing this up to a county vs. city thing?

Anyways, good luck with this project London!

[tyeman200]

Yes it was considered for a new city hall, seems that is dead.

To the people in the Renaissance, too bad. Nothing in life is guaranteed, its not like those people didn't know a tower could block their views at some point nor would Tricar have ever guaranteed them that.

The few comments in the LFP article are hilarious...a women on the seventh floor is upset she wont get to see the sunset anymore...seriously the seventh floor??? Give me a break, the city needs to go down and tell her to shut her mouth, was likely the same women cheering for downtown development...but better not block my magical 7th floor view. Unless you have a place directly on the water or directly on a park (again going back to NYC) how can you ever think your "view" will remain?

Sorry for the slight rant :cheers:

People in London always need something to complain about... I think that is partly the reason projects don't get done faster. No matter what, someone out there in London will have a reason to bitch about it :rolleyes:

[ssiguy]

probably end up being another stubby stucco-and-concrete banality. London looks a lot like Irkutsk or Novosibirsk.

God knows London has plenty of those but I don't think that will be the case here. The city seems pretty determined to make sure this fits in well with the area and has real esthetic appeal.

As far as the poor Rennaisance dwellers, too bad. I don't think the city will care what they think, nor should they.

[haljackey]

More towers proposed for the core, this time a pair of 16-20 story residential developments on the site of the former London Mews.

Story: http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/05/towers-to-rise-on-site-of-mews

[HillStreetBlues]

Most people here are lamenting the possible 95 meter limit. 95 meters is a very tall building. 120 meters (which would be nearly 40 stories) is extremely tall. Yes, a very tall building will definitely add to the skyline from the west. But we should be much more concerned with how development interacts with the street. I like the stipulation that it come right up to Ridout, and that it not be concrete. But, really, I think that a 30 or 40-storey building has little chance of interacting well with the streetscape (as the Renaissance towers do not in my opinion). London has sufficient land downtown to build many mid-rise (8, 10, 12 stories) buildings that will add real vitality to downtown. Allow 200 (or more) units in this one condo development, and that reduces demand for those kinds of smaller projects.

That having been said, it sounds like there will be plenty of retail space at ground level, so a very good opportunity there.

Like others, I have no sympathy at all for folks in the Renaissance towers who want others to pay (in opportunity cost) for their views to be preserved. I particularly like the quote saying that these projects would bring more people to the core, and traffic is already “dreadful.” Gack.

[MolsonExport]

And the same old bullshit about "not enough parking". Every city centre worth going to has "not enough parking". The ones with ample parking are bombed out wastelands or uni-use office parks (see Houston shot below, c. 1980s). Park and walk. Take transit/cab. Pay up and shut up. Gimme densification. A city's greatness is, to a large extent, defined by its core.


http://ecoplan.org/graphics/parking-houston.jpg
ecoplan.org

[MolsonExport]

More towers proposed for the core, this time a pair of 16-20 story residential developments on the site of the former London Mews.

Story: http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/05/towers-to-rise-on-site-of-mews

The cat's meow. :cheers:

[haljackey]

Caranci is taking credit for this new announcement. Probably more details to come.

http://metronews.ca/news/london/1175604/london-high-rise-plan-revealed-by-developers-and-mayoral-candidate-roger-caranci/

[MolsonExport]

what, he suggested take a look at this parking lot...it would be better as a building? Genius.

[MrSlippery519]

I think downtown parking is important to an extent, that said as long as there are multiple ways to get around at the end of the day it is the last thing "London" needs to be thinking about.

At this point getting more people living downtown is and should be the most critical, those people then eat, shop, etc downtown and so on.

That's my opinion anyways.

[Pimpmasterdac]

It's a good proposed development. That corner has been vacant for far too long. I don't think parking should be an issue, from what I understand the foundation, lower levels and underground parking from the former Mews are still intact. They had been paved over for the parking lot, but kept to potentially be resurrected for a new development like this!

[haljackey]

It's a good proposed development. That corner has been vacant for far too long. I don't think parking should be an issue, from what I understand the foundation, lower levels and underground parking from the former Mews are still intact. They had been paved over for the parking lot, but kept to potentially be resurrected for a new development like this!

That would be awesome!

LFP story (ignore the comments section) http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/06/new-residentialretail-complex-in-downtown-london-could-bring-1000-people-to-the-core

CTV London report with old London Mews footage: http://london.ctvnews.ca/video#461127
-Video may not work if you have adblock enabled.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Of course this is great news and a great location as there is a void in this area of downtown. This will fill in a big void.

Not to be Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't expect all the developments to actually be built. I remember in the late 80's when there was a lot of proposals, and not all got built. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but time will tell.

[haljackey]

People be angry at the proposed Health Unit redevelopment.

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/08/core-tower-hits-roadblock

[Snark]

People be angry at the proposed Health Unit redevelopment.

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/08/core-tower-hits-roadblock

Plain and simple: this is a "kick the can down the road 'till after the election" maneuver by a group of ignorant cowards. Yet another stunning lack of municipal stewardship and leadership.

If things go well, they will be out of office when this returns to a committee comprised of new members in the new year.

[Pimpmasterdac]

The arguments that the local yokel NIMBYs against this development gave were a complete joke. one person said "Another speaker warned the shadow cast by the tower could drive away the families who now come to the Forks on Sunday nights." Gee last time I checked the sun sets in the west, and the development is east of the fork of the Thames, so it's physically impossible for it to cast a shadow. Secondly there are no shadows cast at night ;) Just a bunch of entitled people who believe their view was somehow "protected".

The other thing that was off was Old Dirty Bastard, Mr. development, Bud Polhill himself, came out against the proposal. "We need to look at this,” said Coun. Bud Polhill, committee chairperson. "I don’t like it at all.". Now while bud is certainly an expert in vehicle body damage repair, didn't know he was moonlighting as an architect. While hopefully this is some election pandering that will disappear post election, why would Bud care? He doesn't represent downtown, no votes lost support this development. So leads me to believe Middlesex Country hasn;t wowed Bud or he;s got a secret dog in the fight.

[MolsonExport]

^yeah, really. The bullshit spewed by Polhill and the shadows-of-evening people are just stacked higher than I ever thought possible.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Methinks there are a lot of developers unhappy with this proposal, which has the best location, will be built to a higher standard and have a better view. This is business, and prime real estate is sparse so other developers will want to stop it if they can.

It's kind of funny that every city councillor and administrative person has been begging for developments like this and now they want to discourage this project. If it is stopped due to views being blocked, watch out for all the nimbys to come out of the woodwork.

[ssiguy]

I really like the new development proposal for the old Mews lands.

It is a huge blight on the core and acts as a disconnect between Wellington and Richmond. I like the fact that they it is a large project with street facing stores as opposed to just another high rise. This is a real win for the city now let's all pray to the maker that it's not another concrete bunker.

[bolognium]

I'm dying to see the Mews lot developed, but I'm sad to hear talk of a building fronting Dundas. Was always hoping the linear park idea would catch on, and we could keep that as a mid-block connection. I walk through parking lots and alleys daily, sometimes as shortcuts and other times as a change of scenery. I'm really hoping a public corridor is considered by the developers.

Fairly certain a fire lane exists to the immediate west of the this property, so I guess there will always be an alley connection.

[MrSlippery519]

Not 100% sure what is happening yet, but they are clearing land at the corner of Wharncliffe/Wonderland talking about the North/west corner which was if I recall York Developments owned and was to have a Lowes/other.

It is right across from where I work, they have 2 dozers pushing material.

[MolsonExport]

Yikes, more sprawl. And Wonderland and Exeter is supposed to get a giant Walfart.

[HillStreetBlues]

Yikes, more sprawl. And Wonderland and Exeter is supposed to get a giant Walfart.

Beat me to it.

I, for one, am going to try and be happy about all of that useless productive farmland being paved over to be replaced with car-centric, low-tax-revenue-generating, core-hollowing retail.

I usually run the gauntlet that is Wonderland South when I drive into London. My wife is going to be thrilled that there will soon be even more mind-numbingly terrible big box crap there for me to bitch about when we visit.

[MrSlippery519]

I cant even begin to imagine what will go in this new development...ok the Lowe's sure but what else could possibly go in this end of the city that is not already here...Golf Town maybe.

Such a poor concept, not that London is the only place doing it but not a fan personally.

By the way more clearing went on today, extending towards Wharncliffe so seems like construction is moving forward it was not just a small test spot.

[Pimpmasterdac]

There's lots of developments coming to south London, that really have questions about who exactly will be tenants in there areas. Southwest area and developments along Wonderland Rd. S are, especially with Wal-Mart.

The current smart centre near Wonderland & Southdale has already has lots of stores. As well the PenCore development @ 401 & Wellington has the green light, and has a billboard near Costco soliciting potential tenants. It's not even hollowing out the core anymore, but taking existing business in the suburbs further out to the periphery.

London has dropped the ball on potential developments, Sysco and Toyota that would've been better along 400 series corridor, and are scrapping the bottom of the retail barrel to have something to show!

[MolsonExport]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

More retail in one of the most over-retailed cities, and one with very slow population growth, and like everywhere else, one that is facing mounting retailing dollars shifting to online. Result: A lot more cellphone bling stores in White Oaks mall. Which makes it less of a destination. Which makes more stores pull out once their lease is up. Which makes it less of a destination. Which makes management open up clinics and bric-a-brac junk stores just to keep the lights on. Which makes it less of a destination, particularly for upper-middle class shoppers that underpin the sales for most of the fashion stores in the mall. Which makes more stores pull out once their lease is up.

This, and plus a whole lot more banal retail sprawl. Lose-Lose situation.

[MolsonExport]

White Oaks (Overfuckingkill on the cellphone joints). Just look at the list:

Stellar Store Directory: Technology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bell

Bell
Phone: 519.649.1855
Website: www.bell.ca
Nearest Parking: South Entrance

Black's

Black's
Phone: 519.686.1401
Website: www.blackphoto.com
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

Cellrox

Cellrox
Phone: 519.680.7000
Nearest Parking: Wellington Road Entrance

Cellular X

Cellular X
Phone: 519.318.4147
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

EB Games

EB Games
Phone: 519.668.6552
Website: www.ebgames.com
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

Fido

Fido
Phone: 519.686.0332
Website: www.fido.ca
Nearest Parking: Jalna North Entrance

Koodo Mobile

Koodo Mobile
Phone: 519.681.2989
Website: www.koodomobile.com
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

Outpost2

Outpost2
Phone: 519.963.3182
Website: www.outpost2.ca/
Nearest Parking: South Entrance

Rogers

Rogers
Phone: 519.691.0494
Website: www.rogersplus.com
Nearest Parking: South Entrance

T-Booth Wireless

T-Booth Wireless
Phone: 519.686.2952
Website: www.tbooth.ca
Nearest Parking: South Entrance

Telus

Telus
Phone: 519.668.7342
Website: www.telus.com
Nearest Parking: Wellington Road Entrance

The Source

The Source
Phone: 519.681.5914
Website: www.thesource.ca
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

Virgin Mobile

Virgin Mobile
Phone: 519.668.5115
Website: www.virginmobile.ca
Nearest Parking: Jalna South Entrance

WIND Mobile

WIND Mobile
Phone: 519.914.5127
Website: www.windmobile.ca
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

WIRELESSWAVE

WIRELESSWAVE
Phone: 519.681.9283
Website: www.wirelesswave.ca
Nearest Parking: Bradley Ave. Entrance

WOW! mobile boutique

WOW! mobile boutique
Phone: 519.681.1788
Website: www.wowmobile.ca
Nearest Parking: Jalna South Entrance

[HillStreetBlues]

I cant even begin to imagine what will go in this new development...ok the Lowe's sure but what else could possibly go in this end of the city that is not already here...Golf Town maybe.


My guesses: Little Caesars Pizza; Sleep Country; Target; Scotiabank; Food Basics; Global Pet Foods; Subway; Home Hardware. What I mean, retailers that already exist just a bit further north (closer to where people live and slightly more accessible to people, instead of just cars). That retail now has the ability to pull out of their older spots and have someone build new to suit them rather than going through the hassles and costs of renovations.

MolsonExport is right: the result will be that we are saddled with yet more under-used retail spots in our existing malls and vacancies throughout the more built-up areas in the city, and inaccessible, inefficient and distasteful new big box sprawl on the periphery.