Urban Planning

[jammer139]

New condo advocacy group forming to be voice to City Hall.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/as...owners-form-new-advocacy-group-1.7086298

[ssiguy]

Not surprised by this and is why I am still optimistic about London's downtown over the long term.

The downtown population is booming and that will continue but more importantly is that the people moving downtown are of higher income and more educated. This means more political power by people who are more likely to vote.

[jammer139]

LFP article on the state of the London Plan.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/has-...own-blueprint-for-growth-the-london-plan


Many parts of the London Plan were outdated as it was being written and out of touch with the reality at that time. It was in many ways a stuck in amber document rather then a visionary future planning document. Hopefully the review delivers much needed changes to enable higher densities and build up and not out strategies. If developers want to put up 40-60 story towers downtown then we need to have planning documents that don't put stupid restrictions and obstacles in the way like we have currently.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by jammer139

LFP article on the state of the London Plan.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/has-...own-blueprint-for-growth-the-london-plan


Many parts of the London Plan were outdated as it was being written and out of touch with the reality at that time. It was in many ways a stuck in amber document rather then a visionary future planning document. Hopefully the review delivers much needed changes to enable higher densities and build up and not out strategies. If developers want to put up 40-60 story towers downtown then we need to have planning documents that don't put stupid restrictions and obstacles in the way like we have currently.

The excuse from many politicians for not building LRT was that the city is growing slowly so it won't be needed.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by jammer139

LFP article on the state of the London Plan.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/has-...own-blueprint-for-growth-the-london-plan


Many parts of the London Plan were outdated as it was being written and out of touch with the reality at that time. It was in many ways a stuck in amber document rather then a visionary future planning document. Hopefully the review delivers much needed changes to enable higher densities and build up and not out strategies. If developers want to put up 40-60 story towers downtown then we need to have planning documents that don't put stupid restrictions and obstacles in the way like we have currently.

We hit 2031 population estimates in 2024, 7 years early. All the infrastructure work needed to support that growth is basically 7 years behind.



If we were trying to play catch-up before, we're now simply trying to keep head above water. All this growth is cool and we shouldn't jeopardize it.

Example in the article- a highrise development had to be denied because the sewer system in the area was already at 98% capacity

-----

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

The excuse from many politicians for not building LRT was that the city is growing slowly so it won't be needed.

Those conversations were mostly from 2014-2016. They could not be more wrong. You didn't miss the net- you didn't miss the bucket... you air balled 90 degrees into the crowd

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

The excuse from many politicians for not building LRT was that the city is growing slowly so it won't be needed.

And I wonder what those so called 'politicians' are even doing today.

[CanadianTalk]

Planning committee voted to endorse converting some lands in the city from light industrial-use to residential-use and mixed-use. Still has to go to full council for approval next week.

LFP article: https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/poli...ustrial-land-amid-push-to-47000-new-ones

Report from planning staff: https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=107101

"These land conversions (outlined in red in the maps below) could accommodate more than 1,000 new homes, given that many will be high-density apartments and townhouses."

former Kellogg factory lands - This could see homes, such as condominiums or apartments. The former cereal factory lands are now a mixed-use commercial and entertainment district with further redevelopment planned.





Hyde Park commercial industrial area - south of Fanshawe Park Road and west of Hyde Park Road. The portion of these lands recommended for conversion is now largely vacant with established commercial and light-industrial plazas to the north and east.





north side of Fanshawe Park Road, west of Hyde Park Road





York Street - between Maitland and Rectory





Light Industrial Area South of CN Rail, Maitland Street to Rectory Street

[rdaner]

Thanks for the information. I am surprised that it has taken this long. The Kellogg site and York sites should go quickly as they are basically adjacent to downtown.

[Djeffery]

I know the ultimate plan at 100 Kellogg is to redevelop the Drexel warehouse space on the south end of the property once all the other stuff is finished and the complex is making money. Drexel has been adding to their capacity at their other locations in the city and a warehouse logistics facility doesn't really fit into what the owners are trying to do at 100 Kellogg. But the rent Drexel pays for those couple hundred thousand sq ft of space is basically what allowed the rest of the re-development to start.

I don't know if they even know yet what they will do with that part of the property, but a 2 or 3 tower (maybe similar to the Medallion project on the other side of the fairgrounds) would look good there, with a good size podium and underground parking garage that might also allow them to put something on their parking lots along the west side of Kellogg Lane.

Part of the lands in red in that is the plot at the southeast corner of Dundas and Eleanor, which somewhere way back in this forum is a proposal to build something. I know the developer was the owner of the Finch Auto group, but I don't recall what it was he was proposing there.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by CanadianTalk

Planning committee voted to endorse converting some lands in the city from light industrial-use to residential-use and mixed-use. Still has to go to full council for approval next week.

LFP article: https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/poli...ustrial-land-amid-push-to-47000-new-ones

Report from planning staff: https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=107101

"These land conversions (outlined in red in the maps below) could accommodate more than 1,000 new homes, given that many will be high-density apartments and townhouses."

former Kellogg factory lands - This could see homes, such as condominiums or apartments. The former cereal factory lands are now a mixed-use commercial and entertainment district with further redevelopment planned.





Hyde Park commercial industrial area - south of Fanshawe Park Road and west of Hyde Park Road. The portion of these lands recommended for conversion is now largely vacant with established commercial and light-industrial plazas to the north and east.





north side of Fanshawe Park Road, west of Hyde Park Road





York Street - between Maitland and Rectory





Light Industrial Area South of CN Rail, Maitland Street to Rectory Street

very interesting, thanks for the link and maps. I live not too far from the Hyde Park lands under possible conversion (my neighborhood south of Gainsboroug Rd. and east of Hyde Park Rd)

[manny_santos]

Looks like Copp's on Fanshawe Park is part of this. Last time I drove by there (December 2023) it was still there; did they close?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Looks like Copp's on Fanshawe Park is part of this. Last time I drove by there (December 2023) it was still there; did they close?

No its still there and quite busy. I think this is more about future zoning, not really changing what is currently operating on the properties. For example, on York St between Adelaide and Rectory, 745 York is shown in purple. That was for decades a Canada Trust warehouse then TD bank call centre and is now a large Uhaul storage facility. I just posted the other day the construction going on there right now with a large new building (I'm assuming a maintenance building) being built in the west parking lot. So, that lot, even if rezoned, isn't going to sprout apartments anytime soon. The lot to the west of that is the building Start.ca was supposed to build their new headquarters at. Now that they are owned by Telus, who knows what they will do with it. Presently the old warehouse on the site houses supplies for their continual installation of fiber optic networks.

[jaradthescot]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

And I wonder what those so called 'politicians' are even doing today.

Some of them are now the mayor...

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by jaradthescot

Some of them are now the mayor...

And I hate him. I even emailed him and told him and city council off basically. Just another useless council wasting another 4 years.

But also, good news for the lands. Most of those lands are downtown and are a major shithole at the moment, would love to see them all redeveloped.

[CanadianTalk]

The city is currently undertaking a couple of new planning initiatives.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/heights-framework-review

First the city is considering increasing maximum building heights in the London Plan for all place types. The current max heights are as follows:

• Downtown - 35 storeys
• Transit Village - 22 storeys
• Rapid Transit Corridor - 12 storeys or 16 stories (depending on proximity to transit village)
• Urban Corridor - 10 storeys
• Main Street - 6 storeys
• Neighborhood - 6 storeys

You can see a map of place types here: https://london.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/Map1_PlaceTypes_CONSOLIDATED_2023_esize.pdf

We've been seeing lots of applications within the last year which go slightly above these max heights, which all would require an "Official Plan Amendment". If I had to guess, one of the big benefits to changing the heights in the London Plan (as opposed to doing amendments all the time) is that should an application be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal by neighbours because it is "too tall" or "too intense", the City would be in a much better position to defend the application because the city's official plan would simply allow for the height.

And secondly, the city is also considering as-of-right zoning for high-density development in proximity to the planned rapid transit system "subject to design standards and mitigation measures being met."

The website says that these will go to Council for a vote in September.

[jammer139]

Hallelujah

Finally some signs of basic common sense from our planning dept and city hall. The mental midgets who thought it was a good idea to have arbitrary maximum heights are hopefully long gone.

Originally Posted by CanadianTalk

The city is currently undertaking a couple of new planning initiatives.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/heights-framework-review

First the city is considering increasing maximum building heights in the London Plan for all place types. The current max heights are as follows:

• Downtown - 35 storeys
• Transit Village - 22 storeys
• Rapid Transit Corridor - 12 storeys
• Urban Corridor - 10 storeys
• Main Street - 6 storeys
• Neighborhood - 6 storeys

You can see a map of place types here: https://london.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/Map1_PlaceTypes_CONSOLIDATED_2023_esize.pdf

We've been seeing lots of applications within the last year which go slightly above these max heights, which all would require an "Official Plan Amendment". If I had to guess, one of the big benefits to changing the heights in the London Plan (as opposed to doing amendments all the time) is that should an application be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal by neighbours because it is "too tall" or "too intense", the City would be in a much better position to defend the application because the city's official plan would simply allow for the height.

And secondly, the city is also considering as-of-right zoning for high-density development in proximity to the planned rapid transit system "subject to design standards and mitigation measures being met."

The website says that these will go to Council for a vote in September.

[MolsonExport]

There shouldn't be a cap on floor counts downtown. That is where the tall buildings should be concentrated. I am not saying they should be able to build as high as they want, anywhere in the core, but there should be parts where the sky would be the limit.

Downtown London isn't exactly charming. It could only benefit from having another 20K (or more) residents in the core. As opposed to what seems to be 5K homeless/junkies (I don't know what the solution is regarding these unfortunate people, but their concentration downtown is probably the biggest downside to downtown).

[jammer139]

Changes to two Transit Villages.


What is Proposed?
An Official Plan and zoning by-law amendment to:
• Amend the policies of the Transit Village Place Type to permit additional Transit Villages;
• Add a new Transit Village Place Type, situated at and surrounding the Oxford-Richmond intersection;
• Amend the policies to accommodate the Transit Village Place Type, situated at and surrounding 100 Kellogg Lane.



https://london.ca/sites/default/files/20...es%20Ox.-Rich.%20%26%20100%20Kellogg.pdf

[CanadianTalk]

Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA) are areas surrounding and including an existing or planned higher-order transit station or stop. PMTSAs are intended to accommodate increased residential and employment growth with highly urban, mixed-use, transit-supportive forms of development.

As Council previously approved the PMTSA policies in 2020, the City must now amend the zoning by-law, as required by The Planning Act, to implement these policies.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/pmtsa

The draft zones and draft mapping will be released in the summer, and the report will be given to City Council in September.

[jammer139]

LFP article on Transit Area zonings.

Not sure why they are mentioning 5 years from now. Large building projects can take almost that long just in the construction phase to happen. Not even counting the property acquisition phase, zoning, architectural and engineering designs and detailed site plan and building permit application approvals.

They need to be thinking what will make sense decades into the future and not 5 years from now. Buildings could realistically be standing for 100 years.



https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/city...es-on-buildings-in-londons-busiest-spots