London Construction - Development News Thread#1

[jammer139]

City report recommends changing the current high limits in the London Plan to allow for taller buildings.

Members of council’s planning committee received a report by SvN Architects and Planners, a consulting firm hired by the city, that suggested raising the roof on building heights, in some cases significantly, in the rules of the London Plan, the city’s master planning document. The suggested changes include:
Article content

Downtown: 45-storey limit, up from 35 storeys
Transit villages: 30 storeys, up from 22
Rapid transit corridors:
25 storeys, up from 16 within 150 metres of transit stations
15 storeys, up from 12 elsewhere on corridors
Urban corridors: 15 storeys, up from 10
Shopping areas:
Major (new): 15 storeys
Community: Eight storeys, up from six

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-across-london

[jammer139]

PEC approves a number of building proposals. Next up full council.

During Tuesday’s meeting of council’s planning committee, councillors gave the thumbs up to five towers in the north and south ends, with a combined 1,155 units. All five would be located in the city’s rapid transit corridors.
Article content

Two of the towers, 32 and 30 storeys with 568 units, are at White Oaks Mall where the parking garage sits.
A 23-storey, 250-unit tower would go at the southwest corner of the Base Line Road-Wellington Road intersection.
Another two towers, 22 and 20 storeys with 338 units, would be built at the northwest corner of Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...nsit-corridors

[MolsonExport]

wow, that area will never look the same. good for the mall's future, too.

will we finally be able to see that london has a few tall buildings, when driving down the 401? Currently, London does not appear to be much larger than Woodstock, from the 401 vantage points.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

will we finally be able to see that london has a few tall buildings, when driving down the 401? Currently, London does not appear to be much larger than Woodstock, from the 401 vantage points.

I remember when you'd see signs for London interchanges but there wasn't anything adjacent to the highway. It may be 'light industrial suburban' now, but when I go through the feel is quite different than it used to be.

It's just so far south. Yet downtown London is visible from a few points on the 401, based on glances stolen while driving.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by jammer139

City report recommends changing the current high limits in the London Plan to allow for taller buildings.

Members of council’s planning committee received a report by SvN Architects and Planners, a consulting firm hired by the city, that suggested raising the roof on building heights, in some cases significantly, in the rules of the London Plan, the city’s master planning document. The suggested changes include:
Article content

Downtown: 45-storey limit, up from 35 storeys
Transit villages: 30 storeys, up from 22
Rapid transit corridors:
25 storeys, up from 16 within 150 metres of transit stations
15 storeys, up from 12 elsewhere on corridors
Urban corridors: 15 storeys, up from 10
Shopping areas:
Major (new): 15 storeys
Community: Eight storeys, up from six

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-across-london

I heard a great suggestion on the Craig Needles podcast today when they talked about these new height limits. One of the guests suggested for transit villages that rather than a height limit, there be a height minimum. You can't come along and snag a prime piece of property and then slap a 5 story building on it. Put that over a block, leave the good property for the density.

[MolsonExport]

why is there a height limit downtown? I mean, ok, maybe certain places, but what is the rationale for a blanket height limit? Ridiculous. We want density, but we prohibit it?

yet they encourage height on the periphery of the city, in areas dominated by SFH?

[jammer139]

update on the increase to height limits article

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...due-developers

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I heard a great suggestion on the Craig Needles podcast today when they talked about these new height limits. One of the guests suggested for transit villages that rather than a height limit, there be a height minimum. You can't come along and snag a prime piece of property and then slap a 5 story building on it. Put that over a block, leave the good property for the density.

This makes great sense, it should be zoned ahead of time. That also would speed up the application process a bit in some cases.

[Cantilever]

Agree that the limits are really silly. If they must, just have them so they aren't way out of wack (like 110 floors, but its not needed as there isnt a market based reason to go THAT high).

Maybe 60 could be the limit for anything in the Rideout/Wellington/York/Queens rectangle. And then 45 for the blocks surrounding that.

There is no reason to not allow those heights given the need and the benefits.

[bolognium]

My interpretation is that these aren't hard, definite limits. Council happily approved the the 53-storey tower at 50 King Street after all. And the previous 35-storey height limit downtown didn't stop Old Oak from building its 40-storey Centro tower.

My guess is this new limit is just a way to expedite developments under 45s, while still providing the opportunity for bargaining and input for developments that wish to go over the 45s limit.

Honestly, if you had told me 10 or 15 years ago that developers would even be contemplating a 53-storey tower downtown I would have laughed in your face.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Having height limits are useful in that the city has leverage with a developer to ask for enhanced design or other features the city wants.

[Djeffery]

Been curious what was happening with this building at Adelaide and Little Simcoe. Been several businesses and a church over the years. Guillevin Electric is moving into it (this fall they hope, but looks doubtful to me lol) from their current location directly across the road. The roof was raised 15 feet on this building earlier this spring to accommodate a second floor and storage racking.

[jammer139]

Speaking about infill the large parcel of land immediately to the north of this building renovation would make an interesting infill project site. I wonder if the City owns it and has been holding onto it for future expansion of their exterior work depot site.

[K85]

I emailed Sean Lewis about Eat Lions and the absolute mess it always seems to be due to bad design, build and morons who damaged it. I added this link to give it some time frame. He replied, and okayed posting the reply here.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/eas...qXCCxF3Jn9zmQ$ Feb 2023

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



Hello K,

Thank you for your email about this. I am VERY frustrated with this whole ordeal myself, so I absolutely understand where you are coming from. I actually live across the street from the East Lions Community Centre, so I have to look out at this incomplete job every single day personally.

I wanted to let you know that there are some extenuating circumstances. As I'm sure you've noticed, some of the metal exterior covering is currently off the west side wall. When examining the damage for the pool windows for repair, another problem was found that goes back to the construction of the building with regard to ceiling the vapour barrier of the building for the pool area. So first that had to be fixed, and...that meant lawyers had to get involved because that work was not done to the specifications of the original contract. We are finally getting that fixed now, and the exterior metal panels should be back in place by the end of August.

With the window damage, you are absolutely right, what we are working on is an engineering solution so that this cannot happen again. The pool windows are not a standard size glass pane. To replace even one there is about an 8 month back order time and then we have to actually drop them in place with crane. I do not know why this design was ever approved (the design was approved before I was elected, so both the councillor and the staff person are no longer with the city). It should not have been approved this way, but it was. So we've looked at redesigning the window framing structure for smaller standard size windows, we've looked at some sort of external protection like a mesh covering, and we've looked at the option of closing off the windows with a wall panel as well. I have a meeting with staff in 2 weeks to go over the results of investigating all of these options to review the costs, timelines, and impacts of each option, so I am hoping we are nearing at least making a decision to implement a permanent fix.

I can tell you around the gymnasium, the small windows at the bottom are simply going to be closed in with a wall pane. Again, I can't believe a design was ever approved that put glass at the bottom of a gymnasium...but we are working to correct that too.

It is an incredible space, and I am glad you are getting good use of it. If you ever happen to see me there when you are in, say hello, don't be shy. I try to spend a little time there at least every couple weeks so folks can chat with me, even if I am just sitting with a coffee and my laptop doing emails.

Sincerely,
Shawn

Shawn Lewis
Deputy Mayor, Ward 2 Councillor
City of London
e: slewis@london.ca
p: 519-661-2489 ext: 4002
c: 226-219-7038
f: facebook.com/ShawnLewis.ldnpoli/

[Djeffery]

That place has been cursed from the get go. I like Shawn but it's funny to hear him talk sometimes like if he was elected earlier things would be different. He's not an engineer, he wouldn't have said anything about these things when all he is looking at is diagrams and listening to the pros talking at the meetings. If he wants to say that, then he can take also responsibility for being there when they selected the new contractor that has messed this all up.

[CanadianTalk]

Looks like there is going to be a No Frills at Hyde Park and Sarnia.

https://www.westdellcorp.com/wp-cont...-Site-Plan.pdf

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by CanadianTalk

Looks like there is going to be a No Frills at Hyde Park and Sarnia.

https://www.westdellcorp.com/wp-cont...-Site-Plan.pdf

Am I crazy or does that seem like a really small No Frills? Also that parking lot is going to be a mess

[jammer139]

Isn't that currently an antiques store. Rather small indeed.

Originally Posted by inimrepus

Am I crazy or does that seem like a really small No Frills? Also that parking lot is going to be a mess

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by inimrepus

Am I crazy or does that seem like a really small No Frills? Also that parking lot is going to be a mess

Yes, quite small. Just by some basic Google Earth measuring, the No Frills at Colonel Talbot is about 35,000 sq ft. The one going in beside Staples at Wellington is listed on the Westdell site as 18,000 or so, with this one being 12,000. Wonder what they plan to leave out. Makes you wonder though, if they make a smaller than 20k sf store work out in the burbs, why can't they get something like that downtown somewhere?

[CanadianTalk]

I think this is a new concept that No Frills may be trying out. In June 2024, they opened up their first "small" location in Downtown Toronto....

My guess is that it'd be similar to what you see in a Valu-Mart (maybe a little bit bigger) .

https://www.yourcitywithin.com/first...ed-in-toronto/