London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[Snashcan]

I waqs at the planning committee meeting about the UGB, it's good to see most of council agree. All the staff know we don't need to expand.

[ldoto]

Tower fight goes to OMB

Wed, August 1, 2007

Sifton disputes the city's rejection of its plan for Riverside Drive and Wonderland Road.

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



Sifton Properties is challenging the city's rejection of its plans for a riverside office tower that drew nearly universal opposition from neighbours.

Sifton filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the eve of a deadline this week to challenge city council's unanimous rejection June 25 of a five-storey building that would overlook the Thames River at Riverside Drive and Wonderland Road.

Company officials say they will continue to seek a negotiated settlement with the city but want to preserve the option of a legal challenge.

The challenge by Sifton upset Monica Jarabek, who spearheaded opposition as the chairperson of the Oakridge Riverside Community Association.

"We're disappointed (Sifton has) taken this tactic," she said yesterday.

But Jarabek remained hopeful Sifton will accept a city offer to buy the land for as much as $500,000 -- which includes $400,000, the price Sifton paid for the land, and expenses up to $100,000.

"We're still hopeful they'll accept the (offer) and show their good corporate citizenship," she said.

Sifton officials have said $100,000 fails to cover their costs and they expect a profit from their investment.

Sifton bought the prime 0.8-hectare parcel and planned to build an office tower that would serve as its "signature" building in London.

While residents of Oakridge Acres and beyond decried the effect the office might have on the area and the adjacent Thames River, Sifton officials say their proposal meets the objectives of city and Ontario policies and warrants changing the zoning of the land from open space to commercial.

London city staff proposed a compromise no one wanted, a three-storey office with 60 per cent less floor space.

The proposed development led council to reconsider freezing development along the river, its concerns heightened by research that projects more severe flooding along the Thames caused by global warming. The OMB has not set a date for a hearing.

[ldoto]

Update!

New tower!!
Here's some more good news for the downtown!!!!

Take a look cool....


http://council.london.ca/Planning%20Committee%20Agendas/2006-02-27%20Agenda/Item%2011.pdf

[MolsonExport]

I was unable to access the file^

[Snark]

..

[ldoto]

Try it again MolsonExport

[FazDeH]

^^^ thats not bad looking, I was afraid we were going for another commie block building. though its funny that this design style has become a common choice in the city. Its nice but I WANT MORE GLASS!!!!

[GreatTallNorth2]

We all want more glass towers or towers with some design element. I think Farhi is the only developer in town that wants to build a classy tower. Remember his proposal? It was about 28-30 stories and was going to cost $100 million to build. It looked much better than the current crop of towers. I hope Farhi eventually builds something. Maybe some Toronto developers will start looking outside the GTA to build. With all the "talk" of London being a creative city, you would think that the council would push for buildings to look a little more creative.

Anyways, the more buildings, the better. One question...this proposal says August 2006. Is this building still in the works?

[MolsonExport]

Okay, it works. Wish it were in the heart of downtown.

I propose a moratorium on any new commie blocks. They are still being erected near the Costco on Wonderland.

[FazDeH]

^^^"It was about 28-30 stories and was going to cost $100 million to build" yeah it was the library project and it was beautiful. He pulled out after Rennaisance went into development. As far as I recall he felt there was to much competition. which is sad, that and the whole parking thing. Now Windsor is getting the investment that should have been made here. Good for them bad for us. Im sure he'll build something eventually. but yeah more glass would be great. And who knows maybe the council will push for more "creative buildings" but mostly they are content with the status quoe.

[Snark]

..

[WhipperSnapper]

^I don't buy that as London's architecture is more the exception than the rule (not to mention land costs are by far the largest determining factor for the higher prices in Toronto)

[WaterlooInvestor]

I don't buy that either. You don't even need to look further than your own city to find a developer, London-based Auburn Developments, who proposed and has now been approved to build two 25 storey glass condos in Waterloo (part of a similar sized metro as London). The other glass towers being proposed in my metro have a projected sale price of $300/sq. foot. Victoria, a smaller metro, has some amazing glass towers being proposed.

London has some great things to attract young people downtown (JLC, etc..) and has a good university to pump out young professionals (Western), but in order to keep these young professionals modern condos need to be built. It's too bad the Time Condo project also fell through since it looked interesting for young people.

[SlickFranky]

I think some of those Time condos (the one on King near Richmond???) are still listed on MLS...I remember seeing them there a few weeks ago anyway.

[QuantumLeap]

It's funny how this benign tower has raised so much discussion! I feel like I must weigh in...

It is really too bad that there have not been better projects built in London lately, ahd the Mill Street tower is no exception to the trend.

I have to agree with some of the above posts- there are economic reasons for the kind of architecture that we are seeing especially downtown- but there are difficult questions of cause and effect that we have to raise. I would raise the following points:
i) Condos vs Rentals: most of the "beautiful projects" in other cities have been condos. The vast majority of London's projects are rentals, which are generally of lesser design value.
ii) Housing and land prices: Land and housing prices are lower than in other cities. This is a major advantage of London, and hopefully the city can leverage this in the future to drive growth. It should mean that developers have MORE money for good design, but we have seen that it infact doesn't translate into better design.
iii) Lower buying power: Related to the two above points, Londoners have less buying power, translating into less design.
iv) Lack of taste/ impetus for design: It seems like there is little demand for good design from consumers or from the city. The city cannot really mandate "beautiful architecture", but what it can mandate is good elements of urban design- not necessarily resulting in great buildings, but setting standards that every building needs to meet. These standards should include better standards for height and massing, better streetfront design (including less blank walls, less indoor malls, more streetfront commercial), and a big change from current zoning rules that demand big setbacks, big parking and restrict mixing of uses. The city also sets a VERY POOR example of urban design in its own buildings. Furthermore, the heritage community has become the de facto architecture police in the city, meaning that good modern design is ignored, and new buildings are encouraged to be conservative.
v) Small Development Community: lack of competition means Drewlo and Tricar can keep building ugly brown and grey buildings.
vi) Priorities: Downtown, do our priorities lie in simply encouraging as much development as possible or in encouraging Parisian-style design? Probably the middle of the road?
vii) Other Small Cities' Experience: We should look at why and how other cities are getting nice buildings- consider the Marilyn Monroe in Mississauga.
viii) Actual Design: I cannot believe that everyone wants "glass towers". How blah! Yes, it would be nice to have some change with a few towers of this design, but only for diversity sake. Have you seen waterfront Toronto? It has become boring with these buildings. We need nice architecture, but the case of Montreal (where I am staying) shows nice does not have to mean glass. I hope we can get a truly diverse skyline within a few years. I would personally like to see more retro-style buildings in neo-Art Deco and neo-Art Moderne.

Thanks. Keep up the great discussion (eg feel free to mercilessly attack this post)!

[GreatTallNorth2]

Hi folks. I decided that I would personally call someone at Auburn Developments and pose the question: why do you not build more attractive buildings? I was able to speak to someone that is involved in this and I asked her the question. She told me that this is really up to the city. Developers build with the purpose of maximizing profits, just like any business does. She did tell me that the city insisted that Auburn make the first 3-4 floors out of red brick to match the area streetscape (or what was there before, I forget). She told me that the city has total control to tell developers what to build. The city can add density and approve projects at will and sometimes will ask developers to change things to conform to what the city wants, but the city must not tell developers to make good looking buildings.

She told me to call the planning department at the city to voice my opinion and city councillors. I think we should all do this and pressure London, the so called creative city, to make the buildings look more creative.

[QuantumLeap]

UPDATE:
Planning Ctee agenda shows a new permit for a tower at 56 Capulet (between Oxford and Beaverbrook)- yet another commie block for Wonderland/ Oxford. I am planning to write a letter to Council - not only is this area disgusting, but there has been little obvious urban design or site design in evidence.
PS According to City Map, there are 5 more unbuilt addresses at this site. That will bring the grand total of commie blocks NW of Wonderland and Oxford to 14 (approximately 2000 units!).

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

I am planning to write a letter to Council - not only is this area disgusting, but there has been little obvious urban design or site design in evidence.

Do it! Write an email and address to every councilor and also include the Free Press editor. You will get some response. Everyone should do it.

[Snark]

..

[flar]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

UPDATE:
yet another commie block for Wonderland/ Oxford. I am planning to write a letter to Council - not only is this area disgusting, but there has been little obvious urban design or site design in evidence.

That area is so poorly designed, it would be a five minute walk to the road from some of these buildings if someone actually had to get to a bus stop.