HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2007, 6:09 PM
FazDeH's Avatar
FazDeH FazDeH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 233
I think maybe converting Dundas from Wellington to Richmond into a perminent pedestrian walkway might be a good start, use the space to create patios and an outside shopping gallery. retool the buildings themselves and create mixed use buildings with shops and restaurants bellow and apartments above. If the project picked up steam maybe covering the walking way with some kind of glass cladding, keeping it airy but also protected perspective shoppers from the nasty weather in the winter time. Its just a thought Ive been tinkering with, what does everyone else think? seriously what could we do with Dundas?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2007, 8:12 PM
Snashcan Snashcan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GTA Canada
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by FazDeH View Post
I think maybe converting Dundas from Wellington to Richmond into a perminent pedestrian walkway might be a good start, use the space to create patios and an outside shopping gallery. retool the buildings themselves and create mixed use buildings with shops and restaurants bellow and apartments above. If the project picked up steam maybe covering the walking way with some kind of glass cladding, keeping it airy but also protected perspective shoppers from the nasty weather in the winter time. Its just a thought Ive been tinkering with, what does everyone else think? seriously what could we do with Dundas?

pedestrianizing the street would be the best way to go, it would transform the street, probabally turn it into the next significant bar/patio place in the city. It would be very lively no doubt, and a people only area like that is desperately needed in London. But the traffic engineers and conservative council would never go for something like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2007, 4:44 AM
Snark Snark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 505
..

Last edited by Snark; Jan 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2007, 4:57 AM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,741
Dundas St. isn't a weak spot, it seems to me to be the healthiest street downtown. Richmond south of King should demand more immediate attention.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2007, 12:48 PM
Snashcan Snashcan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GTA Canada
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snark View Post


A great idea in principal, but totally impractical in practical terms. Not going to get into it more than that for now, other than to say that it has been considered for both downtowns of London and Kitchener over 25 years ago, and disregarded as soon as the actual requirements to make it really happen were fleshed out. It is much, much harder and expensive than it initially looks.

Downtown London's remaining few development problems consist of 2 or 3 blocks out of dozens. A 100 M geodesic dome over those locations is not necessary or practical to solve the problem.
That's the problem with Canadian planning, always about being practical, the engineers plan everything. Canadian downtown road are built a bit wide for this concept, but it can still work in small sections. I've actually seen the proposals for Kitchener when I went there with the other city of london planning staff. The proposals were good, but the pedestrianized version was overboard. It's actually not as difficult as one may think, but you have to think less about practicality and more about human well being.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2007, 9:24 PM
QuantumLeap QuantumLeap is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 206
Pedestrianization is not the way to go

Pedestrianization of Dundas is NOT the way to go. I will expand on this more in the future when time permits, but I certainly am not in favour of pedestrianization. I've seen it fail several times, especially in mid-sized cities. It is a tool for already successful downtowns, not for revitalizing ones. Robson St, Queen St, rue Ste-Catherine: these are all good counter-examples, that is successful streets with huge amounts of traffic. Sparks Street mall in Ottawa: good example of why and how they fail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 12:47 AM
Snashcan Snashcan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GTA Canada
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumLeap View Post
Pedestrianization of Dundas is NOT the way to go. I will expand on this more in the future when time permits, but I certainly am not in favour of pedestrianization. I've seen it fail several times, especially in mid-sized cities. It is a tool for already successful downtowns, not for revitalizing ones. Robson St, Queen St, rue Ste-Catherine: these are all good counter-examples, that is successful streets with huge amounts of traffic. Sparks Street mall in Ottawa: good example of why and how they fail.
Well london has a student population who could definately support a more chic bistro type atmosphere, which London does seriously lack. Even if it wasn't full pedestrianized streets, but we need to give the downtown back to the people and away from the car. Even if that section of dundas had reduced street parking and much larger boulevards. I agree a fully pedestrianized street might be a bit to much for dundas, but The city seriously lack a promenade in downtown. Either Richmond street or Dundas would be prime canidates for this. It would not only send the buisness on those streets through the roof, it would transfor the whole area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 9:35 PM
SlickFranky's Avatar
SlickFranky SlickFranky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 229
I'm looking forward to hearing the myriad reasons why pedestrianization of Dundas is such a terrible idea.
I myself am not so sure that it would work, but why couldn't we try it out? Who drives down that stretch anyway? King & Queens both have sync'd lights, and you can turn right or left at every intersection. There aren't any parking lots with Dundas-only access, or businesses that rely on drive-thrus. The only logistical problem I see is a one-block reroute of the bus lines that run down that strip.
What am I missing here guys???
Again, I'm not saying it would be successful...I just don't see how it's "impractical".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 1:51 AM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,758
I think that making Dundas a pedestrianized street is an aweful idea UNLESS you take it a step further and have a street market there or something that will draw people there. Just closing it down without further action is useless. A better idea of a pedestrian area is to shut down Talbot Street between King and Market Lane so you join the Market with the JLC. It makes sense and they do it often now already. The politicians should study something like Camden Locke in the other London where hoards of people come to buy and sell at that street market. Free enterprise works great. Let people come and set up a table and sell what they want in an open market. Charge them next to nothing for rent and you will see things happen.

How about tearing down Labatt Park and using the land to build a real stadium? Labatt Park, although a beautiful setting, is a waste of space. No one hardly uses it.

London politicians have a hard time thinking outside the box. They say we want to be a "creative city", but we are so far from it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 3:07 AM
Snashcan Snashcan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GTA Canada
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
I think that making Dundas a pedestrianized street is an aweful idea UNLESS you take it a step further and have a street market there or something that will draw people there. Just closing it down without further action is useless. A better idea of a pedestrian area is to shut down Talbot Street between King and Market Lane so you join the Market with the JLC. It makes sense and they do it often now already. The politicians should study something like Camden Locke in the other London where hoards of people come to buy and sell at that street market. Free enterprise works great. Let people come and set up a table and sell what they want in an open market. Charge them next to nothing for rent and you will see things happen.

How about tearing down Labatt Park and using the land to build a real stadium? Labatt Park, although a beautiful setting, is a waste of space. No one hardly uses it.

London politicians have a hard time thinking outside the box. They say we want to be a "creative city", but we are so far from it.
What would another stadium do? who watches baseball in Canada???

But to me Dundas is the place to pedestrianize, it's in dire need of a face lift, and is the core for the whole city. But I really think limiting it to a 2 lane road and expanding the blvds is key. To let you in on a little secret at City Hall, this is most likely the route they're going to take. It's actually in the work for the section between ridout and talbot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 12:21 PM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,758
I wasn't talking about a new baseball stadium. I was talking about building a new football/soccer stadium where Labatt Park is. It would draw more than sports events. I just think Labatt Park is a waste of space because it is barely used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 5:58 PM
QuantumLeap QuantumLeap is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 206
I will be at tomorrow's meeting

I will be at tomorrow's meeting to present my ideas. I am happy to put up my presentation when it is finalized later today.
One simple reason that pedestrianization does not work is that you need to have a core group of people who are already pedestrians in the core- people who live or work right in the core, or who take transit and have lots of disposable income (eg subway tusers in big cities). We have neither of these. The stores on a pedestrian street cannot be reliant on drive-by traffic, nor can they be the sorts of places where people even occassionally need to unload and load big merchandise into their private cars. Transit users would infact be displaced from Dundas by closing it, meaning that not even the discount stores could stay open.
Next, what you need is something to attract people to the pedestrianized street- festivals, markets, events, nice buildings, landscaping but above all: nice stores ALREADY on the street. This is why I said pedestrianization is not a solution for Dundas Street. I am not even sure that I would like to see reduced parking on the street. I think that parking is vital for the street's success in the short-term.
What I WOULD like to see: is the development and improvement of other shopping streets in the downtown. Dundas has been "pedestrianized" as much as it can be without being fully closed to traffic. The same thing needs to happen on other main streets: York, Richmond, Ridout, Dufferin. Sidewalks need to be widened, lanes narrowed or eliminated (think turn lanes) to reduce traffic speed. Trees need to be planted (AND watered). This makes the street more amenable without closing it.
Also, I would like to see a pedestrian-only embankment along the downtown part of the Thames, with restaurants etc. It is a very different thing to go in planning on PO than trying to retrofit and forcing retailers to change their MO afterward.
What needs to be done downtown is nothing drastic or gimmicky. Simply, Council needs to continue to stimulate downtown residential and control retail expansion in the burbs. Retail, offices, and residential are ultimately what defines the downtown- and so council and LDBA need to make focussed attempts to attract those, instead of the sorts of gimmicks other cities have tried unsuccessfully and failed at, especially those based on "spinoff benefits" (eg Reaganomics)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 6:39 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,397
It is a tough thing to do. Pedestrianization was forced on Granville Street (Northern downtown portion) in Vancouver, and the result was a further downward spiral (nobody wants to walk there, unless you are in the market for porn, or perhaps a line of reefer).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 7:03 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,741
Labatt Park is untouchable because of its historic significance. It's a beauty too, even if only the Majors use it.
Dundas will never be pedestrianized because it's basically the downtown transit hub and one of London's major through streets.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 1:25 AM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,349
New arts centre proposed

New arts centre proposed

Tue, September 25, 2007

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



Londoners who want a performing arts centre will see their aspirations take centre stage tomorrow when politicians debate a massive undertaking whose price tag seems likely to top $60 million
.

Though arts supporters have long pushed for a first-rate performance hall, this time they'll read from a somewhat different script, pointing to a city report that says 40-year-old Centennial Hall should be closed within a decade.

The acoustics in the hall are so bad music students at the University of Western Ontario go on field trips to other cities to hear themselves perform, wrote Novita, a Toronto-based theatre consulting firm.

Public spaces at the hall are "dated, dreary-looking and worn out," says the report, which will be presented to board of control tomorrow.

"Centennial Hall is such a poor facility and is so reluctantly used that it has only a ghostly presence in its market," Novita wrote.

But the price tag of a new facility, as outlined in the report, had many council members turning pale.

In the roughest of estimates -- Novita called its number speculative -- a performing arts centre seating 1,200 to 1,500 people and a second building to provide needed space for sets and rehearsals would cost $55 million.

That price doesn't include land that the city would have to purchase if it follows its consultant's advice to sell the Centennial Hall site and purchase a larger one closer to downtown restaurants.

And those costs pale next to an estimate done in 2004 by EllisDon Construction that presented two options at $97 million and $74 million.

Beyond the construction costs, the city would have to subsidize the operations of a new facility -- staff suggest it would cost as much as $2 million a year.

"I think it's going to be a tough sell to the general public," Controller Bud Polhill said last night, his observation repeated by others.

"There's a specific group of people who would frequent the place asking a whole lot of Londoners to carry the costs."

His comments provoked Controller Gord Hume, who has long advocated a performance centre.

"No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Arts and culture cross every boundary and strata of our society. It's not elitist and we have to get rid of that notion," Hume said.

"This is another exciting step for London if we have the courage to take it."

In recommendations to board of control, the city finance boss Vic Cote doesn't openly support or oppose a new centre but does push to close Centennial Hall even faster than the consultant recommends -- by June 2016 rather than the end of 2017.

Cote also recommends the city should invest in new equipment in Centennial Hall but give priority to items that could "be moved to other buildings."

Though the city would seek funding partners in Ottawa and Queen's Park and donors locally, Cote suggests, that if the project goes forward, city taxpayers pick up the largest share of the cost -- between $35 million and $40 million plus land costs.

That seems too rich for councillors, even Hume, who says he'd want the city share to be about 25 per cent.

Though Hume is confident private donors will help, he believes the biggest challenge will be to get big bucks from the Ontario and federal governments.

Rumours were rampant last night at city hall of someone in the private sector prepared to make a "major" contribution, though how much or from whom was uncertain.

City hall faces an ongoing cash crunch brought on by debt used to finance major projects, such as the JLC, in the late 1990s and early 2000s .

THE PLAYBILL

THE CHARACTERS

- Centennial Hall is 40-years-old and was dated from the start, a consultant says, with barely a place for a show's orchestra, little space back stage, a lack of rehearsal areas, dreary and cramped public spaces and acoustics so bad that many dread performing there.

- A brand new performing arts centre that would be to music, dance and theatre what the John Labatt Centre is for hockey and big shows. With 1,200 to 1,500 seats, it would have less capacity than the relic it replaces but more than enough room to attract performers and land acts that now skip London, a consultant says. The recommendation is to build downtown near restaurants.

THE PLOT

After many years of pushing for a performing arts centre, supporters think the clicking clock on Centennial Hall -- a consultant says to close it in 10 years -- will clear the way. But their traditional foe, a high pricetag, has left many on council skeptical.

THE COST OF PRODUCTION

A consultant estimates -- roughly -- it might cost $55 million to build a new centre and a second building for rehearsals, storage and ancillary uses.

OPENING DATE

A consultant suggests by the end of 2017.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 12:10 AM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,349
Private sector must ante up to build centre

Private sector must ante up to build centre

Wed, September 26, 2007

By JOE BELANGER, SUN MEDIA



A performing arts centre won't happen without the private sector and the provincial and federal governments kicking in as much as two-thirds of the estimated $60-million cost, observers say.

"I think it will be hard to do unless we know there's a true commitment with serious dollars coming from the private sector," London Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best said.

"I'd say $5 million is not enough from the private sector, but $20 million to $30 million would give city council a lot to think about."

Similar support would have to come from federal and provincial governments, DeCicco-Best said.

Today, board of control will receive a staff report recommending the city plan for the closing of 40-year-old Centennial Hall and start talking about a new performing arts centre to replace it.

The report suggests city taxpayers likely would have to pony up $35 million to $40 million, but politicians and others say they are confident the bill would be lower.

"A performing arts centre is doable -- with a reliable business plan, including a partnership of federal, provincial and municipal dollars with a significant contribution from the private sector," Controller Gord Hume said. "I think we can get $20 million, at least, from the private sector."

A performing arts centre is a key recommendation of the creative city task force chaired by Hume.

"We know there is enormous young talent in London and a lot of it is leaving London," Hume said. "This (a centre) is what makes up the fabric for a thriving, creative city that will keep them here."

Vic Cote, the city's finance boss who played a key role in the John Labatt Centre, said the city should be able to afford a performing arts centre within the proposed 10-year time frame.

He said the city's debt load -- about $293 million in issued or approved debt -- is well under control. As well, if the province takes back the cost of social programs as promised, there will be millions of tax dollars available to support new initiatives.

"Although it sounds like a large amount, really the $35 million is the equivalent of what we're spending now on the police headquarters expansion or the community centre in North London," Cote said.

But Cote said he's not convinced the private sector will kick in $20 million.

George Kerhoulas, chairperson of the London Performing Arts Centre board, said dozens of Londoners could afford to make significant donations. How much, though, he wouldn't speculate.

Kerhoulas said he hopes Londoners won't be discouraged by the cost and pointed to the success of the John Labatt Centre.

"Who would have thought the JLC would be one of the busiest facilities of its kind in North America?. I think we're getting pretty good at these projects. Why are we so afraid of this facility?"

Most observers say it's too early to say where the performing arts centre should be built, other than somewhere in the 26 square blocks of the core.

"I'd like to see it smack in the middle of the downtown," said Janette MacDonald, manager of MainStreet London.

If a performing arts centre is built, DeCicco-Best, Hume, Kerhoulas and others say it would put the finishing touch on downtown's revitalization, perhaps even utilizing several heritage buildings for offices, rehearsal space, storage and other uses.

They say, corners shouldn't be cut just to get it built.

"With the JLC, we learned we were right to do it right," Hume said of the debate about whether to build a small arena or a 9,800-seat concert venue.

"There's no halfway, no cutting corners that affects the kind of programming we can have there," said DeCicco-Best
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 2:41 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,397
err, why?


Ohhh, I get it. Downtown will be rescued by taxpayers, while developers will get tax breaks to build in the suburbs. Same shit, different pile.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 7:58 PM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,349
Performing arts centre

Performing arts centre farce rewinds on city council stage tops the agenda at city council

Thu, September 27, 2007

By IAN GILLESPIE, FREE PRESS COLUMNIST



Here we go again.

Almost 20 years after city council narrowly killed a six-year campaign to build a performing arts centre, local tongues are wagging again about the same topic.

And once again, we're hearing the same self-serving rhetoric.

Controller Bud Polhill suggested, "There's a specific group of people who would frequent the place asking a whole lot of Londoners to carry the costs."

London Chamber of Commerce general manager Gerry Macartney said, "Spending tax dollars on things that benefit only a few . . . would create significant controversy."

Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen declared fixing roads is a higher priority than building a performing arts centre "not everybody will go to."

It is, of course, the old elitist argument. That a performing arts centre is a luxury that only serves limp-wristed rich folks, because arts and culture is nothing but a hoity-toity waste of time. (When Winston Churchill's finance minister suggested they cut their arts budget for defence funds, Churchill reportedly said, "God, no. Then what are we fighting for?")

For Peter Soumalias, it's all a bad case of deja vu.

Soumalias was president of the Performing Arts Centre Today (PACT) group that lobbied for a centre during the 1980s. When asked yesterday how he felt about this latest development, he sounded discouraged.

"The most frustrating exercise we went through was dealing with uninformed opinions," said Soumalias, president and chief executive of Symas Holdings Corp. in Toronto and co-founder of Canada's Walk of Fame.

"People made up their minds and didn't let any information get in the way . . . And that's a huge hurdle to overcome."

Soumalias and PACT did their homework in the '80s, and their conclusion -- that the benefits of a performing arts centre are enormous -- still apply.

They argued a performing arts centre would help revitalize the downtown and bring added economic spinoffs.

They described the diversified programming offered at similar centres.

They demonstrated that after some early investment by the community, such centres routinely pay for themselves.

They pointed out the less tangible facets of such a facility -- things like civic reputation, morale and quality of life.

But those things weren't what stopped PACT.

"The obstacles were really political," recalled Soumalias. "It's very easy for someone who has a political interest to stand up say, 'Do you want an elitist facility or do you want baseball diamonds for all our children?' And it's just not a well-informed argument."

He's right.

We can -- and we should -- argue about where to build a performing arts centre, how much to spend, what it will look like and who should be in charge. But you'd think we'd be past the point of having to defend the existence of such a facility.

With their shoot-from-the-hip comments, Polhill, Macartney and Van Meerbergen seem to be suggesting taxpayers should only have to pay for services they use.

If that's true, then it follows that since I never drive down Cathcart Street, I don't want my tax dollars being spent on road work there. And since I've never needed police assistance, I don't want my tax dollars going into the new headquarters on Dundas Street. And since I don't smoke and never burn candles in my house, I don't want a single cent of my taxes spent on the local fire department.

Those arguments don't make sense -- at least not in a society in which decisions are made for something called the collective good.

But standing on a soap box and shouting that a performing arts centre is an elitist waste of money is nothing more than a way to score easy points with the no-tax-is-a-good-tax tribe.

This issue has been studied to death (including a $30,000 first-phase study in 1987 financed by the federal government). But some politicians would rather ignore reports and resort to simple-minded screeching.

"I'm surprised this thing still needs to be debated," said Soumalias. "Certainly, I hoped that 18 years later, my friends in London would have gotten this done and grown up a bit.

"But London tends to do a lot of navel-gazing," he said. "Sometimes to its detriment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 7:59 PM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,349
Centre gets mixed reviews

Centre gets mixed reviews

Thu, September 27, 2007

Some board of control members wonder if a performing arts facility would be too costly.

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



A proposal to build a performing arts centre in London opened yesterday to mixed reviews at city hall.

Controller Gord Hume challenged his colleagues to act, saying, "Sometimes these big decisions take some courage.

"If we miss this opportunity as a community, we're going to miss it for a long time."

But Hume seemed unable to convince three of five members of board of control, who wondered if taxpayers could afford a new facility, one questioning a consultant's estimated price tag of $55 million plus land.

Controller Gina Barber asked city finance boss Vic Cote why the estimate is lower than one made three years ago by London builder EllisDon Construction, which concluded it would cost between $74 million and $97 million.

"Why was the amount of money significantly higher then?" Barber asked.

The building contemplated by EllisDon was much bigger, Cote replied.

That isn't the only reason, a review of the consultant's report shows.

Consultant Novita estimated it would cost between $400 and $500 a square foot for a performing arts centre -- but three years ago, Ellis-Don projected it would cost $535.

For the 84,000-square-foot facility proposed by the consultant, that's a difference of about $7 million.

Also taking issue was Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell, who accused proponents of an arts centre of propelling their agenda with an imaginary crisis at the building it would replace, Centennial Hall.

"I don't think for a minute that in eight to 10 years (Centennial Hall) will collapse and fall into a hole," Gosnell said.

At the suggestion of Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best, controllers agreed to revisit the issue in three weeks.

While Cote had repeatedly said he will neither support nor oppose the building of a facility, Gosnell said he has shown de-facto support by pushing hard to close Centennial Hall.

Cote wants to close the 40-year-old hall in less than nine years, saying in addition to ongoing maintenance, the dated facility may have to replace mechanical systems costing at least $2.5 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 8:10 PM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,349
Business owners, residents take look down road

Business owners, residents take look down road

Thu, September 27, 2007

By DANIELA SIMUNAC, SUN MEDIA



Downtown London's future was discussed last night by residents and business owners who met with a task force set up to imagine what the city's core should look like by 2017.

From increasing the police presence, to turning Dundas Street into a pedestrian walkway, ideas were shared with the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA) and MainStreet London about improvements that could be made during the next 10 years.

Present concerns were also raised.

"I'm tired of having to garden with leather gloves on because I'm afraid of getting pricked by a needle," said Michael Roberts, a 10-year

resident of the Dundas Street area.

"My neighbourhood has become a kind of ghetto," said Roberts who suggested too many social services are

concentrated in that area and should be spread out more.

Roberts was among about 200 people who took in the meeting last night at the London Convention Centre, sharing ideas with a new task force created to make recommendations for the core's future.

"We wanted a variety of people (to come to the meeting) who are knowledgeable and care a great deal about downtown," said Controller Gord Hume, task force chair.

The 11-member force was created by two boards, the LDBA and MainStreet London, and has been meeting almost weekly since August to discuss downtown issues.

Recommendations will be developed and Hume said a report will be presented by late next winter.

Other ideas raised last night include a municipal buyout of all vacant buildings in the downtown area, changes to the existing parking system and beautifying the cityscape with more plants and flowers.

There was also praise for certain core programs already in place, such as police foot patrols on the streets.

"We love them and we wish there were more of them," said Teresa Tarasewicz, owner of the CityLights bookstore at 356 Richmond St.

Key, big-ticket improvements made to the downtown during the last 10 years include the John Labatt Centre, the new Central Library and the new Convent Garden Market.

That's reason enough to seriously consider a replacement, DeCicco-Best said.

"I don't think we've ever had a more perfect moment because of what's happening at Centennial Hall," she said. "I can't, for one minute, support spending good money after bad when (Centennial Hall) will have no life after eight, nine or 10 years."

Absent from the debate yesterday, but seething after reading the consultant's report was Don Jones, manager of Centennial Hall.

The facility doesn't need a major injection of cash and its mechanical systems aren't at risk of failing, he said.

"If that was the case I would have put up a red flag," Jones said.

While the mayor says Centennial Hall should close within a decade, the city's consultant is less adamant about the timing.

The problems at Centennial Hall have been around for decades, said Brian Arnott of Novita: terrible acoustics, poor sightlines, inadequate space and drab appearance to name a few.

Novita recommended closing it in a decade because city staff asked what should be done in the next 10 years and that was the best option, Arnott said.

In three weeks, controllers will revisit the issue and hear from the volunteer chairperson of the organization lobbying for a new facility, George Kerhoulas of the London Performing Arts Centre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.