London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[ldoto]

Sun Media
November 6, 2007

Two industrial buildings are ready for tenants and at least five more are set to go up.

Industrial developers are bullish on London.

Two new buildings are ready for manufacturing tenants and at least five more industrial buildings will rise in the city during the next year as developers are confident London is poised to land big business.

"We see business moving from the GTA along Highway 401 to the London area," said Sean Ford, principal in Brampton-based Dancor Developments.

"We are really bullish on London. It is situated in a great spot; it has a great labour force; we think it is as good as Mississauga."

In total, three developers will spend more than $80 million on speculative industrial real estate in London this year and next and create more than 1.1 million square feet of vacant industrial space for leasing.

Dancor will build two buildings in the Skyway Industrial Park next year of 55,000 and 25,000 square feet, valued at $10 million, which it will lease to small and medium-sized industries looking for a home.

The Dancor projects will add to larger projects in the works. U.S.-based O.R.E. Development Corp. has built one building, 572,000 square feet, and will start work soon on another at 112,000 square feet. Both are valued at more than $40-million on 15 hectares of land at Highway 401 and Highbury Avenue.

In addition, ING Real Estate Canada has built one building on the 401, near Wellington Road, and plans at least two more on the four-hectare site, creating 400,000 square feet of space valued at $32 million.

ING already has a tenant, a distribution centre for Culligan Water, and will cut the ribbon on its building next week.

"A lot of real estate investment funds have been looking to London. . . . We have other large developers from the GTA looking here as well," said Peter White, chief executive of the London Economic Development Corp.

Along with geography and workers, price is the big attraction in London, said Ford.

While land in the GTA can cost $750,000 an acre with development charges of at least $8 a square foot, London land sells for about $200,000 an acre privately and city land for $65,000 an acre with no development fees.

"London, to its credit, has been listening to what my community has been saying. Development charges stop development," said Ford.

Dancor sees a market in London for "feeder tenants" -- small, starting businesses needing incubator-style space before they grow, he added.

The LEDC will use the new buildings as another marketing tool to try to attract business with the pitch there's space ready and waiting, added Heather Pilot, director of business development and attraction in manufacturing for the LEDC.

Although the buildings represent a massive investment, it's hardly a risk as experienced developers study their market, added George Kerhoulas, vice-president with Cushman Wakefield LePage.

[ldoto]

Thu, November 8, 2007

The retired Vancouver director for planning says downtown congestion is a good thing.

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



Here's something to ponder when you're bumper-to-bumper in downtown London: congestion is our friend.

So says one of Canada's leading urban planners, who as a guest of city hall, preached a vision of downtown yesterday so captivating it temporarily tamed a council split about how the city should grow.

A retired director of planning for booming Vancouver, Larry Beasley said his city achieved remarkable growth downtown while refusing to add a single lane of traffic.

"Congestion is our friend. It forces people to consider housing downtown," Beasley said.

A healthy downtown has a vibrant and beautiful mix of retail and offices, homes and green spaces.

But to restore a downtown to health, a city must attract enough residents there to make it viable for commerce -- and it appears, that while London has made progress, it has a ways to go.

London has 4,000 to 5,000 people living downtown, about half of what Beasley says is needed to attract a basic necessity -- a grocery store. It isn't enough to repair facades or even to spend $100 million, as council did, building big attractions such as a new library and the John Labatt Centre.

"They aren't the dynamic through which you will draw enough residential and retail. . . . It won't work, ultimately," Beasley said.

To draw residents downtown, London should create a safe, vibrant place for people to walk, enjoy life and access key services such as pharmacies, day cares, schools, parks and community centres.

Downtowns should be dense with development -- but not large, ugly buildings that make people feel small and unconnected.

Cities must design downtown neighbourhoods that create a positive experience and they can't expect that to happen if they leave questions of design to developers.

Among his other ideas:

- Ban strip malls.

- Make use of the only natural feature downtown that makes London unique, the Thames River.

- Design downtown primarily to meet the needs of residents, not commuters -- by reducing the number of one-way streets, for example.

- Require developers to pay to make the surrounding neighbourhood more enticing because they'll benefit, too.

[ldoto]

Nov, 08 2007 - 7:20 AM


LONDON - A number of L.T.C. busses are going high-tech.
Nearly 200 of them will be equipped with what's known as "smart bus technology" by September of next year.

This technology includes GPS devices, and more electronic information signs at LTC hubs.

Those signs -- like ones already in the downtown -- will display the route number, name and arrival time of the next bus, with updates posted every minute.

Officials say the GPS devices will help bus drivers get to where they're going faster.

The upgrades cost 6-and-a-half million dollars, with most of that money coming from Government gas tax revenue.

Originally Posted by ldoto

Thu, November 8, 2007

The retired Vancouver director for planning says downtown congestion is a good thing.

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



Here's something to ponder when you're bumper-to-bumper in downtown London: congestion is our friend.

So says one of Canada's leading urban planners, who as a guest of city hall, preached a vision of downtown yesterday so captivating it temporarily tamed a council split about how the city should grow.

A retired director of planning for booming Vancouver, Larry Beasley said his city achieved remarkable growth downtown while refusing to add a single lane of traffic.

"Congestion is our friend. It forces people to consider housing downtown," Beasley said.

A healthy downtown has a vibrant and beautiful mix of retail and offices, homes and green spaces.

But to restore a downtown to health, a city must attract enough residents there to make it viable for commerce -- and it appears, that while London has made progress, it has a ways to go.

London has 4,000 to 5,000 people living downtown, about half of what Beasley says is needed to attract a basic necessity -- a grocery store. It isn't enough to repair facades or even to spend $100 million, as council did, building big attractions such as a new library and the John Labatt Centre.

"They aren't the dynamic through which you will draw enough residential and retail. . . . It won't work, ultimately," Beasley said.

To draw residents downtown, London should create a safe, vibrant place for people to walk, enjoy life and access key services such as pharmacies, day cares, schools, parks and community centres.

Downtowns should be dense with development -- but not large, ugly buildings that make people feel small and unconnected.

Cities must design downtown neighbourhoods that create a positive experience and they can't expect that to happen if they leave questions of design to developers.

Among his other ideas:

- Ban strip malls.

- Make use of the only natural feature downtown that makes London unique, the Thames River.

- Design downtown primarily to meet the needs of residents, not commuters -- by reducing the number of one-way streets, for example.

- Require developers to pay to make the surrounding neighbourhood more enticing because they'll benefit, too.

And London's still centralized enough where this approach could still work. It's certainly made more difficult in places like KW where most people work outside of downtown. Beasley seems to be on the ball for this one.

[QuantumLeap]

New Developments on Kipps Lane:
Two buildings being requested at Adelaide and Kipps (redevelopment project) 10-11 floors each.

A.155/07 – Kipps and Adelaide Holdings – 621 and 625 Kipps Lane – Requesting to construct two apartment buildings with a height of 32.5m whereas 30m maximum is permitted; 75 secure bicycle spaces with 225 spaces (outdoor) spaces whereas 302 secure bicycle spaces are required; Decrease parking for the said building from 503 spaces (1.25 spaces per unit) to 402 spaces (1.0 spaces per unit) and maintain 317 parking space for the remaining complex.

[QuantumLeap]

New Development at First and Oxford E.:
If all goes well, a 129-unit (500 bedroom) apartment complex, standing 14 floors high and across from the main gates of Fanshawe College, should be approved by tomorrow's planning committee.

[FazDeH]

^^^ All these developements are good, but why oh why aren't they downtown.

[QuantumLeap]

Although I want to see much more and better development downtown, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Infill in older city neighbourhoods has many of the same benefits as infill downtown. Bothy should be encouraged.

[ldoto]

ATTN:london forumers

I was wondering if you londoners can help me to get SSP:Local london!!! and new poll for london since kw area has one!!!

FW: london poll


Can you please start a new poll for London. Since we talked you said that the admins. said that three SSP:L's in Ontario is good for now. But ever since then you guys have added waterloo region so I was wondering if you can add London region since the London area is larger then the KW area.

Thanks once again LDOTO

SSP for life!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike K.
Hi Idota,

As you may be aware, the admins have decided to keep the three SSP:L's in Ontario for now and allow the other city to have some breathing room to grow.

We will be looking at more SSP:L's in Ontario in the future, but at-present we're going to evaluate some larger cities in other parts of North America.

Regards,

Mike


Quote:
Originally Posted by ldoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldoto
Can you please make Poll Results: of London’s former Thanks ldoto

Hi,

Is this for SSP:Local?

-Mike

Yes this would be great for all the pepole for london!!!

You would make my day!!! SSP forever!!!

^Somehow I'm not surprised that this would be brought up by Londoners soon after KW getting it. By the way, in the 2006 census, London was only marginally larger than Kitchener and growing much more modestly. We will likely pass you in the next census, if we haven't already. Nice try though.

Should London get SSP:Local? Why not, since it seems every city is hopping on that bandwagon these days. It has to end at London though. After that, it'll just be rediculous.

[MolsonExport]

^indeed, although London is much larger than Kitchener...it is only when you amalgamate Kitchener with Waterloo and Cambridge do you get the similar size statistic.

Personally, I think the sticky is fine for London. Just not enough traffic otherwise...and I can do without the sort of trivial stuff like: "new gas station proposed on the corner of shithouse street and boredom boulevard", and "3 storey office block adjacent to White Oaks mall"

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^indeed, although London is much larger than Kitchener...it is only when you amalgamate Kitchener with Waterloo and Cambridge do you get the similar size statistic.

Interesting that you think central city populations are relevant.

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

In that case, London is of comparable population size to St. Louis, Miami, and larger than Buffalo. Your logic is clearly flawed. By the way, didn't London annex numerous towns to get to where it is today?

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Personally, I think the sticky is fine for London. Just not enough traffic otherwise...and I can do without the sort of trivial stuff like: "new gas station proposed on the corner of shithouse street and boredom boulevard", and "3 storey office block adjacent to White Oaks mall"

Point taken.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

Interesting that you think central city populations are relevant.

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

In that case, London is of comparable population size to St. Louis, Miami, and larger than Buffalo. Your logic is clearly flawed. By the way, didn't London annex numerous towns to get to where it is today?

My logic is not at all flawed. You cited Kitchener, nor K-W, or K-W-C, or the K-W CSMA.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

My logic is not at all flawed. You cited Kitchener, nor K-W, or K-W-C, or the K-W CSMA.

There is no K-W or K-W-C CSMA. I was referring to the Kitchener CMA, which includes Waterloo and Cambridge, just as Halifax includes Dartmouth, Toronto includes Brampton and Oakville, and Vancouver includes New Westminster.

http://www40.statcan.ca/z01/cs0007_e.htm

[ldoto]

Council creeps toward arts centre

Tue, November 13, 2007

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



London politicians agreed yesterday to consider building a performing arts centre -- but one accused them of pandering to their own elitist tastes.

"A number of well-to-do rich elected politicians are trying to make the poor people in town pay for this," Coun. Stephen Orser told colleagues.

In the coffee shops of his Ward 4, he said, which extends north and south of the Old East Village, residents worry the costs of a new facility could make taxes prohibitive.

"I haven't been able to find any support for this project -- none," Orser said.

Similar if less vociferous concerns were raised by many on council.

But all but Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen were willing to take the next step -- engage staff and pay $50,000 to a consultant to examine the feasibility of a performance facility and come up with a business plan on how one might be built and operated.

Their findings will be presented to council in June.

Leading the push for a centre was Controller Gord Hume.

"London is the only city its size in Canada, and I'm told in the United States -- but I don't know that -- that doesn't have a performing arts centre," Hume said.

While there's a cost to building a facility, doing nothing also has a cost, Hume said.

Such a facility is crucial if London is to attract and retain creative people, he said. "The leadership starts in this council."

But that's backwards, said Van Meerbergen -- council should respond to citizens, not tell them what they need.

Council shouldn't "ram it down the throats of taxpayers," he said.

In an earlier report, the city's finance chief, Vic Cote, wrote it would cost about $55 million, plus land costs, to build a performing arts centre with seating for 1,200 to 1,500 and a second building for sets and rehearsals.

Cote has estimated city taxpayers might have to pick up between 60 and 70 per cent of the costs, a suggestion that landed like a thud in a council focused on avoiding free-spending ways that led it to tighten its fiscal belt.

Yesterday, the talk was about the city paying a 25-per-cent share, plus land, provided the rest is given by senior governments and the private sector. But even that smaller figure left some asking if the city could find a cheaper way, by modifying an existing building or seeking partners, such as a hotel.

Told by Cote existing sites compromise acoustics, Controller Bud Polhill said he's more concerned about compromising roads and sewers.

"I want to make sure we don't have make-do roads, make-do-sewers and make-do affordable housing," he said.

Coun. Cheryl Miller said Londoners shouldn't have to choose between an arts centre and quality public works. "We deserve both," she said.

But Controller Tom Gosnell said the cost of a facility has to be measured against competing demands.

While council was split on the issues, it seemed also on its best behavior after claims of months of bullying conduct.

Yesterday's committee of the whole meeting was the first on a divisive issue to be chaired by London Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best, who bumped Gosnell last week after some on council complained he'd lacked impartiality.

[ldoto]

Tue, November 13, 2007

By RANDY RICHMOND, SUN MEDIA



The city has a solution to the noise, drunkenness, speeding, partying and other woes associated with college students -- put more than 500 of them in one place.

London's planning committee agreed last night to the building of a 14-storey apartment building at the northwest corner of First and Oxford streets across from Fanshawe College.

"This is a good news story for this part of the city," Coun. Roger Caranci said.

But area residents crowded the council chambers and strongly disagreed, telling politicians stacking students on top of each other is no solution to their problems.

"This type of building will only add to the troubles," said a frustrated Ken Dow.

Many students don't care about the law, the neighbours or even children, added Campbell Milliken.

Between racing cars, loud parties, broken beer bottles, and violent students, his street is not safe, Milliken said.

"These kids don't care," he said. "You can't reason with these people."

"You put in that building and you are saturating the area."

Seventy-one residents of the area signed a petition against the development, citing:

- Loss of income for homeowners renting to students

- Ruining of the landscape in a neighbourhood of single family homes

- Increased traffic

Two huge melees involving hundreds of Fanshawe College students in the Fleming Drive area this fall put the spotlight on students living in residential areas of the city.

The apartment building, with 25-hour security, will draw students out of single family housing where they don't belong, said developer Jack Davis.

City planning staff supports the apartment building, where each unit is expected to house four students. The recommendation by planning committee goes to council Monday night.
__________________

Originally Posted by ldoto

Many students don't care about the law, the neighbours or even children, added Campbell Milliken.

Between racing cars, loud parties, broken beer bottles, and violent students, his street is not safe, Milliken said.

"These kids don't care," he said. "You can't reason with these people."

^ F#%king NIMBYs.

I hate it when people just don't get how much positive economic impact universities and colleges have on cities like London. And I love how they label us all with the same sterotype.

I hope city planners don't take them seriously.

[QuantumLeap]

You will see more on this one soon, I hope.
Here is a letter I wrote on the issue:
Esteemed Members of the Planning Committee:

Due to prior commitments I will be unable to attend the public consultation on the York Properties (Oxford/First) file.
In the past there has been a temptation to restrict student housing development on the basis that this would restrict the student population and thus “protect” neighbourhoods close to post-secondary institutions. Constricted supply has in fact lead to negative implications for students, residents, and the City:
• Students are forced into inappropriate housing forms that are often poorly renovated and maintained
• High demand and low supply lead to higher prices, causing real affordability problems for students.
• Fragmented ownership allows landlord absenteeism, leading to disinvestment in properties – which can lead to a cycle of property disinvestment and decay
• Lack of choice in quality housing reflects poorly on both host institutions and cities, discouraging student enrollment and negatively affecting the image of the city as a post-graduation settlement location
I strongly support this application, not only as a student but also as a Londoner who believes in the models of infill and urban design espoused by the Official Plan, Creative Cities Task Force and many other reports.
Future planning near Fanshawe and Western will require forward-thinking, high-quality planning that improves the neighbourhoods around these two institutions to the benefit of all Londoners. Particular initiatives should include:
• Create and enhance the locus points of community between students and other Londoners: libraries, public spaces, parks, community events and festivals, cultural institutions and commercial areas
• Provide a variety of accomodation appropriate for a wide demographic, including detached homes, secondary units (“granny flats”), mixed residential/ commercial medium density, street townhomes
• By protecting the interiors of neighbourhoods from intensification, support good design in intensified areas (eg restrict building height to 6-8 floors), support investment in the neighbourhood by long-term residents
• Plan daring, progressive neighbourhoods in large infill sites such as the LRMH/ LPH, 3M, Brescia College Fields, Spencer Hall, UWO Research Park et c.
In conclusion, please support this important development.
I look forward to discussing this and other student-municipal issues with you,

^Well written.

[SlickFranky]

I'm confused...the NW corner of oxford and first?? Fanshawe is on the north side of Oxford, and they just put up that addition on the NW corner...am I missing something here? Is it going up off Roehampton?

Also..."25-hour security"?