London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[LondnPlanr]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

...the vast majority of developments that are approved are absolutely brutal. My standards for London’s planning department are so low that I can be pleased by nearly anything. They truly don’t understand, so we’re not any time soon going to get enough tolerable development to improve walkability perceptibly.

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by LondnPlanr

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

There is something to be said about London having greater difficulty with these things than other cities. I used to think London's problems were normal, but since moving elsewhere I've discovered that London's City Hall tends to try and please everyone, while other municipalities take a stand and aren't afraid to offend some people.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by LondnPlanr

I invite you to volunteer a few hours and maybe spend some time in Planning on Dundas Street, or Development Services at City Hall.

If you think it's a quick fix, or that City Staff are able to just dictate what needs to built and where, you have a lot to learn.

Also, if you think Planning staff doesn't understand, you're out to lunch. Perhaps various City Committees and City Council on the whole might not grasp 'good planning/design', but that's entirely different than Planning staff.

You might have read the post previous to that in which I noted positively that the municipal government required a bit of attention to walkability of a new development on Wonderland near Commissioners. It wasn't much, and I shouldn't be so enthusiastic just because it approaches what should be the minimum, but I gave credit.

London is particularly deficient in these issues. It's a balancing act everywhere, and there are challenges to dictating to developers everywhere, but in neighbouring municipalities, planning staff and committees have increasing standards that they are willing to actually apply from time to time.

[K85]

This is what the Renaissance should have been

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/harmony-village-sheppard

[haljackey]

Let's not forget City Place too

...And while we're at it, the Crown on King developments.


Ah well, at least we're getting something.

[MrSlippery519]

At least we are getting something, at this point is the way I am looking at it. Also if the development continues and these buildings sell out we will see higher end proposals no doubt.

I think the Renaissance buildings are nice and the new 33 story highrise looks to be of better quality.

[HillStreetBlues]

Renaissance was good, and the new high rise looks good, too. Good, not great- obviously getting something with the style of that building at Warden and Sheppard would be fantastic...

That having been said, what London needs is not a handful of high rises, but rather more mid-rise development (5-10 storeys), ideally commercial on the main floor with residential above. That's what contributes to vibrant street life, and will attract people to live and do other things downtown.

[ssiguy]

I agree. I too think London should concentrate on more mid-rise infill that tall towers. There are many small parking lots and gaps in the urban fabric downtown that are ideal for mid-rise developments.

[haljackey]

The problem is the city is focused on building up the downtown and can offer lavish incentives to make it as dense as they can.

These policies make high rise projects a lucrative investment for developers, which reduces the amount of mid-rise infill developments.

The Southwest Area Plan originally called for a lot of mid-rise developments on the main roads (Wonderland, Warncliffe, Southdale and Bradley) but it looks like this has been bartered by developers to make way for more big-box retail.

I forget where I saw it, but I think the vacant NE corner of Wonderland and Oxford will be used for midrises, so at least that's something.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree. I too think London should concentrate on more mid-rise infill that tall towers. There are many small parking lots and gaps in the urban fabric downtown that are ideal for mid-rise developments.

When you say "London should concentrate..." who are you referring to? The City is not a developer (with rare exceptions). As for zoning downtown, the City generally wants density.

I don't disagree with your premise, however the private sector will try to build whatever optimally fits their business model. In the downtown, that typically has to be a fairly tall structure. You may recall that Rygar said that they had to have 33 stories for their new development in order to make the business model work, and that is on a piece of land that could definitely be termed "medium sized" (50m X 50m).

There are always a handful developers out there who's business model is to do boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one else is interested in touching, but they are generally the exception. If anyone is going do the sort of work you are referring to however, it will be this sort.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Snark

When you say "London should concentrate..." who are you referring to? The City is not a developer (with rare exceptions). As for zoning downtown, the City generally wants density.

I don't disagree with your premise, however the private sector will try to build whatever optimally fits their business model. In the downtown, that typically has to be a fairly tall structure. You may recall that Rygar said that they had to have 33 stories for their new development in order to make the business model work, and that is on a piece of land that could definitely be termed "medium sized" (50m X 50m).

There are always a handful developers out there who's business model is to do boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one else is interested in touching, but they are generally the exception. If anyone is going do the sort of work you are referring to however, it will be this sort.

Although the municipal government is not a developer, it can choose what to approve or not approve; what to support in planning documents; and where to offer financial (and other) incentives. Of course developers are always going to look for what they feel is highest and best use of any parcel of land, and it’s the municipal government’s responsibility to decide whether it is called for. If all it wants is “density,” then I guess it should let developers do whatever they want downtown, the higher the better. That’s not going to result in a vibrant inner city that people want to live in and stay in, however- that’s going to lead to a lot of towers with lots of parking so residents can drive to more interesting places with more amenities.

I think we’re talking about different things. When I say “mid-rise,” I don’t mean “boutique-type medium/low density niche developments on pieces of land no one is interested in touching.” I mean mixed-use mid-rise development (defined as between four and twelve storeys). This is the kind of building that has characterized lively downtowns for a long time, and composes places where people actually like to live, work, and spend their leisure time. These are the buildings that form interesting street walls. And they contribute a lot of density.

You can’t have high-rise buildings (particularly not single-use high rise buildings without even retail at the ground floor, and particularly not when they are setback from the road) with the occasional “boutique-type” building, and expect that to result in a vibrant downtown. It will be sorely lacking in the amenities that actually keep workers or residents in the area.

[BIGGUY2891]

Looks like Tricar is finally going ahead with plans for their properties on Ridout St. Here are the links to the zoning amendments:

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...cuments/londoner/2014-03-27/Z-8330na.pdf

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...cuments/londoner/2014-03-27/Z-8332na.pdf

Looks like two buildings, one will be 4 floors and the other 22 floors.

[ssiguy]

This is the first I've heard of this.

I'm not sure a 22 storey tower would fit well in Old South.

[bolognium]

@ssiguy: Literally anywhere else in Old South I'd agree, but this lot seems totally capable of accepting a tower like this. Ridout already has a significant amount of height as it approaches downtown, and this tower really doesn't feel out of place with the twin 16-storey Gartshore towers next door.


Here are some detailed PDFs:

22-storey tower

4-storey midrise


Render of the tower as seen from Grand Ave.

[MolsonExport]

Densification is generally good. The tower is kinda 'meh' but I hope it will not change into something like the Harriston when it actually goes up. Thanks for the info.

[LondnPlanr]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I'm not sure a 22 storey tower would fit well in Old South.

You mean directly next to the existing twin 16 storey apartment towers ? I think it's an ideal location along a bus route, close to downtown, and on a prime piece of vacant infill land.

I live within a short walk of this site, and I welcome the development with open arms.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Looks like a great proposal. Decent design, great location. The only thing I would like to see is a bit of street level retail with this.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like some great infill projects for these vacated lots. What use to occupy both lots were old, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 dated buildings that needed to be torn down, big improvement planned.

However knowing how pissy Old South residents are about any developments, big or small, the local NIMBYs will be out in full force when they get wind of this, pitch forks and all...

[BIGGUY2891]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

However knowing how pissy Old South residents are about any developments, big or small, the local NIMBYs will be out in full force when they get wind of this, pitch forks and all...

I remember reading a newsletter update from the head of the Old South Community Organization. He was aware that a developer intended to put up a high rise over a year ago and the newsletter stated that the organization felt it was a good fit for the location. Well they could change their mind, the organization didn't express any concerns at the time.

[Pimpmasterdac]

If that's the case I would be pleasantly surprised.. The association might not challenge it, but individual busy bodies may. Just based on recent situations like 3 story condo on Wortley & Bruce; 9 unit condo near Wortley & Craig, the NIMBYs fight ferociously like their nuclear waste sites.

CTV2 had a report Friday that Woodstock takes approximately 2-3 weeks to approve plans, meanwhile London takes 4-6 months. While residential development in Old South is a go based on location, Londons slow pace of approving plans cost it many industrial developments..