London Construction - Development News Thread #1 - Page 122

manny_santos · #**2421** Posted **Jan 17, 2015, 1:37 AM**

Here comes Farhi homes, west of Byron...

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/01/16/downtown-landlord-shmuel-farhi-evolves-his-business

HillStreetBlues · #**2422** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 6:36 PM**

Oh, man.

-Who is left to buy $1 million homes in London?

-Farhi is quoted as saying “I want to build homes and these are the biggest lots available in a great location.” Is this really what developers are still thinking? That’s the one and only (well, he spuriously referred to the location) criterion- big lots? Still?

-London's City Council is stupid and getting stupider. The municipality will credit the developer for building an oversized watermain? Why? To facilitate yet-more sprawl in that direction. Hubert doesn’t know what he’s talking about, “it’ll add to our tax base.” No, it won’t. The property taxes here won’t ever justify laying new roads and widening existing ones; the amount of water and sewer infrastructure that a 180-foot lot requires; and the other municipal amenities that these people will quickly demand.

-“BourneWood Estates” is not the absolute worst name I’ve ever heard for a suburban development, but it’s obviously a really competitive category.

MolsonExport · #**2423** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 8:00 PM**

not farhi. not again.

MrSlippery519 · #**2424** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 8:18 PM**

Umm who in the world would need a house that big...if my math is correct 557 square meters/6000 sq-ft....dear god that is an enormous house.

HillStreetBlues · #**2425** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 8:38 PM**

My other complaint was going to be that the media has lately started using meters instead of feet when dealing with real estate, and I hate it since I’ve never heard anyone in this country say that their apartment is x square meters. You're right: 557 meters is exactly 6000 square feet, because 6000 square feet is what the developer said. The free press felt the need to convert it to square meters so its readership could convert it back to square feet.

Sorry. Yeah, that’s a huge house. It feels to me like Phoenix or Las Vegas or somewhere circa 2007.

haljackey · #**2426** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

My other complaint was going to be that the media has lately started using meters instead of feet when dealing with real estate, and I hate it since I’ve never heard anyone in this country say that their apartment is x square meters. You're right: 557 meters is exactly 6000 square feet, because 6000 square feet is what the developer said. The free press felt the need to convert it to square meters so its readership could convert it back to square feet.

You might like this.

We're a metric country, but we still use the old system for many things.

Snark · #**2427** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

-Who is left to buy $1 million homes in London?

There's still lots of money out there. The wealth hasn't vanished, it's just concentrated in fewer hands. The real question is about convincing that money to move out to Kilworth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

-Farhi is quoted as saying “I want to build homes and these are the biggest lots available in a great location.” Is this really what developers are still thinking? That’s the one and only (well, he spuriously referred to the location) criterion- big lots? Still?

No, this proposal is hardly a business model that would be considered sustainable throughout the development industry in general. This is just Farhi being his usual flamboyant self and catering to a niche market. That said, the "big lots" selling angle that developers use as a marketing tool has some validity: people want as much space as they can afford if they are going to the commitment of purchasing a detached single family home. Nobody wants 30' of frontage unless it's all they can afford. The difference is that normally developers brag about their "big lots" having 40' or 50' frontage - not the 200' Farhi is going on about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

-London's City Council is stupid and getting stupider. The municipality will credit the developer for building an oversized watermain? Why? To facilitate yet-more sprawl in that direction. Hubert doesn’t know what he’s talking about, “it’ll add to our tax base.” No, it won’t. The property taxes here won’t ever justify laying new roads and widening existing ones; the amount of water and sewer infrastructure that a 180-foot lot requires; and the other municipal amenities that these people will quickly demand

Can't agree with you here.

1) This area will get developed with time. That is inevitable due to it being a desirable area (look at the growth of Kilworth on the other side of the river). Whether this continued suburban growth is a good thing philosophically is a separate question. Like it or not though, unless there is a paradigm shift in the attitudes of the public regarding the definition of a "desirable home" in the next 10 or 20 years, it's gonna happen given time.

2) Road widening and other upgrades that will have to happen when real development comes to this area in 10 or 20 years will be financed through development charges, not the tax base. Basically those who buy houses there will pay for those upgrades in their house purchase price.

3) It's actually cheaper to build the trunk watermain now, as opposed to 20 years from now. If someone wants to front-end it now, all the more advantage to the City.

4) As for all of the new infrastructure directly servicing these properties immediately along the frontage of the lots: the homeowner pays for that in the cost of the house, not the City. The City will assume ownership once the warranty expires.

What I find most remarkable about this story is the fact that it even is a story. Must have been a slow news day.

manny_santos · #**2428** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

What I find most remarkable about this story is the fact that it even is a story. Must have been a slow news day.

I think it only made the news because of the name attached to it. Farhi is very skilled at getting his name out there, through banners or otherwise.

ssiguy · #**2429** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 5:11 AM**

In Vancouver $1 million gets you a 1950s post-war home of 1500 sq feet with no basement in a working class neighbourhood.

MolsonExport · #**2430** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 1:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I think it only made the news because of the name attached to it. Farhi is very skilled at getting his name out there, through banners or otherwise.

I have heard from numerous business people and physicians, etc. that have leased space from Farhi that the guy is a complete 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

HillStreetBlues · #**2431** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 1:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

Can't agree with you here.

1)This area will get developed with time. That is inevitable due to it being a desirable area (look at the growth of Kilworth on the other side of the river). Whether this continued suburban growth is a good thing philosophically is a separate question. Like it or not though, unless there is a paradigm shift in the attitudes of the public regarding the definition of a "desirable home" in the next 10 or 20 years, it's gonna happen given time.

It’s not really inevitable; it will develop, or not, and in a specific form, according to municipal planning. I agree that it is for all intents and purposes inevitable given that the extent of London’s planning tends to be to allow developers to build whatever, wherever. But growth could be restricted or slowed.

I actually do think that there is a lot to be made of a possible shift in public attitudes towards long commutes and living in the middle of nowhere. Maybe this isn’t the best place for this discussion, but a lot of people are increasingly saying that so-called “millennials” are much more interested in living in dense neighbourhoods with good access to amenities and less than absolute dependence on cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

2) Road widening and other upgrades that will have to happen when real development comes to this area in 10 or 20 years will be financed through development charges, not the tax base. Basically those who buy houses there will pay for those upgrades in their house purchase price.

The initial construction, maybe, but not the maintenance. That’s borne by all taxpayers. In a neighbourhood where at least some trips are taken in some other way than cars, road maintenance is lower because less roads are required in the first place, and they are subject to less wear. The opposite is true in developments where literally every trip requires an automobile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

3) It's actually cheaper to build the trunk watermain now, as opposed to 20 years from now. If someone wants to front-end it now, all the more advantage to the City.

Yes, you’re right. Assuming that development here happens anyway, it is better to make this investment now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

4) As for all of the new infrastructure directly servicing these properties immediately along the frontage of the lots: the homeowner pays for that in the cost of the house, not the City. The City will assume ownership once the warranty expires.

Similar to number two, a home buyer may pay the cost of initial construction, but not maintenance. A homeowner with an 180’ frontage pays the same water and sewer rates (and the same monthly fixed costs for both) as a homeowner with a 35’ frontage, or an apartment-dweller for that matter, even though the costs to continue to deliver services to the former are much higher. That’s wasteful and promotes inefficiencies, and is arguably unfair.

HillStreetBlues · #**2432** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 1:50 PM**

haljackey, thanks very much for the laugh- that was hilarious! Yes, our use of each system for different things is pretty peculiar.

manny_santos · #**2433** Posted **Jan 20, 2015, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I have heard from numerous business people and physicians, etc. that have leased space from Farhi that the guy is a complete 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

In some Free Press articles in the past, he has come across as a very angry alpha male.

Dither City · #**2434** Posted **Jan 22, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Medallion proposal old east village “It's going to be a 21story residential development 299 units good news.

Read more: http://london.ctvnews.ca/proposal-calls-...old-east-village-1.2199622#ixzz3PVzktQy6

GreatTallNorth2 · #**2435** Posted **Jan 22, 2015, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dither City

Medallion proposal old east village “It's going to be a 21story residential development 299 units good news.

Read more: http://london.ctvnews.ca/proposal-calls-...old-east-village-1.2199622#ixzz3PVzktQy6

Kind of a surprise, who would have thought that they would fill both buildings and want to build another - and 299 units is a lot for a 21 storey building. It's not downtown, but it's a lot better than building towers on the outskirts of town.

K85 · #**2436** Posted **Jan 22, 2015, 3:44 AM**

Welp, it's sadly a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 area, and over priced rent. I live near there, and as much as I love the area, as much as I want it to do well, it's hard to justify a third tower.

MrSlippery519 · #**2437** Posted **Jan 22, 2015, 1:29 PM**

Interesting to say the least, so that must mean the first 2 towers are pretty much full? It would be nice to see the height get pushed up past 21 stories to give some diversity...or at minimum I hope the design is at least a bit different to not have a block of the same towers.

Also does anyone know if this would go on the parking lot on the North/West corner?

MolsonExport · #**2438** Posted **Jan 26, 2015, 8:00 PM**

More condo towers are coming to Hyde Park. Van Horik's (greenhouse/gardens) is gone, to be replaced by a two/three towers with shopping development. In addition, the solitary 14 storey Tricar tower block is, I believe, currently being twinned.

Other projects are also slated for the area, perhaps the fastest-changing in London.

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D.../Documents/OLD-SITE-PDFS-3/Z_8178_na.pdf

sparky212 · #**2439** Posted **Jan 27, 2015, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

Also does anyone know if this would go on the parking lot on the North/West corner?

In the video it says on the corner of king and Lyle so I'm guessing that they are going to demo the houses on the corner

MrSlippery519 · #**2440** Posted **Jan 28, 2015, 2:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparky212

In the video it says on the corner of king and Lyle so I'm guessing that they are going to demo the houses on the corner

Right there are still 2 houses on that corner, forgot about those. Really hoping we see a change up in design or color at least for the 3rd tower so it does not look like on big ugly block.