London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[Highinthesky]

Long term thinking is great but not always practical. What's the old Saying? Reality is 90% perception. The perception among business owners and the general public is that there is insufficient parking downtown. Changing of zoning by-laws alone won't change this perception and as long as the perception persists then downtown shop keepers and owners of office space will have trouble generating enough business. This will keel land values lower and hurt the business case for any kind of future development downtown.

The best long term vision imo is to allow the downtown real estate market to be a free market without intervention from City Hall. In the immediate short term that might mean ugly surface parking lots but those lots will change the perception about downtown and in turn that will drive up demand and drive up prices. Once those prices go up those ugly surface lots will be redeveloped as investors determine that the land is worth to much to use as parking space.

If the realities of the local market in Downtown London were that land is too valuable to use as parking space there wouldn't be talk of more surface lots.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

Its easy for people to come up with all these solutions when they aren't the one who have the put the actual money up to do any of it. If a multi-level parking garage was really a great business opportunity in downtown London in todays business environment it would be built. The fact that there is no mention of any private entity having any interest in doing this tells me that a multi-level parking garage being a good investment opporunity simply is not the case.

Not necessarily. I dabble in management consulting and you'd be surprised at how some companies don't come up with new ideas, don't ask their customers what they want or need, or don't bother doing in-depth, effective market research. And who can blame them - it's expensive and time-consuming.

It's also the reason why new start-up businesses can become very successful. People see an opportunity bigger companies didn't bother pursuing and they run with it.

If I wasn't tied down with other commitments right now, this is a fantastic business opportunity I would pursue. Of course, I would have to come up with a business plan in order to get financing (which takes up time I don't have right now). It can be done.

[new age]

This is down to Joe Fontana's idea to handle London's property tax by increasing property assessment instead of tax rate %. The easiest way to do this is threw density. The downtown being the center of the city is the best place for density. You can have a 1 acre as a parking lot with one owner or 400 condos. Each condo owner would pay far less in taxes but the total taxes collected would be far more.

All these lots work on temporary zoning permits all the city has to do is put a levy on the permits and pass that on as a subsidy that is given to mixed use buildings that include public parking. It works as an incentive with a focus on development but maintains public parking.

[Highinthesky]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Not necessarily. I dabble in management consulting and you'd be surprised at how some companies don't come up with new ideas, don't ask their customers what they want or need, or don't bother doing in-depth, effective market research. And who can blame them - it's expensive and time-consuming.

It's also the reason why new start-up businesses can become very successful. People see an opportunity bigger companies didn't bother pursuing and they run with it.

If I wasn't tied down with other commitments right now, this is a fantastic business opportunity I would pursue. Of course, I would have to come up with a business plan in order to get financing (which takes up time I don't have right now). It can be done.

That might be the case for a lot of traditional businesses but I don't know if its true for a parking garage. I'm a real estate appraiser and work for a firm in St Thomas. We could prepare a report for someone telling them what it would cost to buy the land, how much income they could expect to earn, how much demand in the local market there is for parking, and how much it would cost to construct the building we wouldn't charge more than $2000 to provide that information. After that its just your engineering costs.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Decision looms over north-end development

A north London neighbourhood group remains hopeful city council will vote Monday night against allowing a low-rise apartment complex that’s frustrated hundreds in their community.

The complex planned for Fanshawe Park Rd. is endorsed by city hall’s planning staff and looks to have plenty of political support — but Old Stoneybrook Community Association leaders haven’t thrown in the towel yet.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/17/18024016.html

I don't understand some in the North-end, they seem to be against any development regardless of its benefit for the city. This is not a mega high rise, just a 3 storey development and there screaming there tits off about how its so bad. Of course they're egged on by Ms. chicken little herself, Joni Baechler, who is against any type of progress or development in the city. Baechler has this mentality that the sky is falling if anything that provides growth, development or jobs to the city. Glad most of council has a grasp on this!

Anyways hope this gets built, good way to contain sprawl and provide more homes in the North end. Seems like a good project

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

I don't understand some in the North-end, they seem to be against any development regardless of its benefit for the city. This is not a mega high rise, just a 3 storey development and there screaming there tits off about how its so bad. Of course they're egged on by Ms. chicken little herself, Joni Baechler, who is against any type of progress or development in the city. Baechler has this mentality that the sky is falling if anything that provides growth, development or jobs to the city. Glad most of council has a grasp on this!

It's the same mentality that kept Tim Hortons in and out of the OMB when they spent over three years trying to get a store built in Byron. Of course, the opponents had Gina Barber as their leader. And, dare I say, this reminds me of the residents living near Oxford and Gammage who were in a knot about a relatively quiet nail salon in an area with a Real Canadian Superstore and a commercial plaza with a Kelsey's and LCBO, not to mention there being a quasi-military base almost next door.

Is this common in other cities though? Do residents normally get this upset when a development that will benefit the whole city is proposed in their neighbourhood?

The City of London has catered to whiny individuals long enough, and this Council needs to take a stand against this attitude. There's children starving in Africa, there's First Nations communities in Canada without clean drinking water, there's people in our community who don't have enough money to feed their families, there's a whole nation in Asia mourning the deaths of loved ones and wondering if they're going to have a nuclear disaster, and a three-storey apartment building proposal has got these people in such a knot? Puh-leeze. Get your priorities straight people.

It's not like we're talking about a nuclear power plant here or even a 14-storey apartment complex, we're talking about a relatively small development, and these people already live near Masonville Place and several large commercial developments. We need high density and infill, and it is an issue cities like London have to face in order to prevent the further destruction of farmland. It's an issue that is really coming to the forefront in Mississauga now.

I think this is another case of a group of ritzy individuals worried only about their own interests and not thinking about the needs of the city, region, and planet as a whole.

[ericlewis91]

well all these backyards were backing onto a single large property and this proposal is going to have many more units
1) noise from the multiple units with cars
2) safety (backyard is now publicly accessible from new development)

I personally wouldnt want this behind my house either.. (yes I do live near Masonville, just not in that area)

[Pimpmasterdac]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I think this is another case of a group of ritzy individuals worried only about their own interests and not thinking about the needs of the city, region, and planet as a whole.

Well said Manny, I think that in a nutshell sums up the whole argument! These people who nitpick little issues, while ignoring the major elephants in the room for their own benefit. NIMBYism at its best!

Originally Posted by ericlewis91

1) noise from the multiple units with cars
2) safety (backyard is now publicly accessible from new development)

Its already quite busy traffic wise Fanshawe Park Rd, and its constant congestion, is a stones throw from these "concerned neighbors" so I don't think it has anything to do with more traffic. 30 more cars are nothing compared to the 10,000s on Fanshawe.

Safety, I have neighbors with a common backyard it doesn't make me any less safe. The development sounds upscale enough and moderate in size. It's not like there putting a methadone clinic or halfway house there! Just a bunch of busy bodies that are irked other people doth live in their exclusive area without their assent!

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Safety, I have neighbors with a common backyard it doesn't make me any less safe. The development sounds upscale enough and moderate in size. It's not like there putting a methadone clinic or halfway house there! Just a bunch of busy bodies that are irked other people doth live in their exclusive area without their assent!

I would argue that this development would actually enhance safety in the area. Empty, unlit land adjacent to backyards would seem like an easy way for burglars to gain access to a backyard. On the other hand, development means there could be lighting and greater surveillance.

[Pimpmasterdac]

City council overwhelmingly approved Monday a contentious low-rise apartment in north London that riled neighbours and raised questions about citizen engagement.

More than 100 Old Stoneybrook residents packed council chambers for the second straight week to protest the 18-unit apartment complex on Fanshawe Park Rd. that, despite some spirited arguments against it, was approved by a 12-3 vote.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/18/18037091.html

YAY project got the green light despite all these chicken little NIMBY groups and councilors

[haljackey]

lol a hundred people protested it and yet it was approved by a landslide.

Guess the citizens didn't have any good evidence to support their view.

I'm just glad that this city is being progressive. It's been like that ever since Dec. 1 when Joe and the new council was sworn in. Let's hope it stays that way.

[Simpseatles]

YES!!It may not be a huge project, but you gotta start somewhere!

[Pimpmasterdac]

Originally Posted by haljackey

lol a hundred people protested it and yet it was approved by a landslide.

Guess the citizens didn't have any good evidence to support their view.

I'm just glad that this city is being progressive. It's been like that ever since Dec. 1 when Joe and the new council was sworn in. Let's hope it stays that way.

There argument was moreless "that they doth not allow further peasantry into the exclusive realm of Old Stoneybrook without their royal assent" backed up by superficial concerns of "safety" and increased traffic (~18 cars added to the 10,000s that use Fanshawe Park Road daily). Glad most of council saw it as NIMBYism and passed it resoundingly.

Joe and the new council are a great breathe of fresh air and open minds to council. They need to keep up the awesome job!

[manny_santos]

The neighbourood MAY have had an argument about drainage, but otherwise the City has made the right move.

London as a whole 1, selfish individuals 0.

[Pimpmasterdac]

The whole report, as well as design plans for the property are available here http://council.london.ca/meetings/BNEC%20Agendas/2011-04-11%20Agenda/Item%2025a.pdf

Some of the "Grievances" they have are jokes.

I don't a link but they said on A-News |the fight isn't over" and that there going to go to the OMB to challenge this (which I'm sure will reject it).

Just a bunch of sore snobs that lost!

[manny_santos]

We have to live as a community in London, and these people only want what's good for them, not what's good for the community as a whole. I read through the document and I feel the proposed development is very well thought out. It incorporates many of the forms of new urban concepts, which we are going to see more and more in communities throughout North America. We have built wasteful, large, low-density residential developments for far too long, and this is something we will be forced to change. This is just the first of many of these developments we are going to see.

The people living near the site are clearly a bunch of self-serving, selfish snobs. Shame on each and every one of them. Haven't these folks got bigger things than "backyard privacy" to worry about? These people need to learn to accept that urban development in Canada is changing, and has to change in order to stop the further destruction of farmland needed to feed a world of almost 7 billion people, as well as mitigate the amount of distance we have to travel to get around the city. The geographical footprint London has been allowed to take up for its population is appalling. Intensification, at least, helps mitigate further problems.

Having traveled to many places in the western hemisphere I can never get over how Londoners in particular get hung up on such stupid, minor issues and can't see the big picture.

[Simpseatles]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Snark]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

...These people need to learn to accept that urban development in Canada is changing, and has to change in order to stop the further destruction of farmland needed to feed a world of almost 7 billion people, as well as mitigate the amount of distance we have to travel to get around the city. The geographical footprint London has been allowed to take up for its population is appalling. Intensification, at least, helps mitigate further problems.

And there's the crux of such matters: Those same folk opposing such things and those like minded would call that "commie talk - designed to ruin the prospects of hard working Canadians for the benefit of lazy, welfare loving socialists". You people are trying to kill FREEDOM!

[ldoto]

As London's core increasingly becomes a focus for politicians, a planner with extensive experience studying North American downtowns is still settling in at city hall.

Jim Yanchula arrived in London near the end of the last council term, bringing years of downtown knowledge that will no doubt prove useful as the city redoubles efforts to revitalize the core.

"There's no great metropolitan area that doesn't have a great downtown," Yanchula said Thursday, one day after addressing the city's well-attended downtown summit.

"One of the things that attracted me to London was that I felt people get it - they understand great metropolitan areas have great downtowns."

Yanchula, London's manager of community planning and urban design, came here from the City of Windsor.

He's a longtime member of the Washington, D.C.-based International Downtown Association, where he's helped judge the quality of downtowns worldwide.

Though London never entered its contests, Yanchula says the success of its Millennium Project - spawning the John Labatt Centre, Covent Garden Market and other sites - deserved wider recognition.

Mayor Joe Fontana is spearheading a renewed effort to revitalize downtown, largely based on his plan to build a new city hall and use the massive project to attract other private-sector investments.

Wednesday's downtown summit drew more than 250 Londoners, who were asked to answer three questions focused on the possible construction of a new city hall. Their answers will eventually be compiled in a report to council.

Not everyone is convinced that's the best idea, or that a new city hall is even necessary.

But whatever the direction, Yanchula says based on his experience London has a strong chance to build on its previous downtown successes.

"People would give their eye-teeth in medium-sized North American communities to have building like that Tricar tower across from the JLC," he said as an example, adding Londoners show "high interest and high evidence of interest" in the core.

Asked for a comparison to London's downtown potential, he pointed to Asheville, North Carolina - a medium-sized city and regional centre that has similarly strong natural amenities and heritage buildings.

[MolsonExport]

am I seeing double? just read this post at least one other place.