London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[ldoto]

The centre of controversy

Sat, September 29, 2007

There's no shortage of opinions on a proposed performing arts centre, an issue that dates back to 1967.

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



If opinions were dollars, there would be no trouble raising the millions needed to build a performing arts centre in downtown London.

Asked by the newspaper if the city needs a performing arts centre, nearly 2,000 Free Press readers responded and not one was ambivalent.

"I think we need a new performing arts centre like we need a hole in the head," one said in a phone message, while others sent their feedback by e-mail or voted online.

"The lack of a performing arts centre strikes me as a significant indicator of a certain lack of taste evident in this city," wrote Sandra Mangsen.

Respondents who phoned or e-mailed were evenly split but equally passionate, some taking shots at politicians who are either championing a new facility or warning it may prove too costly for taxpayers.

On the paper's website, www.lfpress.com, where anyone could vote once on the question, "Does London need a new performing arts centre," a whopping 1,500 weighed in.

Sixty-four per cent said, yes, a new arts centre is needed, while 36 per cent voted no.

Of course, many Londoners also think the city needs better roads, more police and more services for the indigent -- the question is, how to pay for it.

The push for a performing arts centre isn't new -- the debate began when the existing centre, Centennial Hall, was built in 1967 for less than $2 million, a decision advocates for the arts say left London with a substandard facility.

More recently, a consultant hired by the city concluded Centennial Hall could never match the quality of first-class performance centres and should be replaced with a facility to be built downtown.

Not including the cost of land, the new facility should have 1,200 to 1,400 seats, an ancillary building and would cost $55 million, the consultant suggested.

Some on city council say that's a lowball figure and question why city staff propose, if the facility is built, that city taxpayers pay 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the cost.

READER FEEDBACK

Asked if the city needs a performing arts centre, but not about who should pay, Londoners chimed in big-time. A breakdown of the responses:

- E-mail: A few dozen

- Online: More than 1,500

- Phone: Nearly 100

ON THE YES SIDE

Why people support building a performing arts centre:

- Embarrassed other cities have one, but London does not.

- London is a "farm town" without one.

- Centennial Hall is a poor excuse for a performance hall and needs to be replaced.

- To attract and retain creative people who will help the city thrive and prosper.

- To generate economic activity downtown.

- To provide a suitable venue for local performers.

ON THE NO SIDE

Why people oppose building a performing arts centre:

- Too costly for taxpayers struggling to pay for projects such as the John Labatt Centre.

- Shouldn't spend on a "luxury" when the poor need housing and Londoners aren't getting basic services such as well-maintained roads.

- It appeals to an elite minority who should pay for it -- not taxpayers who won't be able to afford to attend.

- The JLC didn't help downtown and neither will this.

- Other venues are available and more aren't needed.

"We will draw more creative and innovative people who will further enrich the city economically and culturally . . . Do we want to become a city with something to show for itself or remain a complacent cultural backwater?

-- Oliver Whitehead

"Without it, we remain a big farm town. -- Gerald Wright

"Centennial Hall has been a poor excuse for a performing hall and it isn't getting any better. Poor acoustics, vision lines and twisted necks don't make happy audiences.

-- Cheryl Lockhart

"(Coun. Paul) Van Meerbergen and (Deputy Mayor Tom) Gosnell advise us to pour ever-more public money into sewers and roads . . . God forbid London should invest in a performing arts centre that could be the lynch-pin of a serious arts infrastructure . . . Let's be practical: Let's just hang out a sign on the exits off the 401: "No artsy-fartsies wanted here. But the roads (out of town) are great!"

-- Mary Malone

"Winkler, Man., the town in which I grew up, now a city of 10,000 people (and a) new 560-seat performing arts centre . . . I don't want to have to listen to one of the finest of the smaller orchestras in this country in a building whose acoustics rival that of a dead mattress. And I don't always want to be told by city councillors (given the John Labatt Centre) that this city cannot afford to build something absolutely essential to our emotional and spiritual life.

-- Ernest Redekop

"To be a leader in Southwestern Ontario we need to offer both hockey and music/theatre/the arts, etc. It is as childish to call this "elitist" as it is to call the JLC a "boys' game centre."

-- Catherine Charlton

"I think that I'm a pretty average person . . . (and) definitely would not consider myself an "elitist" . . . I come across many different people . . . who would enjoy (events) an arts centre would hold.

-- Greg Wise

"How can we ever support the talent that is spawned in this city without a proper venue for performance? A performing arts centre will provide a space where we can celebrate our own talent.

-- Judith Walker

"I just wish we could miss (Controller) Gord Hume for a long time. Boy, does he ever enjoy spending other people's money and basking in the fallout.

-- David Evans

"Seventeen per cent of London families are living below the poverty line. (How many have had a chance) to use the facilities at Centennial Hall, let alone get any use out of a $60M replacement? If council really wants to do something concrete for Londoners, they could look at lowering taxes. NOT.

-- Gordon Goldrich

"Most people in this city would never see the inside of such a facility (because of a) lack of interest or lack of disposable income.

-- Beulah Wallman

"Until my wife's health prevented us from attending the London Symphony concerts we purchased season tickets . . . most concerts were about 60 per cent supported . . . Unless the hall can be self supporting and you know as well as I do it won't be, I am 100 per cent against the idea. There are too many buildings and projects that the taxpayers are expected to pay for. We were told that the JLC would improve the downtown area and it has not.

-- Ron Lewis

"The taxpayers of London have been battered by high municipal taxation for a long time and some of that cost comes from the funding of facilities such as the John Labatt Centre . . . This new project should be turned down and put back on the shelf.

-- Peter and Doreen Dorman

"If London musicians feel a new centre is needed, let them obtain sponsorship . . . or come up with the money with a lottery of some sort. If they are as good as they think, the centre will pay for itself . . . This is a business proposition and must pay for itself.

-- Ray Graham

"The Performing Arts Centre is a wonderful idea. To have the city financially involved is absolutely bizarre. Are there already enough albatrosses around the city which are monuments to the council's financial irresponsibility? How can they even think about another fiscal sinkhole, when most of the basic services are substandard?

-- Jan Novotny

[ldoto]

Argentine artist Juan Bauk gets an enthusiastic hug from his daughter, Ornella Yori, 16, after the dedication of the King Street murals at Galleria London. Bauk’s section is a homage to indigenous people of North, South and Central America. (Mike Hensen, Sun Media)
What was once a dingy downtown corridor is now a vibrant mural after a cross-cultural exchange brought national and international artists together.

The massive mural, in the brick tunnel on King Street between Clarence and Wellington streets, was inaugurated yesterday by Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best.

Six Argentine muralists and three from Vancouver painted the work measuring about 100 metres long and more than four metres high.

The concept was conceived by members of La Raza Group, an art collective interested in the public and social dimensions of art in the urban landscape.

"Art is like food. It breaks down barriers, said Gerald Pedros of La Raza. "You don't really need to know what it's saying. I don't need to be a chef to enjoy food."


The project, proposed in June, took about two weeks to paint.

"It's amazing," said muralist Daniel Zimmermann of Buenos Aires as he stared at the final product. "It was a big project."

The mural depicts indigenous Argentine flora and fauna and also reflects the Argentines' experience in the Forest City, said Londoner Sylvia Curtis-Norcross, also of La Raza.

She and Pedros spent time in Argentina last year where they worked on murals with Canadian and local artists.

The mural has brought "culture and art" to the city and has helped revitalize the downtown, DeCicco-Best said.

"It is certainly something we are proud to display."

[ldoto]

UPDATE!city's largest law firm





London legal eagles' new nest

Mon, October 1, 2007

Since then, Lerners LLP has grown into the city's largest law firm, with more than 100 lawyers and 300 support staff in London and Toronto, covering almost every aspect of law.

And although the firm's London staff spread out into three buildings near Dufferin Avenue and Ridout Street, it wasn't nearly enough space.

Stewart has her office in a building at 543 Ridout St. she affectionately calls the "little cottage." It houses family law and some business and real estate lawyers.

The cubicles are tiny and even the narrow aisles are stacked with boxes and legal files. Stewart said the staff have put up with crowded conditions for years.


"We probably let this go way too long. Only the promise of a new building kept our staff reasonably sane," said Stewart, a managing partner with the firm.

But this week, the firm entered a new era as lawyers and staff moved into a new, 50,000-square-foot, four-storey building at 85 Dufferin Ave. An official opening will be held Thursday.



The $12.5-million structure, designed by London's Wasylko Architects Inc., will house a little more than half of the 70 Lerners lawyers who work in London and about 100 support staff.



The Dufferin Avenue exterior features several water fountains. Visitors enter a large reception area with slate tiles and a two-storey water curtain.

Deb Cumming, executive director of administration, said the goal was an attractive but functional building. "It's very important to have a nice environment for our staff and clients," she said.

Other features include:

- a lawyers lounge on the third floor featuring a fireplace, bar and large-screen TV.

- green technology including bamboo flooring, self-adjusting lighting and heating, ventilating and air conditioning system.

- a courtyard on the lower level that opens off the staff lunchroom.

- a boardroom with teleconferencing technology and lights, blinds and a ceiling projector that activate with the flick of a switch.

- showers and lockers for staff who exercise at noon or walk or cycle to work.

Lerners, which is marking its 78th year, first opened in 1929 on the second storey of a building at Richmond and Carling streets.

The firm was founded by Mayer Lerner. His brother Samuel Lerner joined in 1945 after serving in the Second World War.

The firm moved into a single-storey building at 80 Dufferin Ave. at Ridout in 1971, bought the "cottage" at 543 Ridout in the late 1970s, and built a two-storey building next to 80 Dufferin in 1987.

That building was supposed to last the firm for a long while.

The firm sold off 543 Ridout, only to buy it back again about 10 years ago as it tried to keep pace with its growing staff.

"We kept thinking, 'We can't grow any more in a city this size,' " said Stewart.

The company now intends to sell or lease 543 Ridout and refurbish the one- and two-storey buildings on the north side of Dufferin.

Stewart said the company considered building one office but decided owning several buildings would be safer in the event of an unexpected business downturn.

"Lawyers are paid to look at the worst-case scenario -- what would happen if certain areas of law dried up. None of that is predictable," she said.

Almost 40 years after joining Lerners, Stewart said she's been surprised by the growth of the firm and legal business generally.

"I've watched all of this with some amazement, but business is becoming bigger and more sophisticated and you need more lawyers."

Unlike some firms, Lerners has not grown by mergers and acquisitions, although it has recruited lawyers from other firms.

There is also a trend to large "full-service" law firms that can handle almost any legal problem that walks in the door, she added.

The trend towards mega law firms has a number of advantages:

D A big roster of lawyers allows junior (and less expensive) lawyers access to advice from more experienced colleagues

D Larger, more efficient support staff and access to the latest technology. Lerner's information services department allows lawyers to research case law with a few keystrokes -- work that used to mean in a library.

D Its owns marketing department, reflecting the trend for legal firms to advertise and have a more consumer-friendly face.

Stewart said Lerners' growth has let London clients get a full range of legal service without going to Toronto. It set up its Toronto office more than 20 years ago after senior partner Earl Cherniak worked on major cases.

That reversed the usual trend of big Toronto-based firms setting up satellite offices in London. Lerners' Toronto office now has about 40 lawyers.

"There really isn't anything we can't do in London and it's significantly cheaper to hire a senior lawyer in London," said Stewart.

But she says some clients still think they have to go to Toronto to get a top lawyer.

[ldoto]

Wanted: Ambassadors to help sell London



The Ambassador London logo is part of a new marketing campaign to get Londoners involved in promoting the city as “a place of global importance and influence where all can flourish.”


Remember those old bumper stickers: Honk if you love London.

You’re about to be inundated with the 2007 version, rather more sophisticated and cool but with a similar message – London is a great place to live and getting better.

A program being formally unveiled later this week is called Ambassador London and with more than a year in development its goal is to make each of us champions of our community to the world.

Created through private donations and spearheaded by Perry Ferguson, president of Voyageur Transportation Services, the grass-roots community-led campaign seeks to shape the image of London as a place of global importance and influence where all can flourish.

It may seem a lofty goal, but over the past 20 years our community has changed while our attitudes and understandings of what is our community haven’t necessarily kept pace, Mr. Ferguson says.

Lesley Cornelius, director, business development, life sciencesand acting director, marketing and communications for the London Economic Development Corp. explains.

“London has always been very hard on itself. It started in the early 1990s when we were losing head offices and companies were moving away. That has persisted. It has changed lately with a lot of new growth so people are realizing London’s economy and community is growing but we’re still hard on ourselves.

“You think about all the things you love about London because we all want to be here. A program like this can help change that and encourages all the great things we love. Its people rallying around what we love about our city and what our city can be and making it happen.”

Ms. Cornelius says, like many other Londoners, already believe the city has what it takes through our support of local, national and international events as well as our growing cultural identity.

“Everyone seems eager to help make our community something special,” she notes. “It’s like when we did rallies for the Canada Summer Games. We had thousands coming out so we have that enthusiasm here and now it’s asking people to sign up and being involved to identify opportunities around tourism, business and recreation.

“Culture to me is a feeling. It’s part arts, recreation and a quality of life and place. You may not be able to say that’s culture but you can identify what comes out of it. It’s creating that brand. Branding is what people will say about you outside of your boundaries. It’s very personal and different for everybody. Everyone will have a different sense of pride based on their experiences but if you can get everyone talking about all those things it paints a great image.”

While Mr. Ferguson is chairperson of the Ambassador program, Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best is its official champion.

“I have for a number of years in my State of the City address talked about how Londoners need to be ambassadors but it never took hold,” the mayor says. “I sit on the Convention Centre board. It was a meeting in my office last summer with Perry Ferguson, Michael Crowley, and David Estok when we were discussing this and I approached Perry to take the lead. I’m so glad it got off the ground. For years I felt I was hitting my head on the ground because the next steps weren’t there. I used it at the end of speech. I went off script and encouraged the 900 people there to join.”

For Mr. Ferguson, who’s taken time from work to make this project come to life, it’s all about the community we call home.

“The seed started with the London Convention Centre board meeting but it rally got going when we invited community groups and businesses in to discuss the Ambassador program,” he says. “That’s where Tourism London, the Chamber of Commerce and the London Arts Council came onboard. The goal was to have a kick off and sign up 3,000 Londoners as Ambassadors to assist in the promotion of our city.

“The big thing is to build community pride and a lot of that is there. It just needs to be taken to the next level. The other thing is to maintain what we have. We’re trying to reshape our image of London. Nov. 6 is the public kick off. It will be a celebration of our community and we’ll show everyone the tools we’ve created.”

The program was originally scheduled for a September launch date but in July, as Mr. Ferguson began promoting the project to service groups, questions arose that suggested to the committee that they need to review their objectives to ensure everyone was on the same page and it appears to have been a good decision.

The confusion created around London’s All Mixed Up campaign, launched in March 2002 to promote London as a diverse and tolerant community, is a good reason to proceed with caution and ensure that our collective love of London is what gets emphasised.

“I think it was having clear objectives and that everyone was concerned with the branding of our community. Even though we had that information it wasn’t as clear as I wanted it to be and our committee recognized that. We’re comfortable slowing it down a bit. It was the right thing to do,” Mr. Ferguson says.

Andrea Halwa, executive director at the London Arts Council, also feels that it’s important for all Londoners to get the message right.

“Like the Creative City initiative it has to be taken up and embraced by our community. We’re all committed to having the Ambassador message front and centre on our websites. It’s our 60-second elevator pitch to the world. There are certain things that will be more important to others but realistically we need something that can be a common message and that’s what we’re doing,” Mrs. Halwa says. “We’re talking about launching an Ambassador program where all Londoners are ambassadors. What kind of champion do you want to be? It can be as simple as being a good neighbour. There’s two messages, an internal message to Londoners and the message we sell to the world. We need to identify who we are. We’re not the city of head offices of 20 years ago and for a while now we haven’t had a clear message or answer for who we are. The committee has taken the time to make sure this is done well and the message is believable rather than trying to make it fit into some unrealistic delivery date.”

The tools are currently in the final stages of development and should be available for the public launch on Nov. 6 at the London Convention Centre. In the interim, Londoners can visit the website and sign up to be ambassadors for our community so put your thinking caps on and put the focus on what it is you love about London.

As for what’s next, John Winston, general manager of Tourism London, says the next step is to make the program sustainable.

“We’re developing a website as a portal to our community so people will have tools to promote their take on London,” he says. “At the end of the day we’re trying to balance the message. It’s a great place to live and a great place to invest. The information has to have substance. Everybody sells quality of life. What’s meaningful and what’s unique here? We don’t need to compare ourselves to Toronto or Vancouver. We’re London,” Once launched, sustainability will be the principle focus as London continues to grow, develop and change according to Mayor DeCicco-Best.

“I’m hoping that everywhere I go that people are talking about the Ambassador program and that they’ll be using the materials to be able to say this is how I’m going to give back. I’m hoping it will get to the point where I am one of the ambassadors as mayor but not the only one. No matter what you do you can be the person who promotes the city.”

[ldoto]

Centre pricey, city warned

Tue, October 2, 2007

The general manager of Edmonton's Winspear Centre calls $55 million 'pretty conservative.'

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



Londoners told it would cost $55 million to build a performing arts centre should expect to pay more, say those who run centres in Edmonton, Mississauga and Brampton.

"That's pretty conservative," said Peter Gerrie, the general manager of Edmonton's Winspear Centre.

"It costs more than you think it's going to cost," said Steve Solski, who manages the Brampton's Rose Theatre, whose price tag rose from an initial estimate of $24 million to $52 million.

The Winspear Centre, Rose Theatre and Mississauga's Living Arts Centre were the three facilities a city-hired consultant deemed most similar to what is being proposed in London -- a main building with a 1,200- to 1,500-seat theatre and a second building for storage, sets and other uses.

The consultant, Novita, has recommended the city wind down operations at the aging Centennial Hall and replace it with something state-of-the-art.

The city's finance chief, Vic Cote, has recommended closing Centennial Hall by 2016, setting the stage for a debate at council about that facility and a potential replacement.

That debate is expected to continue in two weeks before the city's board of control.

Those who operate the performing arts centres in Edmonton, Brampton and Mississauga say their facilities have enriched culture and brought excitement.

But they caution that Londoners should consider options with eyes wide-open.

The Winspear Centre's main hall has 1,900 seats but lacks big-ticket items planned here, such as a fly tower used to quickly move props and backdrops on and off the stage.

An insurer recently appraised the replacement value of the 10-year-old Winspear Centre at $125 million, Gerrie said.

Also built 10 years ago, the Living Arts Centre cost $70 million plus $13 million in ancillary costs -- not including land. It has a 1,300-seat theatre similar to what's proposed in London, but in a building that's twice as large as buildings proposed here.

Told of the $55-million price here, the centre's chief executive officer, Gerry Townsend, said that would be a bargain.

"If one could do it for $50 to $60 million, that seems pretty reasonable," he said.

Townsend said it's easy for those planning a new performing arts centre to let enthusiasm cloud judgement.

"The financial drain (here) was much greater than anyone realized," he said.

Those who planned the Living Arts Centre hoped by the end of its first year it would break even, have no capital debt and be benefiting from an endowment fund of at least $10 million.

Instead, it had almost $23 million in debt and lost $6.9 million in its first year.

Ten years later, finances are much better: With bank loans paid off and the city of Mississauga paying to operate the building itself, revenue the past three years has exceeded costs and the arts community is thriving, Townsend said.

"So it was all worthwhile," he said.

But the Ontario market is not without its challenges.

Cash-rich casinos have driven up the price of booking performers by 30 or 40 per cent, Townsend said, and sometimes require them not to perform at any facility nearby.

With 1,300 seats, the Living Art Centre can't raise enough revenue to match what casinos pay some performers, he said.

The question of capacity was also raised by the Winspear's Gerrie, who wishes his own facility had more seats.

"To me, (what London has proposed), that's too small. You're going to lose a lot of your market," Gerrie said.

In Brampton, officials decided not to try to compete with casinos or large venues in the GTA, building a 880-seat hall that focused on quality.

While the London market may be different, a theatre with between 1,000 and 2,000 seats is a no man's land, too small to bring in costly acts and too large -- and expensive -- for local performing artists, Solski said.

LONDON CHRONOLOGY

- 1982: Citizens advocating a performing arts centre in downtown London hold first meeting.

- 1988: Performing Arts Centre Today for London (PACT) proposal to renovate and restore a vintage downtown movie theatre goes to city administration for assessment. The idea of revamping the theatre eventually wound up on the losing end of a 10-9 vote at council.

- 1998: Supporters of what came to be called the "community entertainment centre" push for a $20 million to $30-million centre, to be used primarily for performing arts. It was to have a sloped theatre floor with seating for 1,200, plus a 400-seat and a 150-seat theatre. Project loses out in 1999 to the city proceeding with the John Labatt Centre project.

- 2003: London Performing Arts Centre (LPAC) board hires Arts Resources International, a division of Artec Consultants Inc. of New York to study building a performing arts centre that would seat 1,500 to 2,000 people.

- 2005: Creative City Task recommends building a performing arts centre within 10 years and setting aside half of each year's surplus for that goal.

- September, 2007: A city consultant suggests closing Centennial Hall within a decade and replacing it with a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. City staff recommend closing the hall too, but controllers defer the debate until October.

OTHER CENTRE DEALS

London's finance chief, Vic Cote, has proposed that, if council wants a performing arts centre, the city should be prepared to pay between 60 and 70 per cent of the costs, a share some city councillors say is too high. The municipal share was much lower for performing arts centres in Edmonton and Mississauga:

- Edmonton gave land worth $6 million. The Alberta and federal governments each gave $15 million, Francis Winspear gave $6 million and private donors the rest.

- Mississauga gave $15 million and an interest-free loan of $15 million. Peel Region gave $5 million, the Ontario and federal governments $15 million each and private donors $17 million.

[ldoto]

Gosnell eyes UWO for arts centre

Thu, October 4, 2007

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



The city should try to partner with the University of Western Ontario to build a performing arts centre there, a move far cheaper than going alone, says London's deputy mayor.

"It could be done for a fraction of the cost," said Tom Gosnell, who has been skeptical taxpayers can afford a facility staff estimate would cost $55 million plus land.

A joint venture would serve two purposes, he said:

- With UWO picking up a share of the costs, less would be borne by taxpayers.

- While performing arts centres typically must be subsidized to operate, UWO could use the facility during the day, adding value to its use.

The pairing may work well, said Gosnell, a Western grad who represents the city on its board of governors.

The dean of UWO's music faculty, Robert Wood, is pushing for a new performance hall that would seat about 1,000. The options including renovating Alumni Hall, adding a new hall next to the school's music building or building a stand-alone facility.

Wood said he was focused on creating a building that meets the school's needs, but would listen to what the city might propose.

"We're definitely open to a dialogue," he said.

Wood wants a facility that firstly caters to his music students and, secondly, enriches the cultural experience for those at the university.

But whether those needs mesh with the city's is a matter of dispute.

Highly skeptical is George Kerhoulas, chairperson of the London Performing Arts Centre, a volunteer board.

He wants an all-purpose facility that caters to musicians, dancers and theatre, a venture that will require high-priced items such as a fly tower used to quickly move props and backdrops on and off the stage.

Kerhoulas said a few years ago he presented his vision and a price tag of more than $50 million to UWO's board of governors -- and they balked.

"They didn't appear interested," he said.

A performing arts centre needs to be downtown to act as an economic stimulant, not somewhere on UWO's campus, Kerhoulas said.

"(On campus) is a non-starter," he said. "If they want a performing arts centre at UWO, that's fine, but it won't be a community facility."

But it is possible, at least in Vancouver, to wed a university facility and a community one, says an operator of the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at the University of British Columbia.

With a 1,200-seat concert hall and smaller spaces for theatre and cinema, the Chan Centre serves students but attracts crowds to performances who are mostly from the wider community.

"We're a real player in the Greater Vancouver area," said Joyce Hinton, who helps manage programming and administration.

While the Chan Centre focuses on music and lacks the extras Kerhoulas wants for theatre and dance, it has become a destination spot even though it's quite a distance from downtown Vancouver, Hinton said.

Like UWO, it's in an affluent part of the city. Hinton says customers like it because parking is free and the area safe and attractive.

In coming weeks, London politicians will consider proposals to close 40-year-old Centennial Hall and whether and how to replace it.

[MolsonExport]

^bad idea to put it at UWO (even though I work for UWO). It belongs downtown, because downtown needs 'help' much more than the area around UWO.

[Snark]

Agreed! Why not let constructive ME comments speak for all instead:

heh, heh. I guess I am reluctant to do just that. It is no big deal anyway...I get my name in the papers relatively often given my career.

Speaking for myself, I feel eminently qualified to comment on such phenomena

I am quoted in the LFP today
I have appeared on A-Morning a couple of times (interviewed...I am in academia). Oh well, there is still the LFP

I have no idea what the cost would be.

<deleted>

Sorry, I was barely awake, and I just tune out of all the bad news of late, for the sake of my sanity.

Landmark? Looks like a pile of shit.

A mountain of locusts? Change the name. Likewise, would you want to live on Cheapside (major street in London).

Middlesex (what the hell is this, a hermaphrodite?)

Yeah, aren't they vile?

I am glad, then. So that I will not have to waste my time instructing such retarded deadbeats.

Take London (ON), multiply it by 10, and maybe then, you would have something that could, very possibly, be a candidate for world-class.

Not the Shriners thing again. Fer fvcksakes, when will it ever end?

It's the new building for West Park Baptist Church (currently near Wonderland & Hyde Park Rd.). Damn. Not another one.

London has long ceased being a head-office city, to being a back-office city.

Whats the news of the new Walfart that is supposed to go up at Sprawldale and unWonderland?

Man, the Galleria has gotta be one of the biggest urban disasters in Canada. I was there yesterday...unfuckingbelievable how empty the place is.

A veritable ghostown of a mall, with more than 40 vacant stores to better serve you!

overmalled....but Westmount will still be a mall? Sounds like the managers are lacking a solid strategy. If I were a tenant in the mall, I would be worried.

The "rebirth" of the Galleria is rather like a woman experiencing 72 months of gestation followed by 24 months of labour.

could this be the first signs of Masonville mall going the way of Westmount mall??

Nice, but I hear that they do not serve BEER at Labatt Park...extremely ironic and moronic.

allow Labatt park to serve beer...and I will go to see London Majors games.

Wharnecliffe is going down the toilet. At least half of it (from Oxford to Commissioners) sits at the bottom of the bowl, with the other turds. A charming slice of East London in western London.

YEAH! more commie-blocks!

I am getting pissed off at the so-called leaders of London.

Nostalgia for the status quo = today's london leadership = mediocrity

yup: london planners/council-->think small.

I have to agree that the current administration really comes up short in their 'vision' for what London ought to aspire to.

London busses are horrible. They smell, have no seats, and constantly lurch. Not to mention, the schedules, and the asinine amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B

very overdue. I can't understand why they rezone/develop areas prior to improving the infrastructure.

too bad that it will probably be years before it goes back up again for phase II

More bad news for London. The daily dose

For Gawd's sake, London has only 2 complete East-West and North-South roads:
East-West: Fanshawe Park Road and Oxford
North-South: Wonderland and Highbury.
That's it. Everything else does not go through all the way.

Council should wake up...given the lousy local economy, taxpayers are not feeling generous, and frankly, a little tired of property (et al.) tax increases that have long outstripped inflation

London has the third-busiest airport in Canada, after Toronto and Vancouver. Really? Ahead of Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc.? Must be freight. Would like to see the supporting statistics.

thats a tall proposal for a shitsville corner. Love to see it happen....but in this market?

Visonary. 30 years, I will be approaching 70. I can then look forward to a quick way to Fanshawe Park Road. Yay.

Any info on the proposed Walfart at Exeter and Wonderland Rd. South?

Does the Ash Borer also eat jobs? I ask because the London area has lost so many in the past 6 months.

Weird. Hope that it is better than the aborted pseudo-freeway blip that is Highbury Ave.

I think that London's city planners look towards the 905 area as an urban model, rather than say, more concise urban fabrics like those found in Europe.

Looks like a run-down 70's era Las Vegas motor inn.

Quite frankly, who gives two-shits what Jack Layton says?

And the commie-blocks keep-a-comin' in London, esp. in the Oxford-Wonderland area.
I'd rather have no construction, than more of those ugly commie-blocks. Parts of London could easily pass for Irkutsk or Dniepreprovetsk.

I am not too impressed, having bought a home in the neighborhood.

Not again.

Good, but if it happens, I will eat my shoes.
I refer to them as Dumbcentres.

Ultra 80s, Ultra Smell (Bell) Canada. Smell has a building like this in every single major city in Canada.

This actually looks pretty good. I was in the area this weekend past, and it currently is about as gritty and shitty as anywhere in the country.

Yeah, just what I expected, city council is totally in cahoots with the big box sprawl developers. Who gives a shit if inner London looks like shit,

Yeah, I live about 1 km from that shitty bridge. and cross it from time to time. It is the Marie-Anne de Cicco way: rezone, build, but do not expand the infrastructure.

More of Anne-Marie's "Best and Brightest" (aka, highest salaries and sick-days, and moreover, mediocre results

yep. exactly. anyone else, it would be front-page news. And you'd think, "wow, the mayor's husband...for sure the LFP will have something"...but it is buried like a skeleton in the closet.

And while we are at it, how on earth did Best get the exemption for that lousy deck/patio along Richmond? Fishy, fishy.

What do you all think about the Mayor's husband's little adventure last saturday? Must be pretty damned embarassing for Anne-Marie, to say the least.

Same shit they smoked when they decided to bury the drunk-driving adventure of Mr. A-M deC-Best.

No news on Mr. AMdeC-Best? Still got his drivers' license, I presume?

If he got drunk (and then drove) in his own bar...could he be at risk of losing his liquor license? Did you sit out on the cheapo patio at Friday Fright Nites?

Not because of, but despite the current administration on dufferin st.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Snark

The City has already pumped a huge amount into the downtown,

What the city of London has invested in downtown London is chump change. It is a total of about $100-125 million. Many cities in the U.S. and Europe have invested billions (yes, with a b) into their city centres. London has always been afraid to do anything big and bold. The art gallery is a classic example. Original plans called for a much better gallery and I heard the city cheaped out. The JLC is a great facility, but they only built it 9000 seats. It should have been 12-14000 seats. The transit plan for London calls for a cheap version of Bus Rapid Transit, while K/W is going to build Light Rail. How about the expressway we don't have?

I heard Anne Marie on CJBK regarding the Performing Arts Centre and she said that it won't be built for 10-15 years. Fifteen years? Wow, why are we even talking about it? By that time, Woodstock will be bigger than London and they will have a performing arts centre already.

I am sorry for the rant, but London's leaders have always lacked any kind of real vision.

[Snark]

Agreed! Why not let constructive ME comments speak for all instead:

heh, heh. I guess I am reluctant to do just that. It is no big deal anyway...I get my name in the papers relatively often given my career.

Speaking for myself, I feel eminently qualified to comment on such phenomena

I am quoted in the LFP today
I have appeared on A-Morning a couple of times (interviewed...I am in academia). Oh well, there is still the LFP

I have no idea what the cost would be.

<deleted>

Sorry, I was barely awake, and I just tune out of all the bad news of late, for the sake of my sanity.

Landmark? Looks like a pile of shit.

A mountain of locusts? Change the name. Likewise, would you want to live on Cheapside (major street in London).

Middlesex (what the hell is this, a hermaphrodite?)

Yeah, aren't they vile?

I am glad, then. So that I will not have to waste my time instructing such retarded deadbeats.

Take London (ON), multiply it by 10, and maybe then, you would have something that could, very possibly, be a candidate for world-class.

Not the Shriners thing again. Fer fvcksakes, when will it ever end?

It's the new building for West Park Baptist Church (currently near Wonderland & Hyde Park Rd.). Damn. Not another one.

London has long ceased being a head-office city, to being a back-office city.

Whats the news of the new Walfart that is supposed to go up at Sprawldale and unWonderland?

Man, the Galleria has gotta be one of the biggest urban disasters in Canada. I was there yesterday...unfuckingbelievable how empty the place is.

A veritable ghostown of a mall, with more than 40 vacant stores to better serve you!

overmalled....but Westmount will still be a mall? Sounds like the managers are lacking a solid strategy. If I were a tenant in the mall, I would be worried.

The "rebirth" of the Galleria is rather like a woman experiencing 72 months of gestation followed by 24 months of labour.

could this be the first signs of Masonville mall going the way of Westmount mall??

Nice, but I hear that they do not serve BEER at Labatt Park...extremely ironic and moronic.

allow Labatt park to serve beer...and I will go to see London Majors games.

Wharnecliffe is going down the toilet. At least half of it (from Oxford to Commissioners) sits at the bottom of the bowl, with the other turds. A charming slice of East London in western London.

YEAH! more commie-blocks!

I am getting pissed off at the so-called leaders of London.

Nostalgia for the status quo = today's london leadership = mediocrity

yup: london planners/council-->think small.

I have to agree that the current administration really comes up short in their 'vision' for what London ought to aspire to.

London busses are horrible. They smell, have no seats, and constantly lurch. Not to mention, the schedules, and the asinine amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B

very overdue. I can't understand why they rezone/develop areas prior to improving the infrastructure.

too bad that it will probably be years before it goes back up again for phase II

More bad news for London. The daily dose

For Gawd's sake, London has only 2 complete East-West and North-South roads:
East-West: Fanshawe Park Road and Oxford
North-South: Wonderland and Highbury.
That's it. Everything else does not go through all the way.

Council should wake up...given the lousy local economy, taxpayers are not feeling generous, and frankly, a little tired of property (et al.) tax increases that have long outstripped inflation

London has the third-busiest airport in Canada, after Toronto and Vancouver. Really? Ahead of Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc.? Must be freight. Would like to see the supporting statistics.

thats a tall proposal for a shitsville corner. Love to see it happen....but in this market?

Visonary. 30 years, I will be approaching 70. I can then look forward to a quick way to Fanshawe Park Road. Yay.

Any info on the proposed Walfart at Exeter and Wonderland Rd. South?

Does the Ash Borer also eat jobs? I ask because the London area has lost so many in the past 6 months.

Weird. Hope that it is better than the aborted pseudo-freeway blip that is Highbury Ave.

I think that London's city planners look towards the 905 area as an urban model, rather than say, more concise urban fabrics like those found in Europe.

Looks like a run-down 70's era Las Vegas motor inn.

Quite frankly, who gives two-shits what Jack Layton says?

And the commie-blocks keep-a-comin' in London, esp. in the Oxford-Wonderland area.
I'd rather have no construction, than more of those ugly commie-blocks. Parts of London could easily pass for Irkutsk or Dniepreprovetsk.

I am not too impressed, having bought a home in the neighborhood.

Not again.

Good, but if it happens, I will eat my shoes.
I refer to them as Dumbcentres.

Ultra 80s, Ultra Smell (Bell) Canada. Smell has a building like this in every single major city in Canada.

This actually looks pretty good. I was in the area this weekend past, and it currently is about as gritty and shitty as anywhere in the country.

Yeah, just what I expected, city council is totally in cahoots with the big box sprawl developers. Who gives a shit if inner London looks like shit,

Yeah, I live about 1 km from that shitty bridge. and cross it from time to time. It is the Marie-Anne de Cicco way: rezone, build, but do not expand the infrastructure.

More of Anne-Marie's "Best and Brightest" (aka, highest salaries and sick-days, and moreover, mediocre results

yep. exactly. anyone else, it would be front-page news. And you'd think, "wow, the mayor's husband...for sure the LFP will have something"...but it is buried like a skeleton in the closet.

And while we are at it, how on earth did Best get the exemption for that lousy deck/patio along Richmond? Fishy, fishy.

What do you all think about the Mayor's husband's little adventure last saturday? Must be pretty damned embarassing for Anne-Marie, to say the least.

Same shit they smoked when they decided to bury the drunk-driving adventure of Mr. A-M deC-Best.

No news on Mr. AMdeC-Best? Still got his drivers' license, I presume?

If he got drunk (and then drove) in his own bar...could he be at risk of losing his liquor license? Did you sit out on the cheapo patio at Friday Fright Nites?

Not because of, but despite the current administration on dufferin st.

[SlickFranky]

Snark....I think you are my new favorite poster

You've exactly nailed it. It's not always about straight dollars, it's about where those dollars are coming from.


But I have to admit, the K-W light rail project is slightly annoying (10+ yrs going or not). London is absolutely littered with rail lines. My crazy fantasy has always been to move the two rail yards out of the city center so that we could get all that cargo traffic out of the core and put some of those lines to better use. I remember Fontana brought this up in his mayoral campaign. I'm sure there's funding to be had for such a project.

[DC83]

^^ Wow great rant, Snark! Very interesting info!

I don't thinK ANY city in Ontario can pay for anything on it's own anymore, really. Many of Hamilton's projects are gov't funded -- the General Hospital major revamps as a good example. Along with Hamilton Harbour cleanup, the Red Hill Valley Expressway (split 3way, Muni-Fed-Prov), they Hwy6 bypass to Hamilton Int'l, and the list goes on!

Also, the ONLY reason Hamilton is talking about Light Rail at the moment is b/c McGuinty came out with this $17.5 Billion (with a B) Transit promise comprising of $300 Million for Hamilton alone. If we were not offered $300 Million to build Rapid Transit from the Gov't, we'd NEVER build it... scratch that, Council wouldn't ever even THINK about talking about it!

We shouldn't have to beg the Fed or Prov Gov'ts for money every year... which we do. Why is every city so afraid to sell out? I vow we (Hamilton & London) take an example from Toronto and sell ad space along our highways a-la Gardiner Expressway! In Hamilton, The Linc would be an optimal location for such Garden-Ads! What about London??

[GreatTallNorth2]

You guys are totally missing my point. I am not saying London should invest billions of dollars from its own tax base. They should however have a vision and some plans on taking this city to the next level and be asking the provincial and federal government for help. Why should other cities always get the funding?

Let me give an example to explain what I am talking about. I remember when London did this transportation study a few years back. They hired a pretty reputable consulting firm to give London direction in what to do about our transportation situation. The firm suggested some bold moves on London's part to cut vehicle traffic and increase transit. In the end, London basically did nothing with this study. I called the person who did the study and asked why London never does anything and why other cities do things. In a nutshell, he said that London is notorious for "not stepping up to the plate" and going to the government for financing projects.

I don't care what anyone says. London does not have an intercity freeway system like K/W, Hamilton, Ottawa, Windsor, etc., etc. because our council is full of dithering idiots. The province wanted to build the 402 right in the city, but London hummed and hawed for too long and the province built it outside of the city. Now the same thing is happening with LRT. The province has committed funds to K/W's LRT project. They are giving money away to Toronto, Hamilton and probably Ottawa and London council probably does not even know what LRT is. Dont' tell me you guys are happy with that. Transit and transportation is key in growing a city.

London boasts of being a creative, regional centre in SW Ontario. My friends, this is not true.

Which cities have had vision and invested in their city centres? How about Chattanooga, Tennessee? It had a dump of a downtown and they have spent over 1 billion dollar on improving it. It went from being a hole to a tourism magnet. Do some research on it. They are the envy of most mid sized cities and they have a population less than London. The private sector really pitched in because the city had some vision. In the UK, cities London's size and smaller (Portsmouth, Southampton, etc.) have invested heavily in their city centres and it has breathed new life.

In regards to the Art Gallery, you simply don't know what you are talking about. London had a world class architect design the building. You will notice the shape of it. It is suppose to flow from the forks of the Thames, but the city cut it short. I am not saying it is ugly, but it is not what it could have been.

The JLC sells out all hockey games, period. It sells out most concerts. London cannot attract things like the World Junior's hockey tournament because it is not big enough. That is a fact. It is a fine facility for junior hockey, but the politicians said it would put London on the map. The only problem is that the city was short sighted in the seating capacity. Saskatoon has a 15,000 seat facility and they have a population of 200,000. Halifax has a 10,000 seat arena and they want to build a bigger one. London's market area is as big as Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.

My comments are about London having vision and properly planning for the future. You might be happy with the status quo, but I want to see London be successful and prosperous so we can stop exporting our population to the GTA and Waterloo region.

[SlickFranky]

About the 402...I'm glad they hummed and hawed. The last thing I want in London is an expressway.

I was just checking out a Kitchener DT photo-thread.
I've never even been through DT Kitch, and I blame that on K-W's expressway.

BTW...lots of potential for the warehouse dist in kitch...looking good.

[ldoto]

Hall key to future facility for arts

Wed, October 10, 2007

By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA



In the drama over whether to build a London performing arts centre, Centennial Hall has become a key character.

Those who want to replace it -- a new centre has been estimated as high as $55 million, plus land costs -- say it's ugly, beyond redemption and at risk of becoming a money pit.

Those who think a new centre would be too costly see the 40-year-old hall in a more flattering light, a useful facility that needs sprucing up.

And standing behind the scenes is the man -- the city facility's manager, Bill Campbell -- who probably has the best sense of what needs to be done, what could be done and how much it would all cost.

Getting an estimate from Campbell is like getting one from an auto mechanic. He can provide you with a list of must-do, should-do and can-do things, but the final tab is then up to you -- or in this case, city council.

If council decides to replace the hall in 10 years, Campbell thinks he could keep it running with a few aesthetic improvements for between $2 million and $3 million, about what the city has been paying to maintain the hall.

"We'd keep our fingers crossed that we'd keep it running till the end," Campbell said yesterday

While that cash would be used over 10 years, much of it would be spent at the start, including $400,000 to $500,000 to replace worn parts that heat and cool the building.

Campbell dismissed as unlikely a total failure of the heating and cooling systems -- a scenario the city's finance chief, Vic Cote, warns could happen in the next decade.

Such a total failure would require a replacement costing as much as $3 million, Cote warned the city's board of control last month.

But Campbell says such systems don't fail entirely and the costliest components run between $50,000 and $100,000 each. His plan calls for up to $250,000 to deal with that.

His plan would make the hall look somewhat better: The first step would be to paint the lobby and upgrade the bar.

To keep costs down, the city would try to keep problems at bay rather than prevent them entirely -- for example, by replacing or patching leaking portions of the roof but not replacing the entire roof.

If council wants to keep the hall open for the next 30 years, Campbell recommends a budget of $7.5 million to be spent in the first decade, more than half of that next year.

That would include replacing the roof, the heating and cooling systems and the ductwork, a task that requires removal of asbestos, he said.

In either case, the city would check potential safety issues, including the weight-bearing capacity of rafters, from which sets and lights have been hung for years.

Campbell cautioned his projections are rough estimates, based on walk-throughs and staff knowledge of the hall.

The same cautionary note would apply to a third scenario for Centennial Hall, one in which the city would try to reinvent what was an all-purpose hall as a centre that caters to the performing arts.

Cote suggests such a total makeover would cost $20 million to $25 million or more, and even with that investment, some of the hall's underlying problems, such as poor acoustics and minimal space backstage, couldn't be cured.

The future of the hall will be discussed today by council.

CENTENNIAL OPTIONS

City council has three broad options to deal with 40-year-old Centennial Hall. Here's what they are and how much they'd cost:

- $2 million to $3 million -- Close it in the next 10 years by fixing what's failing, patching what comes up and making small aesthetic improvements.

- $7.5 million -- Keep it open for the next 30 years, replacing all things at risk of failure and making more substantial aesthetic improvements and bringing the facility up to code.

- $20 million(?) -- Transform it into a performing arts centre, recognizing some key elements can't be accommodated in the building.

[ldoto]

Centennial Hall future will cost city millions

Thu, October 11, 2007

By JOE MATYAS, SUN MEDIA



Tear it down, keep it or replace it -- Centennial Hall is going to cost London taxpayers money in the future.

Figures between $7.5 million and $75 million were bandied about yesterday as Vic Cote, the city's general manager of finances, and three consultants briefed city councillors on their options.

Cote told councillors at an information session that tearing down some buildings has cost the city more money than it has earned from the sale of the land.

Demolishing old buildings on the South Street campus of Victoria Hospital cost about $8 million, but the land fetched only $3.5 million, he said.

Razing Centennial Hall would probably be a wash, Cote said, with proceeds from selling the land equalling the cost of demolition.

Representatives of Toronto-based Novita Theatre Consultants and from Malhotra Nicholson Sheffield's London offices estimated it will cost about $7.5 million to maintain Centennial Hall, make some modest upgrades and keep it open for 10 years.

Major upgrades to the hall on the same footprint would cost about $25 million, said Brian Arnott of Novita.

Even then, the hall would have shortcomings as a performing arts centre, he said.

"Basically, what we have there is a gym in which we're trying to do all kinds of live performances," he said. "It's a general purpose hall, not a performance centre, and unless there's significant improvements, it will fall far short of market expectations for consumers and performing artists."

The consultants estimate a new performing arts centre would cost about $55 million, but Controller Bud Polhill inflated that figure to $75 million. He said he didn't think London taxpayers want to pay for "the ultimate showcase."

"We don't need the best building in Canada," he said. "We just need something that's functional. I don't want a Rolls Royce when a Chevrolet will do."

Polhill said he's not convinced Centennial Hall can't be turned into a Chevy.

Coun. Nancy Branscombe said the future of Centennial Hall and London's need for a performing arts centre are separate issues.

"Centennial Hall is the most disgraceful performing arts centre I've ever been in," she said. "I'm not prepared to spend millions on it in a futile effort to make it something it will never be."

The consultants told councillors that Centennial Hall is a 40-year-old building that could stand another 40 years if maintained and upgraded.

Problems with boilers, the heat exchange system, pumps, motors and other mechanical equipment are bound to occur, they said. As well, the hall needs improved accessibility, upgraded lighting and sound systems and more room behind stage for mounting productions, they said.

Arnott said the building broke even last year.

"It's not costing much, but it's not delivering much to community."

Centennial Hall's future is expected to be decided by council this fall.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by SlickFranky

About the 402...I'm glad they hummed and hawed. The last thing I want in London is an expressway.

I was just checking out a Kitchener DT photo-thread.
I've never even been through DT Kitch, and I blame that on K-W's expressway.

BTW...lots of potential for the warehouse dist in kitch...looking good.

Yeah, I agree. I would hate to have limited access, high speed roads for my travels in the city. I guess all the other cities in the world with expressways, which is basically every city, have bad downtowns.

The fact that you haven't been to Kitchener's downtown has nothing to do with its expressway. It has to do with the fact that their downtown isn't that great. Lots of cities have expressways and great downtowns.

[flar]

There's no good solution if you want an expressway in London. There's nowhere to put it other than as a ring road, which would do nothing to relieve congestion in the central part of the city and would encourage yet more sprawl. Any other route through the city would involve so much expropriation and meet so much protest it would never actually happen. Besides, it's not really needed. Wonderland and Highbury are good N-S routes and Comissioners and Oxford are good E-W routes already.

[MolsonExport]

^nasty routes. takes forever to get from one end of Ox/Comm/High/Wond to the other.

[QuantumLeap]

I agree- I am so glad that there is no expressway in the middle of London. Expressways do not encourage downtowns- in fact, they usually blight the areas they go through (as if the expressways themselves were not blight enough). We do need good transportation in the city, but we have to divide that transportation into two forms: commercial and private. Commercial transportation needs to be improved in two ways: by improving truck routes into the city (without blighting the neighbourhoods they pass through) and by improving rail transportation, which does not encourage sprawl and limits emissions. Rail is only going to grow as fuel gets more expensive and emissions regulations get tighter.
As regards private/ personal transportation, we need to DRAMATICALLY improve transit. The way to do this is not BRT, but rather light rail. I think we should be planning NOW for a light rail transit system, with a system of lines built over the next 10-50 years (it pays to plan for the future). The first line would generally follow the CP line in North-Central, with four termini: Hyde Park/ CP, Argyle Mall (eventual connection to London Airport), and two spur lines (one of which already exists), leading to Fanshawe College and another to UWO/ Masonville. The next line would use parts of the L & PS/ CN line to connect to Victoria Hospital (South and West campus) and White Oaks. Other inititatives we need are to increase employment growth in new residential areas (such as West and North) and increase residential growth in new industrial areas (East and South). Throw in a liberal amount of mixed-use infill anywhere there is space and voila! congestion has increased, but the problems with congestion are VASTLY reduced. Yes, it will still take a long time to drive from eg Riverbend to the General Dynamics, but people will need to make far fwer trips across the city, amd ,amy cross city trips will be possbiel by lgiht rail.