London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[ForestryW]

"That does not suggest there is an immediate need" is what's fundamentally wrong with London's city council. People who can't think beyond 5 years in the future shouldn't be running a major city.That's also what's fundamentally wrong with politicians, they don't want to think beyond the end of their term in office.

That being said I would definitely support a downtown parking structure, if not only to displace parking from surface lots and encourage infill development. King/Clarence would be a good central location although I've always seen that lot as ideal for an office building of some sort.

[QuantumLeap]

Will, as much as I liked leafing through your photo portfolio (its great), I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Gina is right on this. The city should not be essentially subsidizing property owners who are unwilling to build new parking themselves or secure parking in other lots and garages. Furthermore, the City should be looking at real, sexy rapid transit to deal with some of the parking problems. If the city could partner with someone and break even, it would be a different story.

[ForestryW]

I absolutely agree that transit should be the city's first priority when it comes to improving the core. But the fact of the matter is that parking (especially in the long term) is still very relevant downtown. Let me explain:

1) More parking will inevitably be needed in the long term. Sure, only 70 % of spaces are presently being used but that will change sooner than you think if the core continues to develop at the rate it has been (in fact I have no doubt that growth will accelerate). Regardless of public transit improvements there will still be a need for more parking spaces and the city should start thinking now about where those spaces are going to go.

2) In an ideal world parking would be the responsibility of business owners and property developers, but look at where that's taken the city: there are desolate surface parking lots everywhere! At present the purpose of a city-subsidized parking garage should not be to provide more spaces, but to provide an alternative to surface parking lots. If we could trust businesses and landowners like Farhi to build parking lots that didn't require ripping down buildings and creating hideous gaps in the core then I wouldn't support a publicly-funded parking structure, but reality is not on our side unfortunately. Council needs to act now to provide an alternative to the surface parking that will invariably continue to be built.

The Kitchener city council recently voted to build a large parking structure downtown despite the current reality that there is a surplus of parking spaces. It's simply the sad reality that an amenity like that has to be funded by the tax-payers but it's the kind of forward-thinking that will ultimately fuel the right kind of development in the city. London should do the same.

[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.

[ForestryW]

Originally Posted by Snark

I think you guys are missing a major point: most cities want existing heritage streetscapes (such as Dundas Street in London, King Street in Kitchener) to be preserved, restored, and upgraded. They want developers from the private sector to do it. The drawback from a developer's perspective is that these properties are disproportionately expensive to operate once millions have been poured into their restoration, and the properties themselves have have little or no parking spaces on the property for prospective tenants once available for lease. What the development community is saying is that they are putting out a lot of extra dollars in order to keep up these buildings the way that the city wants, but in return they want some assurance that parking for their perspective tenets is somehow available and not entirely on their dime - since they have pumped lots of extra dollars into the heritage streetscape building already. They could level the existing heritage buildings and build new, with parking, but the city doesn't want that. They want the existing buildings preserved. With new developments, the developer is obliged to provide appropriate parking for tenants and none of this is an issue.

True, true.

Originally Posted by Snark

Sorry, but that actually isn't the case. There is not a surplus of parking spaces in downtown Kitchener. Not even close. There will be even fewer when the new courthouse starts construction. And as for the Waterloo Region's proposed LRT to take the heat off of parking demand in Kitchener, it will be at least 7 more years before phase one is operating, so that is too little too late.

I probably should read up on this. I have to say, though, that every time I've been to downtown Kitchener, even in midday in the middle of the week, I have seen empty spaces everywhere, even entire lots. There doesn't seem to be a shortage but I'm sure the numbers prove otherwise.

[ldoto]

London Free Press Thu, October 2, 2008

By JONATHAN SHER

Residents near London's Meadowlily Woods have won a major battle with the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart. A drive that delivered hundreds of people to public meetings and thousands more to sign a petition now is in position for a big win at city hall. Politicians on the planning committee want the city to set the pace and agenda for deciding what development is best for a south London tract surrounded by the woods, a heritage site and a neighbourhood with homes and open space. If council follows suit, as appears likely, those hired to evaluate the area's needs would be selected and paid by city hall rather than by the developer, Smart Centres, which builds big-box malls often anchored by Wal-Mart. That makes all the difference, community activists say. "It's not about Smart Centres. It's not about Wal-Mart . . . It's about (what's best for) London," said Gary Smith, who lives on Meadowlily Road across from where the developer wants to build 225,000 square feet of retail space. Smart Centres had paid its own experts to evaluate the effect of the mega-plaza on the woods, an approach to development that council often has supported in the past. City planners supported the approach, but found Smart Centres hadn't completed the job adequately. Planners recommended giving the developer more time, but neighbours wanted city hall to take charge -- a push accepted by all five members at this week's planning committee meeting. "It's absolutely wonderful," Controller Gina Barber, a committee member, said yesterday. "I can't imagine anything more incongruous (with the area) than a large, big-box development." Some on the planning committee wanted to reject the development outright, but Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best persuaded them not to. Council will undermine its ability to defend itself if it rejects a development before city-hired consultants evaluate local needs, she said. "I've lived in this area all my life. Our job is to make sure we protect it," she said. Residents say a city-led plan has several advantages: - Citizens can provide input throughout the process rather than just near the end. - The study will be more exhaustive. - The study will look at what's best for the area rather than simply accommodating what a developer wants. "We got exactly what we wanted," resident Peter Meisenheimer said. "This will set a precedent on how the city will deal with (land that can be developed)." Smart Centres says other developers won't invest in London if city hall takes over the process midstream. "It puts many developers in a not-very-happy position," said Peter Nikolakakos of Smart Centres. Coun. Roger Caranci and the mayor dispute that a precedent has been set. Both say the woods, heritage and neighbourhood warrant special treatment. But Barber believes the tide has shifted from development at all costs to managed growth. Community groups can carry the day, she said, citing recent council decisions to side with residents in Stoneybrook Heights, Old Masonville and Oakridge. "It's an example of the new way we do business," she said.
__________________

[manny_santos]

I don't see what's wrong with Wal-Mart taking over Pond Mills Square, a dead mall by all intents and purposes. Better yet, we don't need yet another big box nightmare that is impossible to walk to. This city has way too many of those.

[manny_santos]

Demolition on the Brunswick Hotel - known to many as "The Wick" - has begun. Another part of our past gone, and we can at least partially thank Councillor Paul Hubert. And what are we getting for it? Another parking lot.

What is going to get demolished next? The old Bank of Commerce at King and Richmond? The Dominion Public Building?

[worldwide]

the huron and erie building....

or perhaps one london place

[ssiguy]

Good for the residents!
They spoke up against the lion and roared. People want growth that enhances the urban enviornment not destroys or overwhelms it.
If downtown London wants to see true growth and the city wants to make the city transit and pedestrian friendly these "dumb centres" are an antithesis of those goals.

[Spicol]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

What is going to get demolished next? The old Bank of Commerce at King and Richmond? The Dominion Public Building?

Both of those buildings are built like bunkers compared to the Wick's house of sticks and straw. I'm all for heritage designations but they can't come at the expense of common sense. The building was not well built and not well maintained. Dencev sure wasn't going to put the money in and it didn't seem to me that far away from being condemned.

That said, the way that this has gone down is a railroad job to the nth degree. If I rented a parking spot there, I'd be pretty mad today.

[ldoto]

Mon, October 20, 2008



$230 M expansion of Veterans Memorial Parkway approved

A plan to turn Veterans Memorial Parkway into a freeway has divided members of the city's planning committee.

The issue goes before council tonight with a proposal to amend the city's official plan to allow the parkway to be expanded 20 to 30 years down the road.

"This is frankly a no-brainer. This has to go through," said Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen, a planning committee member. "This is the kind of basic infrastructure that is key to developing a local economy and therefore jobs."

He said the "left wing on council" caused a stalemate at the planning committee level.

Fellow member Controller Gina Barber said she has reservations about the cost and locking future councils into the plan, which is estimated at $230 million.




But Van Meerbergen said the city would be aided by provincial and federal government money.

Barber said costs could jump to $650 million if "additional legs" of the freeway are included.

"That's an awful lot of money to be putting into the official plan," she said. "In that time, we might be looking at alternative modes of transportation."

Van Meerbergen argued an extended freeway would help attract industry to the city.

"London is falling down in terms of its internal road system. This is the kind of investment we desperately need," he said.

There are traffic lights along the parkway and the plan would upgrade it to a full freeway, void of any signalled intersections.

[ssiguy]

Is this the same city that says they can't afford LRT?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ldoto

Mon, October 20, 2008



$230 M expansion of Veterans Memorial Parkway approved

A plan to turn Veterans Memorial Parkway into a freeway has divided members of the city's planning committee.

The issue goes before council tonight with a proposal to amend the city's official plan to allow the parkway to be expanded 20 to 30 years down the road.

"This is frankly a no-brainer. This has to go through," said Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen, a planning committee member. "This is the kind of basic infrastructure that is key to developing a local economy and therefore jobs."

He said the "left wing on council" caused a stalemate at the planning committee level.

Fellow member Controller Gina Barber said she has reservations about the cost and locking future councils into the plan, which is estimated at $230 million.




But Van Meerbergen said the city would be aided by provincial and federal government money.

Barber said costs could jump to $650 million if "additional legs" of the freeway are included.

"That's an awful lot of money to be putting into the official plan," she said. "In that time, we might be looking at alternative modes of transportation."

Van Meerbergen argued an extended freeway would help attract industry to the city.

"London is falling down in terms of its internal road system. This is the kind of investment we desperately need," he said.

There are traffic lights along the parkway and the plan would upgrade it to a full freeway, void of any signalled intersections.

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

[doug rogers]

I've been popping in and out of this forum for a year or so now enjoying the discussions and pictures. I found it while googling for images of Vito Frijia. In fact the only online image of Frijia is the one I found here.

Many thanks for that. It is devilishly hard to find images and pictures of local developers.

Now you can obviously conclude why I need photo references. I have collections of politicians and local personalities. Even tiny snapshot size pictures are often sufficient.

I would LOVE to get a confirmed picture of Dan Dencev right now.

[london2020]

What extension are they talking about? surely not just the part where it will merge into Clarke?

I suppose the freeway is/will be needed, but i'd rather see a lot of our roads widened to 6 lanes first. And what about East/West corridors? Let's have the kilally/windermere/gainsborough linkup.

[MolsonExport]

^I second that motion. except for having to destroy the nice forested area currently in place. But London is in dire need of thru-roads, east-west and north-south.

[flar]

I used to imagine some kind of double-decker freeway over top of Wellington as I wasted an hour stopped at red lights on the round trip from downtown to White Oaks to pick up my girlfriend.

[london2020]

I guess there are two problems with that idea. 1) there has been a lot of talk recently about big cities getting rid of above-grade freeways and 2) we have no space for interchanges for such a road.

I think the most we can hope for is a robust network of 6-lane and 4-lane boulevards. Wonderland, Fanshawe, and Wellington all need to be 6-lane for sure.

Doing the winderemere/killaly link would have a very mininal impact on the forest, IMO. The part where the road would go is not really even a forest, it's pretty bare.... there's already a multiuse path there.

As for the winderemere/gainsborough link, it would have an impact on a small portion of the forest, but I think if it was designed well, it would be possible to keep trails intact and minimize and harm to wildlife.

I suspect a Sarnia/Huron link is impossible due to the residential neighborhood, but Sarnia itself definitely needs a lot of work.

[ldoto]

It's a small victory for Medowlily Woods, and a setback for Wal-Mart.

In a unanimous vote last night, City Council decided to commission a city-led report on the environmentally significant area near Highbury and Commissioners.

The report would examine the potential environmental impact of a proposed 25 thousand square foot Smart Centre retail development with a Walmart.

The report is due back before the planning committee by January and the status of the Smart Centre development will not be addressed until then.