London Construction - Development News Thread#1

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

With senior governments anxious to spend on public works to create jobs amid the economic downturn, spending on border and transportation improvements is logical and overdue, says former London MPP Dianne Cunningham.

It'll never happen. City Councillors will argue amongst themselves for years, the Killer B's will oppose any new developments, the NIMBY crowd will agree with them, and while Kitchener prospers we'll still be running in circles wondering what to do. I have zero confidence in this city. London is going to get left behind and become more of a national unknown than it is now. There are so many Canadians outside Ontario who have never heard of London it's scary. And those that have heard of it think it's a small town like Napanee or something.

[MolsonExport]

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

[QuantumLeap]

Airport taps feds for $4M distribution centres plan
Mon, December 8, 2008
EXPANSION PROPOSAL

By JONATHAN SHER

London's airport has asked the feds for $4 million to build distribution centres it hopes will be stepping stones to making this the only airport north of Mexico where goods could zip through tax- and duty-free.

The pitch comes as Ottawa plans a stimulus program that would include money for public works during a time of global economic crisis.

With competition fierce for that money -- thousands are expected to apply -- airport president Steve Baker will turn this week to city hall for a letter of support.

"It's important for the city to act as soon as possible," Baker said yesterday.

While other public works will create construction jobs, airport expansion also would provide ongoing employment, he said.


Click here to find out more!

"It's not just about pipes and potholes," Baker said.

Baker also wants council to support his request to make the new buildings essentially exempt from London property taxes for 10 years --forgoing a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue.

As many as eight distribution centres, each with 100,000 square feet of space , are needed to make use of a new authority granted to the airport last week by the federal government.

London International Airport was named an export distribution centre that can receive and send cargo around the world. Until now, the airport could receive only cargo that was destined for the city.

But that approval means little if the airport can't build the distribution centres, Baker said.

The new centres are only the first step. Baker also wants the airport to become a free-trade zone where goods from around the world would not attract taxes or duties.

A free-trade zone would allow the airport to do more than receive, sort and send goods -- companies would be allowed to receive parts and assemble or finish them before sending them elsewhere.

If the airport doesn't move aggressively, it risks losing cargo business that has already begun to slip because of tough economic times, Baker said.

The airport also has asked Ottawa for $5 million to build a flight training centre Baker believes would help that business grow. By January, there will be five flight-training schools and one aircraft-maintenance program drawing students from around the world.

[sorry about the bananas, they have become tradition]

[QuantumLeap]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It'll never happen. City Councillors will argue amongst themselves for years, the Killer B's will oppose any new developments, the NIMBY crowd will agree with them, and while Kitchener prospers we'll still be running in circles wondering what to do. I have zero confidence in this city. London is going to get left behind and become more of a national unknown than it is now. There are so many Canadians outside Ontario who have never heard of London it's scary. And those that have heard of it think it's a small town like Napanee or something.

Manny and Molson, I am actually quite glad that you have no confidence in the city. Apparently, the most innovative and visionary things you can imagine happening to this city involve obsolete expressways that have been roundly criticized not just by environmental groups but by politicians, traffic engineers and taxpayers' groups. Expressways are unbelievably costly. They encourage sprawl, which is even more costly. Expressways create air pollution, one of the top causes of death in Ontario, and one of the things many people find unappealing about living in this part of the continent. And they create global warming. Not only does doing something about climate change have a great environmental impact. Not only is "green infrastructure" where the leading countries and cities of the world are going. But also, tightened policy, increased environmental awareness and more expensive cars and oil are going to make your ribbons of concrete obsolete soon enough.

The politicians that you attack are the very politicians who have a real vision for this city. Some of them are pretty pro-environment, I will warrant. But they understand, unlike the Polhills and Carancis, that a clean environment and splendid green spaces are an asset, one of several that would make London great. And the more visionary councillors are also incredibly pro-development. Hume and Bryant, though often at odds, are probably the two most visionary people on council right now. What the smart councillors are limiting is the crappy sprawl that has infected our city for so long. Low-density, strictly segregated by income, family type and use, no transit growth potential, faceless Big Box stores who send their profits to Memphis and Denver, a cruddy-to-non-existent public realm. These are the attributes of this type of growth. I can guarantee you that chic cities like Vancouver and Portland didn't get that way by rubber-stamping developments of the Sifton kind. The good councillors are supporting better protection of green space, placemaking principles, bus rapid transit with an option to upgrade to light rail, green infrastructure improvements, climate change initiatives, central city revitalization, urban design and architecture and funky local business. Tell me you don't think Gosnell and Van Meerbergen are the ones with the big ideas in this city.

[QuantumLeap]

Also, for all your bickering on this message board, tell me, what are you doing to improve this city? Are you writing letters to Council and its various committees? Developments, some good, many bad are constantly coming up for review at the Planning Committee, while the ETC's mandate is to oversee road projects, transit and infrastructure. Are you meeting with politicians? MainStreet? The Urban League? The Chamber of Commerce? Do you call your MPs and MPPs asking for more money, or for support for projects like the new AIDS vaccine centre or the Airport project proposed above?
Or are you just sitting around, complaining, and hoping that things will magically get better?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

Also, for all your bickering on this message board, tell me, what are you doing to improve this city? Are you writing letters to Council and its various committees? Developments, some good, many bad are constantly coming up for review at the Planning Committee, while the ETC's mandate is to oversee road projects, transit and infrastructure. Are you meeting with politicians? MainStreet? The Urban League? The Chamber of Commerce? Do you call your MPs and MPPs asking for more money, or for support for projects like the new AIDS vaccine centre or the Airport project proposed above?
Or are you just sitting around, complaining, and hoping that things will magically get better?

I might ask the same question.


You are out of line to adopt that sort of tone against fellow forumers, neither of whom has run for public office. The latter are our elected officials, hence meriting our comments, whether you agree with them or not. As a taxpayer and resident, I resent your caustic suggestion. And do not presume as to what our activities are in regards to advancing the city. Take a quantum leap out of castigating your fellow London forumers, and defend your own perspectives with your own logic. I cannot help but think that you are somehow connected to the current administration. But trust me, your argumentative style does very little to engender a more positive view of the incumbent council.

Finally, I am not at all in favour of urban sprawl and the accompanying highway infrastructure. As a researcher of environmental issues, I resent the insinuation.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I might ask the same question.


You are out of line to adopt that sort of tone against fellow forumers, neither of whom has run for public office. The latter are our elected officials, hence meriting our comments, whether you agree with them or not. As a taxpayer and resident, I resent your caustic suggestion. And do not presume as to what our activities are in regards to advancing the city. Take a quantum leap out of castigating your fellow London forumers, and defend your own perspectives with your own logic. I cannot help but think that you are somehow connected to the current administration. But trust me, your argumentative style does very little to engender a more positive view of the incumbent council.

Finally, I am not at all in favour of urban sprawl and the accompanying highway infrastructure. As a researcher of environmental issues, I resent the insinuation.

I concur with Molson. Actually, I took an urban planning course last year at Western with the director of planning for Middlesex County (Steve Evans I think was his name) and I wrote a report recommending that London industrial lands should be assessed with development fees like all residential and commercial lands in the city in order to provide the city with greater financial means to invest more in infrastructure. Other Ontario municipalities levy industrial development fees but London does not. I submitted my report to Councillor Paul Hubert and he said he'd share it with city staff and keep it on file. I believe Vic Cote has the same viewpoint as I do, and he happened to make a similar recommendation to mine quite literally the day before my report was due. I spoke with Sandy Levin on a couple of occasions when he was on City Council as well, I think it was related to the LTC. So, I have taken an active role in trying to help this city.

There are definitely good visionaries on City Council, including Paul Vanmeerbergen. But there has long been bickering and there seems to be no will to move forward with some of the initiatives more progressive municipalities have done. Remember, London was one of the last in Ontario to implement a blue box program.

I believe London should have built an expressway decades ago and I believe certain road corridors are in dire need of widening in the west end of the city - for example, over half the time I spend getting to Western in the morning is spent just getting out of Byron, because Boler Road, Byron Baseline Road, and even the Oxford extension up near STA have horrific congestion. However, I am also a strong believer in public transit, and that's where London needs to put its money.

[LondnPlanr]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

Also, for all your bickering on this message board, tell me, what are you doing to improve this city? Are you writing letters to Council and its various committees? Developments, some good, many bad are constantly coming up for review at the Planning Committee, while the ETC's mandate is to oversee road projects, transit and infrastructure. Are you meeting with politicians? MainStreet? The Urban League? The Chamber of Commerce? Do you call your MPs and MPPs asking for more money, or for support for projects like the new AIDS vaccine centre or the Airport project proposed above?
Or are you just sitting around, complaining, and hoping that things will magically get better?

Hi Quantum,

I understand your comments, but I do think that you are directing your angst and frustration at the wrong people. I would imagine that most of the people who frequent this London forum do so to gain knowledge of what the 'development' community in London is up to, which is precisely why I log in on a daily basis. While I take absolutely ZERO offence to your comments, as I understand your frustrations, I do think that those who are easily offended (as exemplified by the comments posted prior to this response) have viewed your comments as an attack on their motives/ideologies.

So, to Molson and Manny, I suggest that you not take too much offence to Quantum's rant, but instead try to understand who he/she is REALLY directing their comments to; the masses who constantly complain, yet do little to contribute to their cause/concern.

The example I like to use most is the issue of the colourful metal trees that have 'sprouted' up around downtown London. To some, including myself, they are a welcomed blast of colour and creativity into the downtown core, but to others, they were offended by the presence of metal trees in the place of what they thought could be real trees. The detractors cry of 'Why use taxpayers money for this?!' was ridiculous, as the trees were funded by the Downtown Business Association and Mainstreet London. In that one sentence, the 'complainers of the trees' lost my respect, because they simply did not do their homework. And if those who complained indeed wanted more real trees within the core, and quite frankly, you will not find anyone who will oppose that notion, where was the community group or group of citizens who approached DBA or Mainstreet to have their idea heard? There wasn't one. And, as an aside, the planting of real trees in the middle of the sidewalks around downtown London probably isn't the best idea in the world, anyhow, but I digress...

So yes, I can understand why Molson and Manny are upset at Quantum's rant. We all can have our own opinions on development and the proper way to go about it, but as a third party reading this 'friendly' conversation, I am willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that Quantum is just having a slightly bad Monday, and took out his/her general frustrations on a few comments that were made previously regarding expressways and such.

And for the record, I am very involved in the City of London, as I am a member of my local community association, a citizen-at-large member of an advisory committee at City Hall, and am employed in the development/environmental field right here in London.

Have a great afternoon,

LondnPlanr

[MolsonExport]

^good posts, LP and MS

[ldoto]

Those were good posts. We need more of them!!!!!

[QuantumLeap]

Well, LondonPlanr is right, I was having a bad Monday. I enjoy logging into the forum like the rest of you to find out what is going on. I am sorry to find that you took my remarks to be personal, but I owe, after re-reading them, that the second part may have seemed that way.

LondonPlanr is right- I am lashing out against the people in the city who complain without doing much. And I know that most of the forummers here actually are doing things to change the city for the better. My questions were genuine - what are people who right on this forum doing to institute their ideas? Get involved if you aren't already. My point is simply that there are some great ideas and persuasive writings posted on the forum, but they go to waste if they aren't published, or brought to committees.

As for the allegation that I am defending the administration, I would have to deny it. I don't work at City Hall, and I am not employed by any councillors. But I am willing, as an avid watcher of Council and City Hall, to correct the facts when people are attacking the people councillors and administration who actually want to move the city forward. And, Manny, I am afraid they are not Vic Cote or Paul VanMeerbergen, two of the most conservative figures at City Hall. The "vision comes up short" because of characters like this. They are the "bickerers" who think that investing in transit is welfare, and who scoff at urban design.

So I'll apologize to those who took my remarks personally. You may read them instead as a call to action. Tell the Forum of initiatives that we should get involved in, proposals about which we should show our upset. I know that people are involved, and this Forum should ideally serve not just as a place to share ideas but to marshal troops for action.

[MolsonExport]

Maps found on SSC with respect to the Giant Smart Centre at Fanshawe pk/Hyde pk:

Originally Posted by ericlewis91

According to http://www.smartcentres.com/index.cfm

there is 2 more walmarts coming

One at Hibury where that new Rona was Build at comisioners

another at Wonderland and Exeter at Whariancliff

(sorry my spelling sucks for street names)

Also the One at Fanshawe/ Hyde Park is starting contruction on Phase 2
which includes Tiger Direct, Home Outfitters, BMO, RBC, tim hortins, kelseys and more retailers to come

which is will be beside sams club on both sides....(north of Fanshawe)

Site Plan


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

Almost Completed Side (South of Fanshawe)


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

thanks ericlewis91, forumer @ SSC

[sparky212]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

Tell the Forum of initiatives that we should get involved in, proposals about which we should show our upset. I know that people are involved, and this Forum should ideally serve not just as a place to share ideas but to marshal troops for action.

Rock on

[QuantumLeap]

The City is doing a study of the industrial area east of Quebec Street. Could be a great area for lofts, offices, or satellite university/college programs.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap

The City is doing a study of the industrial area east of Quebec Street. Could be a great area for lofts, offices, or satellite university/college programs.

Right around the CPR overpass?

[sparky212]

my neighbour opperates his buisness from there. Right beside the overpass

[manny_santos]

I'm wondering about the satellite college/university idea...I don't think Western needs another satellite campus in London. They've got a good concept going with Continuing Studies downtown. However in a city the size of London I wouldn't be opposed to another university such as Laurier or Waterloo operating a satellite campus here. As for Fanshawe, well that's so close I don't see a point to putting a satellite campus on Quebec Street.

That said I wouldn't be surprised to see at least the Ivey School of Business expand its existing satellite campus reach. I think they have campuses in Toronto and Hong Kong.

[sparky212]

maybe a ut satellite

[worldwide]

i think they should keep anything like that downtown. the area between quebec and highbury north of dundas would be interesting as a mix of lofts and live/work spaces. it would help strengthen the old east village area's high street.

is there still a grocery store on florence street?

[LondnPlanr]

Originally Posted by worldwide

is there still a grocery store on florence street?

Nope. That store has been closed for quite a few years now.