London Construction - Development News Thread #1

[london2020]

Originally Posted by tolosulode

So now one does not have to wade through the bog when having a heart attack on the wrong side of Winderemere/Gainsborough to get to the hospital. Only in London? Why not? Your tax money on Gainsborough feeds the dogs of those on Windermere.

That's funny. Both our hospitals have major connectivity deficits close to them.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by london2020

And how would things work in your fantasy land?

Much higher density housing. Attached housing, with minimal front and back yards. And commercial property within the residential area. There is no reason someone should have to drive to get to a variety store. They should all be within a 3-minute walk in an urban area. Where I live, it's 20 minutes.

We have to start somewhere, because we are eventually going to run out of farmland as the population grows. We also have to do something to stem London's growing traffic problems, which I predict will reach crisis levels in the next decade.

[SlickFranky]

Originally Posted by london2020

And how would things work in your fantasy land?

Yeah, you're right. We should all want to live in that plywood mansion and shop at that warehouse behind the oversized parking lot. Living the dream in SW London, oh yeah!

[Blitz]

New subdivisions are part of growth but the issue is the way they build them in London. A grid system would make more sense but all the new developments have those obscene curvy roads and cul-de-sacs.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Much higher density housing. Attached housing, with minimal front and back yards. And commercial property within the residential area. There is no reason someone should have to drive to get to a variety store. They should all be within a 3-minute walk in an urban area. Where I live, it's 20 minutes.

We have to start somewhere, because we are eventually going to run out of farmland as the population grows. We also have to do something to stem London's growing traffic problems, which I predict will reach crisis levels in the next decade.

Sorry, most people don't want attached housing. I agree with minimal front yards -- I like the higher density look. I also agree with grid patterns -- better sense of place. But I do not and never will agree with minimal back yards. Just because you don't have kids or own dogs or want a pool doesn't mean other people don't want space for those things.

We should be building more neighborhoods like old south and stuff like some of Toronto's neighborhoods. But no, everyone does no want to live in a townhouse with no back yard.

I also agree it would be nice to have more variety stores... But not ones run by rip off artists. I'll take a corporate variety like Mac's any day of the week. I think stores like that need to be more common everywhere.

I also am not a huge fan of stuff like the smart centers. I think it would have been better if they built all those stores along Hyde Park facing the road rather than in that giant parking lot monstrosity that exists down the street.

All of that said, I still believe in big arterial roads and expressways. I think cars are great and the system can be improved. London needs to massively increase road capacity and put some kind of expressway around the city and one through it as well.

Big roads are not in conflict with walkable neighborhoods. They both have their place.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by Blitz

New subdivisions are part of growth but the issue is the way they build them in London. A grid system would make more sense but all the new developments have those obscene curvy roads and cul-de-sacs.

Agreed.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by SlickFranky

Yeah, you're right. We should all want to live in that plywood mansion and shop at that warehouse behind the oversized parking lot. Living the dream in SW London, oh yeah!

You sound like someone who might have a hard time affording all that plywood and is perhaps a little jealous. A lot of people still want big homes. The trick is to make them tasteful and fit nicely into an urban environment.

Here's an example of a large home that embodies the qualities of a pleasant urban environment without having to be attached or on a lot with no yard.



I would love to see houses like this built in London on a grid pattern.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by london2020

You sound like someone who might have a hard time affording all that plywood and is perhaps a little jealous. A lot of people still want big homes. The trick is to make them tasteful and fit nicely into an urban environment.

Here's an example of a large home that embodies the qualities of a pleasant urban environment without having to be attached or on a lot with no yard.



I would love to see houses like this built in London on a grid pattern.

Taller is better. Three storey homes are not a bad thing. Some of the three-bedroom bungalows with huge backyards are the biggest problem, although those were much more commonly built in the 1950s and 60s. Lot sizes have thankfully gotten smaller since then. I am also a believer in a grid pattern; the way Sifton built Oakridge Acres makes it very difficult to get back to Oxford Street if you're in the middle of the subdivision.

If there are enough independent variety stores, then there will be enough competition to drive down prices. The problem right now is that we have ridiculous zoning where there is nothing but low-density residential taking up large expanses of land, and there can't be more than a couple variety stores, especially in areas like Byron. I've even seen cases where London's Official Plan has been modified to wipe out light commercial areas to add more low-density residential. Used to be that Southdale and Boler was supposed to get a shopping plaza, but someone at City Hall decided the nearest shopping area for that new neighbourhood should be the existing one at Commissioners and Byron Baseline, hardly walking distance. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - but Byron is one of the most poorly planned areas there is in Ontario. But don't take my word for it - just ask geography students at the University of Waterloo, who have studied the poor planning of Byron.

Also I could care less about having a backyard. I probably step into mine once or twice a year. If I actually owned the property I'd be glad to convert that land into a community garden to grow vegetables. It's just wasted farmland that could be used to feed people. I know for a fact that the one subdivision near me has a lot of huge lots and huge homes, and yet the people who own the homes are rarely ever home - and they often are childless couples who don't need four bedrooms.

My point is, there is no reason a city of under 400,000 should take up so much space. We've all got to work together for the future.

That said, as some of you know, I also am a believer in big roads and expressways, in addition to public transit.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by london2020

I also am not a huge fan of stuff like the smart centers. I think it would have been better if they built all those stores along Hyde Park facing the road rather than in that giant parking lot monstrosity that exists down the street.

All of that said, I still believe in big arterial roads and expressways. I think cars are great and the system can be improved. London needs to massively increase road capacity and put some kind of expressway around the city and one through it as well.

Big roads are not in conflict with walkable neighborhoods. They both have their place.

um... ya. good luck with that. cars are out. theyre done. they just wont be economically viable in the years ahead. gas, electric, or otherwise. its just not going to be feasible like it is today. by the time they build the ring road it will be obsolete.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by worldwide

um... ya. good luck with that. cars are out. theyre done. they just wont be economically viable in the years ahead. gas, electric, or otherwise. its just not going to be feasible like it is today. by the time they build the ring road it will be obsolete.

Hippies like yourself are totally out of touch with reality. You have no clue what you're talking about.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Taller is better. Three storey homes are not a bad thing. Some of the three-bedroom bungalows with huge backyards are the biggest problem, although those were much more commonly built in the 1950s and 60s. Lot sizes have thankfully gotten smaller since then. I am also a believer in a grid pattern; the way Sifton built Oakridge Acres makes it very difficult to get back to Oxford Street if you're in the middle of the subdivision.

Agreed... for the most part. Families want big back yards, but there is basically no need for big front yards, so I'd be happy to see those shrink to a minimum.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

If there are enough independent variety stores, then there will be enough competition to drive down prices. The problem right now is that we have ridiculous zoning where there is nothing but low-density residential taking up large expanses of land, and there can't be more than a couple variety stores, especially in areas like Byron. I've even seen cases where London's Official Plan has been modified to wipe out light commercial areas to add more low-density residential. Used to be that Southdale and Boler was supposed to get a shopping plaza, but someone at City Hall decided the nearest shopping area for that new neighbourhood should be the existing one at Commissioners and Byron Baseline, hardly walking distance.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - but Byron is one of the most poorly planned areas there is in Ontario. But don't take my word for it - just ask geography students at the University of Waterloo, who have studied the poor planning of Byron.

You may say that... But Byron is one of my favorite parts of the city to be. Never lived there but the overall feeling is one of the better ones... though I think Old South is the best.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Also I could care less about having a backyard. I probably step into mine once or twice a year. If I actually owned the property I'd be glad to convert that land into a community garden to grow vegetables. It's just wasted farmland that could be used to feed people. I know for a fact that the one subdivision near me has a lot of huge lots and huge homes, and yet the people who own the homes are rarely ever home - and they often are childless couples who don't need four bedrooms.

Well obviously not everyone wants or needs a large yard.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

My point is, there is no reason a city of under 400,000 should take up so much space. We've all got to work together for the future.

That said, as some of you know, I also am a believer in big roads and expressways, in addition to public transit.

Agreed.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by manny santos

My point is, there is no reason a city of under 400,000 should take up so much space. We've all got to work together for the future.

London does seem to take up lots of space given its population but some of this might be due to amalgamation and the fact that there's so much farmland within the city limits for city council to work with. Windsor has very little land left so new subdivisions there are built following the grid system with homes packed together just to maximize tax revenue.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by london2020

Hippies like yourself are totally out of touch with reality. You have no clue what you're talking about.

uh... yeah, i'm a hippie... right.

only hippies "believe" in peak oil. any smart rational person knows that oil is an infinite resource that can be used indefinitely as a fuel source.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by london2020

Agreed... for the most part. Families want big back yards, but there is basically no need for big front yards, so I'd be happy to see those shrink to a minimum.

Just because they want big backyards doesn't mean they should be able to get them. There have to be rules in place to protect land from being hoarded and used for nothing but grass and flowers, and sometimes a swimming pool. Land, like fuel, is an infinite resource.

Originally Posted by london2020

You may say that... But Byron is one of my favorite parts of the city to be. Never lived there but the overall feeling is one of the better ones... though I think Old South is the best.

Hey, I like Springbank Park and Boler Mountain, no denying that. But from a planning standpoint it is a disaster. Old South is a great area, because Wortley Village is within walking distance of much shopping including Valu-Mart, Home Hardware, and The Little Red Roaster. Byron doesn't even have a hardware store, and you can't buy clothing there. And if you want groceries or coffee and don't live near Commissioners and Boler, you have to drive or take a bus. That, combined with the lack of places to work in the area, mean Byron's traffic congestion at rush hour is getting to be very bad, with lineups of up to one kilometre.

Oakridge, likewise has everything centralized at one intersection, and it was planned and built in the same era.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Blitz

London does seem to take up lots of space given its population but some of this might be due to amalgamation and the fact that there's so much farmland within the city limits for city council to work with. Windsor has very little land left so new subdivisions there are built following the grid system with homes packed together just to maximize tax revenue.

I'm referring to the developed land within the urban growth boundary, which is just a bit bigger than the pre-1993 city limits. When I was in Mexico I was in a city of 200,000 but geographically it was the size of St. Thomas. And another city I was in, with 1.3 million people, was in an area half the size of London's developed area. (Imagine a city of that population located entirely east of Wharncliffe, west of Highbury, and between Highway 401 and Fanshawe Park Road.) There is green space there, everything is within walking distance, and public transit is far superior. No matter where you live, everything you need is within walking distance, even beer. No inch of land is wasted, and most buildings are three storeys high. It also does not feel overly crowded at all, but there is a lot of life to the area. That is how our cities should be planned.

[london2020]

Originally Posted by worldwide

uh... yeah, i'm a hippie... right.

only hippies "believe" in peak oil. any smart rational person knows that oil is an infinite resource that can be used indefinitely as a fuel source.

I believe in peak oil.

[worldwide]

ok, so the ball is in your court. how will we keep all the cars on the road?

[london2020]

Well we're talking about two different things now. The oil issue is one thing, and livable urban environments is another.

I have a large amount of technical knowledge on the subject of electric cars, and I believe they will provide the answer to breaking dependence on oil. The transition is starting now but will probably take 15-20 years to complete. Energy generation is a separate issue. Making sure our cars and trains are electric is one issue, and generating power from sources other than coal and oil is another topic.

As for nice urban environments, I think this bs with 'smart centers' needs to end. The format is just horrible. I used Hyde Park as an example before. All of those Smart Center stores (The Source, Le Chateau, etc etc) could have been built up to the lot line all along Hyde Park Road. It would have been fantastic. Parking could be in the back. Imagine that.

I know a lot of people are against enclosed malls, but I'd much rather go to a mall like Masonville than try to navigate that insane parking lot at Hyde Park. Enclosed malls could be designed a lot better than they typically are, but I don't think they're the devil by any means. I think the Eatons Centre in Toronto is great.

I think neighborhoods should be built on grid patterns and there should be lots of walkable retail, such as convenience stores and small grocery stores. There should also be large arterial roads (like Hyde Park in my above example) with storefronts and high density residential lining them. Lastly, there should be major expressways completely separated from the urban environment used to travel larger distances.

I like high-speed rail as a solution for travel over 250km... I love the idea of high-speed rail between the major cities of Ontario. This alone would cost billions and the main point would be to get people between cities. So dont expect intra-city rail to be a solution for getting around town. For public transit in the city, I wish London would have the balls to offer 24/7 bus service. It would save lives (drunk driving at night) and make life easier for many people.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by london2020

I have a large amount of technical knowledge on the subject of electric cars, and I believe they will provide the answer to breaking dependence on oil. The transition is starting now but will probably take 15-20 years to complete. Energy generation is a separate issue. Making sure our cars and trains are electric is one issue, and generating power from sources other than coal and oil is another topic.

There are certainly people out there who want to eliminate cars completely, regardless of the power source. In 2004, when Gina Barber was running to become an NDP MP, I talked to her about transportation issues and she said we need to get rid of cars and trucks in the long term, and for long distance transportation at least we should exclusively use trains. (Four years earlier she spoke out against locating a Tim Hortons in Byron, which ironically has stopped people from driving to other parts of London to get a Tim Hortons coffee. She wanted it both ways.)

Originally Posted by london2020

As for nice urban environments, I think this bs with 'smart centers' needs to end. The format is just horrible. I used Hyde Park as an example before. All of those Smart Center stores (The Source, Le Chateau, etc etc) could have been built up to the lot line all along Hyde Park Road. It would have been fantastic. Parking could be in the back. Imagine that.

I know a lot of people are against enclosed malls, but I'd much rather go to a mall like Masonville than try to navigate that insane parking lot at Hyde Park. Enclosed malls could be designed a lot better than they typically are, but I don't think they're the devil by any means. I think the Eatons Centre in Toronto is great.

I agree with you 100%. I'm going to bring Mexico up again, because one thing that is done right there is that they have gotten into building shopping malls in recent years, and there is very little big box. Aside from a small Wal-Mart in the parking lot at most of these malls, these malls are like Masonville with a couple anchors, a food court, and lots of upscale stores (no Lululemon though). They typically charge 10 pesos an hour for parking (about 88 cents Canadian) and in return you get your car washed by hand while you shop. (If that isn't living comfortably, what is?) When was the last time such a mall was built in Ontario? I don't think one has been built in the past 20 years.

Originally Posted by london2020

I think neighborhoods should be built on grid patterns and there should be lots of walkable retail, such as convenience stores and small grocery stores. There should also be large arterial roads (like Hyde Park in my above example) with storefronts and high density residential lining them. Lastly, there should be major expressways completely separated from the urban environment used to travel larger distances.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by london2020

For public transit in the city, I wish London would have the balls to offer 24/7 bus service. It would save lives (drunk driving at night) and make life easier for many people.

It'll never happen.

[Luker]

Paris, has 15+ metro lines, thousands of buses, a population of 10 Millon + and a vibrant city and nightlife, and its metro closes at 1am and opens at 5am, almsot everycity in the world outside of NYC and maybe if im guessing Tokyo, Bejing and a few others perhaps, but almsot none of them offer 24/7 service, although london has PLENTYY to do in the public transit department.

Your first priority above and beyond all must be to re evaluate your urban plan. With priority going to a major expressway, if not a 2nd widened and median 6 lane road (70-80kmh) thers a couple possibilities for expansion.. as for the expressway as always oxford seems most obvious and yes you may have to exprepropiate some houses while doing so but get it done. traffic is absurd and your only 350K deep. After that you should be able to focus on a new transit priority based on the new dedicated high speed routes available.. lastly if you were to achieve this all in the next 10-15 years you could have a manageable city with much better traffic flow then today... but by then hopefully you will have grown finallyyy and the ring road can be completed... the added investment of working inside first rather than ringroad first will benefit london more greatly.