Victoria Park planning

jammer139 · #1 Posted **Jan 20, 2020, 4:59 PM**

Upcoming meeting for Victoria Park Secondary Plan is Feb 3rd.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/victoriapark

jammer139 · #2 Posted **Feb 12, 2020, 12:18 PM**

City Council refers back secondary plan to staff to study it some more.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/coun...le-of-discontent-over-victoria-park-plan

tyeman200 · #3 Posted **Feb 18, 2020, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

City Council refers back secondary plan to staff to study it some more.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/coun...le-of-discontent-over-victoria-park-plan

The problem is the NIMBYers who don't want them to build around the park, but wanna keep all the old buildings that are decaying and filled with cockroaches. I say let them build as high as they want.

ldoto · #4 Posted **Feb 18, 2020, 12:10 AM**

ssiguy · #5 Posted **Aug 3, 2020, 11:45 PM**

Victoria Park is a true gem. Londoners love and are very proud of her and with damn good reason.

I don't think Londoners appreciate just how unique Victoria Park is. All Canadian cities have nice inner city parks but to have an 18 acre one right smack dab in the downtown and only 2 blocks from every major office tower in the city is EXCEPTIONALLY rare. Kelowna is the only other Canadian city I can think of that has one which is a downtown beach park but it is not surrounded by beautiful architecture..

Few Canadian cities have a real downtown plaza like European cities. They are places to gather, meander, and are the "heart" of the city. Victoria, due to being right downtown, is London's "urban plaza" and is so much more to the city than just another green space. It is the centre of community events and culture.

Any developments should put what is in the best interest of Victoria Park far above any needs for urban development because when it comes to Canada's downtown parks, Victoria really is in a league of it's own.

That_Chris · #6 Posted **Aug 3, 2020, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Victoria Park is a true gem. Londoners love and are very proud of her and with damn good reason.

I don't think Londoners appreciate just how unique Victoria Park is. All Canadian cities have nice inner city parks but to have an 18 acre one right smack dab in the downtown and only 2 blocks from every major office tower in the city is EXCEPTIONALLY rare. Kelowna is the only other Canadian city I can think of that has one which is a downtown beach park but it is not surrounded by beautiful architecture..

Few Canadian cities have a real downtown plaza like European cities. They are places to gather, meander, and are the "heart" of the city. Victoria, due to being right downtown, is London's "urban plaza" and is so much more to the city than just another green space. It is the centre of community events and culture.

Any developments should put what is in the best interest of Victoria Park far above any needs for urban development because when it comes to Canada's downtown parks, Victoria really is in a league of it's own.

Sure, but aside from potentially shadowing trees, what development concerns are there? Unless tall buildings are shown to have a negative impact on the park's tree growth, the only considerations I can think of are promoting high density and making sure they aren't ugly.

ldoto · #7 Posted **Aug 4, 2020, 12:36 AM**

Yes Victoria Park is a gem!!! Also Labatts Park Is Another gem!!! For the city!!!!

jammer139 · #8 Posted **Apr 30, 2021, 9:16 PM**

Based on this the Victoria Park secondary plan may finally be going to council this summer.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/buil...-contributes-to-skyrocketing-home-prices

jammer139 · #9 Posted **Jun 30, 2021, 10:46 PM**

CTV reports today that City Hall secondary plan is being delayed until this Fall or Winter. Might explain why Auburn is submitting zoning application for the 17s building on Wellington now. Would not be surprised its delayed until 2022 and when presented its referred back to the Admin so this council doesn't need to vote on it prior to Fall Municipal election.

That_Chris · #10 Posted **Jul 1, 2021, 3:52 AM**

So is there an actual legitimate reason to reduce height around Vic park? Like towers might shadow and kill trees? Or does this entirely come down to subjective tastes? If so, I'm so sick of some people's subjective tastes preventing London from having a thriving downtown.

jammer139 · #11 Posted **Mar 3, 2022, 1:07 PM**

after 2 years city hall releases latest draft plan.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/revi...rea-reduces-tower-heights-near-woodfield

Pimpmasterdac · #12 Posted **Mar 4, 2022, 2:41 AM**

The entire province has severe housing shortage, and here London is limiting density development in its core all to placate Woodfield NIMBYs. Hopefully provincial government starts overruling these decisions with more MZOs and provincial level planning.

haljackey · #13 Posted **Mar 4, 2022, 2:00 PM**

Yes and I am sure the fight isn't over yet. This is progress so I'll take it. We will need dense infill in other areas of town to help with the housing shortage and keep the city from spreading out too much.

Average home prices hit 900k. What is this place turning into- Vancouver?

TallerIsBetter · #14 Posted **Mar 4, 2022, 2:16 PM**

This is reasonable. Especially if now we can see actual possibility of having numerous 40+ floor and at least one 50+ - and maybe even higher in the core of the core, if the poster hinting at a Toronto developer is correct. 35 floors on the South side and 30 floors on the west just north of St Peter's would be great additions to the overall mix.

I'll also reiterate how the height limits are in floors. This tells me it's to stop council and staff from getting lots of annoying NIMBY calls. So... someone wants to build a 35 story office tower on the Canada Life parking lot just south the park...that might be 700 feet tall. Not advocating for that but pointing out floors <> height.

Someone could build a condo with high ceilings floors and still get a lot of height.

I also think these are guidelines - if someone wants to do a spectacular design I'm hoping there is flexibility for exceeding the limit. Please don't let any Woodfield Weenies read any of this...

I'm also really pleased that City Staff have finally got it and shifted to a design suggestion for taller, narrow footprint builds, which better addresses the shadow issue, and less of a concern with tapered tops (which I'm guessing helped lead the design of the Rennasance tops to look so fugly). Square floorplates with normal tops - and maybe having ornamental structures like 515 Richmond - are the way to go.

jammer139 · #15 Posted **Mar 4, 2022, 9:01 PM**

Wondering when Canada Life will move ahead with their project south of Auburns?

tyeman200 · #16 Posted **Mar 6, 2022, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

Wondering when Canada Life will move ahead with their project south of Auburns?

Auburn's project is going to the land tribunal, which I hope they win. The city is obviously bullying them, as their proposed site for a 17 story tower can only have a 10 story tower max, according to the city. Which they changed in spite of them, as the rest of the lots are minimum 16 stories.

jammer139 · #17 Posted **May 6, 2022, 8:08 PM**

The Victoria Park Secondary Plan will be at Planning Committee next week for public participation mtg.

https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=92375

jammer139 · #18 Posted **May 9, 2022, 10:41 PM**

Planning committee votes to approve secondary plan. Up next full council at future mtg.

jammer139 · #19 Posted **Feb 9, 2024, 10:01 PM**

Victoria Park Secondary Plan OLT appeal decision including the updated VPSP January 2024 OLT amended document.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlt/doc/2024/2024canlii7643/2024canlii7643.html

Auburns pre-approved 17s proposal is good to go assuming Auburn decides to get a shovel in the ground. Canada Life proposal is approved up to 16s and 25s. Again there has been crickets from Canada Life on their proposal for years. The site of the St Peters elementary school is approved up to 30s and the parking lot to the north is 25s. Still no signs of a demolition contractor to tear down the old school building.

bolognium · #20 Posted **Feb 10, 2024, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

The site of the St Peters elementary school is approved up to 30s and the parking lot to the north is 25s. Still no signs of a demolition contractor to tear down the old school building.

What's the story here? Is there a proposal or something for this site?