[Snark]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I didn't say I wanted Anne Marie to personally dictate style and approve projects. I would, however, like the political leadership of the city to take an interest in the design of our major downtown buildings, especially ones that impact our skyline. Is that asking too much?

So, how does the political leadership taking an interest in building design translate into ensuring that buildings without exposed concrete are constructed in the downtown - without some sort of teeth in the process involved? Businessmen don't care about words, they care about profit and what they are legally allowed to get away with to maximize profit in the business environment that they are operating in.

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Anne Marie doesn't have a clue, Tom Gosnell and Van Mer Burgen are pro-ugly design.

One London Place, the Talbot Centre, and the Duffern Corporate Centre all happened under the auspices of Tom Gosnell as mayor. Now it is silly to credit Gosnell for the design of these buildings, but since you "blame" him and others for advocating the current state of affairs of architecture downtown - you must as well credit him for the very best that has been built as well. Can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

A clear example of a city that has a hands on approach to design is Waterloo. Auburn Developments of London is building a multi-million dollar development there. Their proposal to the city of Waterloo was just as ugly as the project they just built in London (Harriston tower). You would probably be proud of how ugly it was. I'm not sure of all the details, but I do know that they had to go back to the drawing board to redesign the project to get the approval of Waterloo council. In London, it seems like all we care about is getting residential units at any cost - and who cares about design.

Incorrect. Waterloo didn't force Auburn to go back to the drawing board simply due to the proposed appearance of the buildings. Far, far from it. There were many issues related to the mixed-use nature of the proposal (ie zoning, density, etc). If appearance were the only issue, Auburn could have rammed through the development as originally proposed. That said, Waterloo's urban design planner is one smart cookie, devoted to the idea of good design, and persuasive. He will do his best to persuade developers to "do the right thing" in this regard. London has hired an individual of the same sort several years ago, and the effects are starting to be seen and more will be seen in the future. (Oh and BTW: London got the Harriston (for what it is), while Waterloo will not get the significant towers at the Barrel Yards for likely another 5 or more years, resulting in being 8-10 or more years following the initial announcement).

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I don't have to go to school to learn planning, OMB or anything else to know what we have in London currently is crap design. I know that these developers are private. Just wondering, are you in favour of giving them tax breaks, etc. to build concrete crap?

You may know what you like, but to navigate the turbulent waters of big business, development, and urban planning - yes you do need to learn this stuff. One day at the OMB can cost you $500,000 in lawyer's fees. It's very legal, very regulated, and very, very complicated involving a lot of heavy hitters.

As for the idea of tax breaks, sure I agree with the idea, as do most in the biz. The carrot is always much more effective than the stick. Most cities already wave development charges and other fees to develop in the downtown. To go further and reduce their actual property taxes further for something totally subjective such as appearance is a political minefield however. Not impossible, but very tricky. Believe it or not, some folks hate glass or even tall buildings in their downtowns.