560-562 Wellington Street - 17s (Approved) - Page 5

jammer139 · #81 Posted **Jan 30, 2020, 1:35 PM**

Victoria Park Secondary Plan basically ends this proposal in current form.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-victoria-park

The key to this is not restricted height but mandating high quality designs that are not "commey" block rectangles/boxes. Unique beautiful high rises would add to the Park.

MrSlippery519 · #82 Posted **Jan 30, 2020, 7:50 PM**

So basically this means they revise the plan to 10 stories or just scrap it all together.

jammer139 · #83 Posted **Jun 25, 2021, 11:14 AM**

New zoning application for a 17s proposal submitted. Seems premature given the Victoria Park secondary plan is supposed to be presented this summer to Planning committee and Council. Would have thought they would have waited to see what the vision is for development around the park will look like.

https://london.ca/sites/default/file...pplication.pdf

User_Name · #84 Posted **Jun 25, 2021, 12:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

New zoning application for a 17s proposal submitted. Seems premature given the Victoria Park secondary plan is supposed to be presented this summer to Planning committee and Council. Would have thought they would have waited to see what the vision is for development around the park will look like.

https://london.ca/sites/default/file...pplication.pdf

This often happens, they are trying to influence the secondary plan, and establish some of the guidelines in their favor.

GreatTallNorth2 · #85 Posted **Jun 25, 2021, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

New zoning application for a 17s proposal submitted. Seems premature given the Victoria Park secondary plan is supposed to be presented this summer to Planning committee and Council. Would have thought they would have waited to see what the vision is for development around the park will look like.

https://london.ca/sites/default/file...pplication.pdf

They have certainly uglified this proposal from the last one.

johnnyhamont · #86 Posted **Jul 13, 2021, 4:39 PM**

17 storeys indeed with 173 apartments. The height would be 61m. Also looks like they're moving forward simply using the address 560 Wellington. Can any mods change the thread title to reflect the new height?

jammer139 · #87 Posted **Jul 14, 2021, 10:27 AM**

LFP article on this proposal.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-victoria-park

This should be a easy YES vote given the green light for Canada Life's 18s is already done next door. The NIMBY's need to be told to get lost. The massive silent majority of folks have no problem with seeing high rise towers downtown. The handful of anti progressives who don't want density and neighbours don't speak for the majority.

GreatTallNorth2 · #88 Posted **Jul 14, 2021, 1:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

LFP article on this proposal.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-victoria-park

This should be a easy YES vote given the green light for Canada Life's 18s is already done next door. The NIMBY's need to be told to get lost. The massive silent majority of folks have no problem with seeing high rise towers downtown. The handful of anti progressives who don't want density and neighbours don't speak for the majority.

Is this what it actually looks like?

jammer139 · #89 Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 1:45 PM**

Public mtg on this zoning application today - https://london.ca/business-developme...562-wellington

johnnyhamont · #90 Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Is this what it actually looks like?

Yep. Here's other renders from the public meeting document:

Dither City · #91 Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 10:19 PM**

This ridiculous saga continues the point made by Auburn Developments is completely correct Wellington Street is not part of the Woodfield heritage District this NIMBY nonsense needs to stop.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/latest-rou...N2dRnUX6wkmcHY

ssiguy · #92 Posted **Nov 2, 2021, 6:50 PM**

On this one, I agree with the NIMBYs.

It is quite clear that the City DOES consider the area around Victoria Park to be part of the Woodbridge historic district. This building also does not comply with the London Plan and personally I hate the idea they will be pulling down those 2 nice old buildings to do it. Auburn already knew this before it put in it's proposal so they can't play innocent nor be looking for the sympathy vote. Yes, Auburn seems to have been very responsive to community concerns by dropping the height from 25 to 17 stories and it looks like quite a handsome building but that is not the point.

The rules are in place for a reason and you can't just to decide to ignore them whenever it's convenient or the zoning laws become nothing more than wasted paper. Laws are only laws if they are enforced.

If the City wants the project then fine but it is up to the City to change the zoning and not for the locals to have to fight the City or developer to force the City to simply apply the rules that it put in place in the first place.

jammer139 · #93 Posted **Nov 5, 2021, 11:00 PM**

When council meets to vote on this zoning application the debate will be interesting.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/why-a-swin...park-1.5654558

jammer139 · #94 Posted **Nov 17, 2021, 1:57 PM**

City council approves the zoning application in 8-4 vote.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8379421/l...victoria-park/

Will likely see appeal to Ontario Land Tribunal which will no doubt add years of delay.

MrSlippery519 · #95 Posted **Nov 17, 2021, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

City council approves the zoning application in 8-4 vote.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8379421/l...victoria-park/

Will likely see appeal to Ontario Land Tribunal which will no doubt add years of delay.

Woohoo, expect shovels in the ground what 2026 haha.

This development should have already been topped off with tenants by now to be honest, it is sad the hoops they have had to go through. I am shocked they have stuck with the proposal after all this time.

ssiguy · #96 Posted **Nov 17, 2021, 8:33 PM**

Personally, I hope it gets cancelled.

The building itself is quite nice and while I think 17 stories at that location is still too high but not oppressively so like 25 stories would have been.

I too am surprised that the developer has stuck it out this long but let me be very clear..........the delays are not due to the NIMBYs but rather City Hall. If the City wants the development then fine but it is incumbent upon the City to change the zoning. Blaming the supposed unreasonable NIMBYs for the delay is disingenuous because they all they are asking for is the rules in place to be followed which is not unreasonable.

This delay is due to City Hall not having the balls to actually change the zoning of the area. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the City simply changed the zoning but they won't because it would be too politically unpalatable. It's far easier and politically expedient for them just to blame the NIMBYs.

For this reason, I hope the the project is cancelled. The neighbourhood community is simply demanding that the City follow it's own rules. This is a needed wakeup call for the City to follow the regulations and laws it put in place and not just discard them when not convenient. Like any law, there is no point of them if they are not enforced.

jammer139 · #97 Posted **Nov 17, 2021, 9:05 PM**

Zoning is only a temporary law. It's really only a label for a particular land use at a point in time. That label can be changed and inevitably will be. Even Cemeteries can be moved and have been to make way for a different land use.

The suggestion that NIMBY's had no impact is wrong. If there had been no tiny vocal group the zoning would have happened long ago and a 25s building would now be standing there with 400-500 more heads in pillows and bringing life to the downtown.

I do agree that the City lacks cojones and any vision whatsoever in terms of future planning. The Romans of 2,000 years ago had better forward thinking when they built their cities and infrastructure then our planners today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Personally, I hope it gets cancelled.

The building itself is quite nice and while I think 17 stories at that location is still too high but not oppressively so like 25 stories would have been.

I too am surprised that the developer has stuck it out this long but let me be very clear..........the delays are not due to the NIMBYs but rather City Hall. If the City wants the development then fine but it is incumbent upon the City to change the zoning. Blaming the supposed unreasonable NIMBYs for the delay is disingenuous because they all they are asking for is the rules in place to be followed which is not unreasonable.

This delay is due to City Hall not having the balls to actually change the zoning of the area. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the City simply changed the zoning but they won't because it would be too politically unpalatable. It's far easier and politically expedient for them just to blame the NIMBYs.

For this reason, I hope the the project is cancelled. The neighbourhood community is simply demanding that the City follow it's own rules. This is a needed wakeup call for the City to follow the regulations and laws it put in place and not just discard them when not convenient. Like any law, there is no point of them if they are not enforced.

ssiguy · #98 Posted **Nov 18, 2021, 4:20 AM**

Zoning "laws" are indeed set in stone but the regulations aren't and that is what we are talking about. Laws in Canada very rarely change it's the regulations that do. This is what we are talking about here, regulations.

Yes the City can "waive" those regulations in certain situations but they are generally mild. Such an example would be an area that has a 10 story limit but allows a 14 storey building. Usually such waivers are OK when the City can get something in return for the waiver like some lower income housing included, park/community space etc.

This situation is very different different. According to the city's own zoning the area is part of the Woodbridge neighbourhood planning area and is completely at odds with the zoning restrictions. This is not a case of accommodation but a clear disregard for zoning regulation that were put in place by the City itself.

If the City wants the this kind of development in the area then fine but it is their responsibility to change the zoning not the citizen's responsibility to fight tooth and nail to get them to follow the rules that they instituted in the first place.

Djeffery · #99 Posted **Nov 18, 2021, 11:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Zoning "laws" are indeed set in stone but the regulations aren't and that is what we are talking about. Laws in Canada very rarely change it's the regulations that do. This is what we are talking about here, regulations.

Yes the City can "waive" those regulations in certain situations but they are generally mild. Such an example would be an area that has a 10 story limit but allows a 14 storey building. Usually such waivers are OK when the City can get something in return for the waiver like some lower income housing included, park/community space etc.

This situation is very different different. According to the city's own zoning the area is part of the Woodbridge neighbourhood planning area and is completely at odds with the zoning restrictions. This is not a case of accommodation but a clear disregard for zoning regulation that were put in place by the City itself.

If the City wants the this kind of development in the area then fine but it is their responsibility to change the zoning not the citizen's responsibility to fight tooth and nail to get them to follow the rules that they instituted in the first place.

I really don't understand what you are saying, especially your last sentence. You hope this gets cancelled because it doesn't fit the zoning. The applicant applied for the zoning change, which almost every development in this city needs to do. People nearby oppose it, like many people do in almost any situation where something is going to be built. Both sides present their cases, council decides. There is a taller building approved for immediately next door, kind of hard for the city to deny this lot for similar building.

TallerIsBetter · #**100** Posted **Nov 18, 2021, 1:26 PM**

I'm pleased with this, though it should not that this long to get approved.

Height is good, taper to higher Heights south (35 - 38 would be great south of the park in the Canada Life parking lot, and SW on that part of the St Peter's property on the corner of Dufferin and Clarence).

I like the design and it will fit nicely with the plans we've seen for the 18 storey Canada Life condos just south.