HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 6:41 PM
Dupcheck's Avatar
Dupcheck Dupcheck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: London
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519 View Post
I did ask him and he was not aware of any "left turn issue" on Fanshawe, I sent him a text as soon as I read the comments.
I do not see how this proposal could please you, would you rather people be able to exit east and west, I am sure if that was the case it would be "unsafe" right?

How is someone in that area concerned with noise and air pollution, you are literally living off one of the busier roads in London, adding this 4 story building is not going to add a measurable amount of noise or pollution to the area. This comment specifically sounds like a NIMBY comment,

Also what the heck is NYMBY's? I think you mean NIMBY (not in my back yard)

NYMBY = Not Yours My Back Yard, lol
CTV London has also brought up the left turn issue on that street a few times. If you take most of the trees down, and add 140 units, and probably 140 cars at least, it does add to pollution. More traffic, more left turn issues, more fire trucks and ambulances driving by with sirens on. Higher insurance costs due to traffic accidents. etc.... You might not care, because you do not live there, but others do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 6:49 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dupcheck View Post
NYMBY = Not Yours My Back Yard, lol
CTV London has also brought up the left turn issue on that street a few times. If you take most of the trees down, and add 140 units, and probably 140 cars at least, it does add to pollution. More traffic, more left turn issues, more fire trucks and ambulances driving by with sirens on. Higher insurance costs due to traffic accidents. etc.... You might not care, because you do not live there, but others do.
Your last comment is exactly why people are calling these largely NIMBY type of comments. You are not offering up solutions you are simply saying no i do not want it. The fact remains the city wants infill and this is a perfect place for that, certainly some people in the area will be upset because they will now be looking at an apartment versus trees however this is the world we live in.

Also please note I said you could not come up with a measurable different in noise/pollution/traffic but adding this proposal. It would be a totally different conversation if this was a 30 story tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:09 PM
Dupcheck's Avatar
Dupcheck Dupcheck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: London
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519 View Post
Your last comment is exactly why people are calling these largely NIMBY type of comments. You are not offering up solutions you are simply saying no i do not want it. The fact remains the city wants infill and this is a perfect place for that, certainly some people in the area will be upset because they will now be looking at an apartment versus trees however this is the world we live in.

Also please note I said you could not come up with a measurable different in noise/pollution/traffic but adding this proposal. It would be a totally different conversation if this was a 30 story tower.
That is your opinion. Everyone has one!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 8:03 PM
Dupcheck's Avatar
Dupcheck Dupcheck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: London
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac View Post
This was north end NIMBYism at its finest. End of story.

Opponents claimed this was somehow high density, I dont think 4 storey would be considered that anywhere. Traffic issues could be solved by having entry/exit off Donneybrook instead of Fanshawe Park Rd. if they were really that concerned. Lets call a spade a spade, they dont want ANY density near them, preferably somewhere else. Good the committee didnt back down. Hopefully council passes it and the inevitable OMB challenge is quickly defeated!
I do like the idea of having traffic going also through the Donneybrook rd as well instead of all of it going in and out of Fanshawe. That should help with left turning issues.

Last edited by Dupcheck; May 25, 2017 at 8:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 11:19 PM
HillStreetBlues HillStreetBlues is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: KW/Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 949
I think the residents of Donnybrook Road probably would have a strong case against allowing the driveway of an apartment building onto their street. It's a short (maybe less than two dozen homes) residential street. A driveway like that really would cause increased traffic.

That's not the case for Fanshawe Park Road: it's a major arterial, and no one should have any reasonable expectation that higher density won't be built there. And the traffic created by a 120 unit apartment building will be a blip compared to what already exists.

Arguments in neighbourhoods like this against new development because of the traffic it might create are bizarre to me. This is a car-dependent area: the vast majority of residents use cars, and create traffic in their own neighbourhood and others. The only way to reduce traffic and car dependence long term is to get higher-density development with enough residents to support bus service more frequent than 20 minutes at weekday rush hour (which is what the 16 does- the 13 is worse).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 1:48 AM
jammer139 jammer139 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London
Posts: 518
City Council votes 11-4 to approve it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 12:38 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammer139 View Post
City Council votes 11-4 to approve it.
As expected, good to hear
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 2:16 PM
kaiserLDN kaiserLDN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: London
Posts: 246
Nice!! keep them coming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 5:39 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 790
It will unfortunately get stalled as someone will appeal with OMB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 6:08 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519 View Post
It will unfortunately get stalled as someone will appeal with OMB
OMB may not be around by the time an appeal happens as the province is planning to scrap it and replace with a more limited tribunal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 5:51 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
OMB may not be around by the time an appeal happens as the province is planning to scrap it and replace with a more limited tribunal.
Right true enough I forgot about that, one can hope.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:59 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.