HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2281  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2013, 6:31 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Why is London so behind the times when it comes to planning? Sorry, but you can't say that London is a city of high unemployment because people care about their neighbourhoods. We got to the suburban, sprawl crap because nobody has cared. We have lost small businesses and created ugly tin big box stores because Londoners are duped thinking these boxes create prosperity. Rubbish!
I would agree with you, certainly London allowed suburban sprawl for too long. Main reason is those developments occurred in sparsely populated areas, where not many would complain. Now planning is trying to do more intensification and infill projects in existing neighbourhoods, and the NIMBYs come out of the woodwork out of selfish reasons; property values, not want more/"undesirable" people in the area, character and plain ol' NIMBYism.

It could understandable if these areas proposed alternatives or alterations but they seem diametrically opposed, just want status quo. Engaging in constructive dialogue to have community input in development is one thing, but they're just good ol' NIMBYs. I wouldn't say people caring about their neighbourhoods is the reason for unemployment, but stalls some projects that could help (e.g. Fincore).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2282  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2013, 9:05 PM
Simpseatles's Avatar
Simpseatles Simpseatles is offline
Wannabe Urbanite
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Waterloo/London
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac View Post
It could understandable if these areas proposed alternatives or alterations but they seem diametrically opposed, just want status quo. Engaging in constructive dialogue to have community input in development is one thing, but they're just good ol' NIMBYs. I wouldn't say people caring about their neighbourhoods is the reason for unemployment, but stalls some projects that could help (e.g. Fincore).
That's exactly it! NIMBY's never seem to offer anything constructive to the debate. Their points are certainly valid, but they think of the situation simply as US vs THEM. It makes for a nasty, polarizing situation which is not beneficial to anyone. Hearing about the neighbours who are getting upset over the proposed apartment for autistic adults was particularly upsetting.

I understand that they might have legitimate concers about the appearance of the building, but what gets me is that a small infill project like this gets ripped to shreds, meanwhile little opposition is put up when some of the ugly highrises around town are put up. I understand why, but it's still annoying that something so much larger, and more noticeable gets less scrutiny.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world's so small, that we can never get away from the sprawl.
Living in the sprawl the dead shopping malls rise like mountains beyond mountains and there's no end in sight." -Arcade Fire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2283  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 2:17 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,724
we tossed out the witch-queen of Angmar (and her nitwit consort) and replaced her with crazy uncle bob. The SS London is adrift without a captain in stormy seas, and is foundering.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2284  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 6:51 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
For those who are ecstatic about this project, I have one comment............careful what you wish for.

In Vancouver whole neighbourhoods have been decimated by people who buy properties/houses and quickly tear them down and put up a monstrosity that sticks out like a sore thumb in both design and dimensions. Huge areas of Vancouver now have 1950s postwar homes standing beside ugly pink stucco monsters that nearly go to the lot line. It has ruined the urban fabric both social and architectural.

You may say people are being NIMBY's and that may well be true but once the precedent has been started it is hard to stop. In White Rock where I live most of the small city has medium density low rise buildings and there was a restriction of 8 floors making the entire city very pedestrian friendly. The mayor, who was bribed by the developer, allowed 2 25 story building to be put up 4 years ago. They are horrid looking things, stick out like sore thumb, caused the closing of several long standing businesses, and have now led to a flurry of such high rises being under construction and proposed.

Sometimes NIMBY's are a pain in the ass but one has to remember that sometimes they are right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2285  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 7:48 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Sometimes NIMBY's are a pain in the ass but one has to remember that sometimes they are right.
I do agree to an extent, just wish those people complaining had an alternate option for the space. It is one thing to complain just to complain which is what most of these people are doing. And it is another thing to complain, give a valid reason why and then offer up a solution that would better suit the space.

Just my opinion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2286  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 9:45 PM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 5,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519 View Post
I do agree to an extent, just wish those people complaining had an alternate option for the space. It is one thing to complain just to complain which is what most of these people are doing. And it is another thing to complain, give a valid reason why and then offer up a solution that would better suit the space.

Just my opinion
Certainly on Wilson Ave we're not talking about 25-storey buildings. That would be going too far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2287  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 3:02 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
A good chunk of the people complaining about these developers are just diametrically against anything, other than status quo.

Manor Park is the best example of this..

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/05/01/bu...-such-projects

Here the project had some concerns from neighbours. The developer listened, made constructive changes and submitted an altered plan, taking these concerns and incorporating them in a new design in one week flat. Yet still people complain, saying garbage like riff raff or "undesirables" will flood the area and plummet property values. They just don't want anything to happen.

IMO seems many of these community associations like SoHo, Woodfield and unassociated ones like Blackfriars are opposed to any changes, regardless of how progressive they area. The main issue these areas are near the core, and are good candidates for infill and intensification developments. Areas like this could make the core more desirable and livable. Instead these areas want no changes, rather spurn potential developments for no improvements for "heritage", property values and other frivolous concerns.

Really just NIMBYism in areas of London that need a new way of thinking and new ideas to bring positive change!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2288  
Old Posted May 6, 2013, 1:00 AM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 5,002
Yet another one:

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/05/05/pl...nto-apartments

I am getting really sick of these types of people and reading these stories in the Free Press and other local papers. They have no understanding of the real world. This church is not their property, intensification is a necessary part of modern urban life, and it is such a minor inconvenience to them compared to what our friends in Bangladesh recently dealt with.

I don't know what these people would do in the rest of the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2289  
Old Posted May 6, 2013, 1:44 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
Plain and simple these neighbours are just elitists, they don't want ANY development, regardless of how well thought out and designed anything is. They'll find some trivial or insignificant fault and cause an uproar.

First most students don't drive to Western, they have a free bus pass, so at best only a couple extra cars would be on there, oh so exclusive street... Secondly the laneway is private property, developer can use it appropriately and besides what's that gonna add, maybe 30 seconds of walking!?

These same neighbours are probably the reason why there's been a huge crater at Northeast corner of Richmond & Victoria rather than something useful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2290  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 3:14 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 3,197
London wants to push the urban growth boundary, province sends us a warning letter.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/12/15/tu...warning-issued

What I want to know is why London was given so much land in it's city limits if it can't even develop it. Rural communities should be part of rural municipalities, not part of the city of London.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2291  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 6:48 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,724
More sprawl and less city. Unfortunately the London way, even as Toronto, Vancouver etc. focus on densification. We are growing so slowly, do we really need to sprawl beyond our limits? tons of fallow land lies inside existing boundaries.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2292  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 8:07 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
London asked for additional land in the early 1990s to stop fringe communities, like Lambeth, from getting development without paying what London considered its fair share of benefitting being practically then a suburb. The city didnt ask for the huge swathes of additional land it was eventually given, especially in Glandworth.

Theory was to give London a huge bounty of land that it could have a rural buffer from fringe communities developing. However by the looks of Arva, Ilderton, Komolka, Dorchester the policy hasn't stopped fringe development. Perhaps a Regional Government would be needed sometime soon. Don't know how well additional annexations would go over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey View Post
London wants to push the urban growth boundary, province sends us a warning letter.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/12/15/tu...warning-issued

What I want to know is why London was given so much land in it's city limits if it can't even develop it. Rural communities should be part of rural municipalities, not part of the city of London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2293  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 8:55 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 3,197
Ya I doubt London will be able to annex anything for at least a couple decades.

A regional government would be the best case scenario here but I doubt London politicians will want it as it turns their power from a single-tier government to a lower tier government (London itself) with the region being the upper tier.

Overall I think it would be a win for London and area. How can we convince Queen's Park in Toronto we want such a thing?

-----

People and politicians are blaming the urban growth boundary for everything they can, namely turning away businesses because they want to locate outside of it.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2294  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 10:32 PM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 5,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey View Post
Ya I doubt London will be able to annex anything for at least a couple decades.

A regional government would be the best case scenario here but I doubt London politicians will want it as it turns their power from a single-tier government to a lower tier government (London itself) with the region being the upper tier.

Overall I think it would be a win for London and area. How can we convince Queen's Park in Toronto we want such a thing?

-----

People and politicians are blaming the urban growth boundary for everything they can, namely turning away businesses because they want to locate outside of it.
As much as I like the idea of Regional Government, the province hasn't allowed any new Regional Municipalities in decades; in fact several Regional Municipalities have been dissolved in recent years. Ottawa-Carleton, for one, became a single-tier municipality, while Haldimand-Norfolk was split into two single-tier municipalities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2295  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 12:57 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
IMO Arva is the one community that ought/needs to be annexed. Arva want to have access to London's sewage system so they can build a new development/subdivision. Aside from being north of Sunningdale Rd. they're a glorified subdivision and should be treated a such. As well Middlesex Centre had previously blocked any northern freeway planning, so take up to Eight Mile Rd. would do the trick. Get the development that Arva is sucking off and allow a future council to plans northern freeway!

---

I don't know how one could sell an Regional Government for London. Municipal Affairs Ministry has basically told council that they're violating provincial policy allowing any more develop-able land past 20 years. Having those developers sitting on the task force is beyond ridiculous..

Since the province has sat idly by while London goes down the shitter, something is due. BRT would (should) be #1 priority. Provincial Liberals has shown utter contempt and indifference to rural Ontario, following that trend giving London a Regional Government for the whole of Middlesex would continue it. The Liberals would be the party to do so, they literally having nothing to lose in rural constituencies.. London proper would clearly dominate any Regional Government, like Prussia to Germany, and could make a plan that does not allow development to be siphoned off to bedroom communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2296  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 3:11 PM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,447
Building a northern freeway will ensure that we become even more sprawled than we already are. More Tim Hortons and Walmarts and a soulless city. Having just moved back from the UK to London, I just cannot believe how huge the roads are here and how much sprawl we have. These developers that just want to push London further to Sprawlville should be slapped. How about we fill in all the empty spots and repurpose all the empty buildings first. London's downtown has loads of empty lots that could be built up.

I would completely halt road expansion and build a fantastic transit system - one that had proper Park and Ride facilities at all four ends of the city. Building more roads just means that the status quo is what we want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2297  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 6:57 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Building a northern freeway will ensure that we become even more sprawled than we already are. More Tim Hortons and Walmarts and a soulless city. Having just moved back from the UK to London, I just cannot believe how huge the roads are here and how much sprawl we have. These developers that just want to push London further to Sprawlville should be slapped. How about we fill in all the empty spots and repurpose all the empty buildings first. London's downtown has loads of empty lots that could be built up.

I would completely halt road expansion and build a fantastic transit system - one that had proper Park and Ride facilities at all four ends of the city. Building more roads just means that the status quo is what we want.
I actually do not disagree with that, I think a freeway that far north would do nothing for London and would just create additional sprawl...honestly anything more north than Suningdale to me just seems pointless. However London just continues to build right up to these roads making it near impossible for a real freeway to ever happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2298  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 10:57 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 693
There's suppose to be a west-end expressway between Westdel Bourne and Woodhull roads, god knows when (or even if) it'll ever get built. But it's a protected corridor, no major developments allowed there.

Arva is already getting into development gear, good to have control over that and have future plans for traffic in that area. It's insane really, $10s of millions to widen Fanshawe Park Rd to 6 lanes soon, $10s of millions to widen Sunningdale to 4 lanes in a decade. Having a protected corridor gives the flexibility of building one, and also if the Province extends Highway 7 freeway towards London an area to link up and use. Better to have that then continual road widenings that get over capacity in no time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2299  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 12:31 AM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 3,197
I agree too. Building a freeway in the north end is now a dumb idea. It's simply too late for it.

The north is way too sprawled already. We shouldn't be making any incentives to promote growth there, but rather focus on growing up instead of out.
-The only exception I'll make is growing south to the 401/402 as we can utilize that infrastructure.

London already pays the lowest amount per capita for transit in any Canadian CMA, and thus our service is utter crap. It needs serious investment that could work wonders for the local economy and infill development.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2300  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 1:50 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac View Post
There's suppose to be a west-end expressway between Westdel Bourne and Woodhull roads, god knows when (or even if) it'll ever get built. But it's a protected corridor, no major developments allowed there.

Arva is already getting into development gear, good to have control over that and have future plans for traffic in that area. It's insane really, $10s of millions to widen Fanshawe Park Rd to 6 lanes soon, $10s of millions to widen Sunningdale to 4 lanes in a decade. Having a protected corridor gives the flexibility of building one, and also if the Province extends Highway 7 freeway towards London an area to link up and use. Better to have that then continual road widenings that get over capacity in no time.
What I do not understand is why London has not asked for money to help build a freeway, Sunningdale could have easily been a freeway without a problem had people properly planned for it. Seems like London is just content to continue sprawling hoping for the best.

I have never heard about the west-end expressway, so would it connect from the 402 to basically over the river or do you know anything else about it?

And to haljackey, I agree and would much rather see development to the south and past 401, at least that way the highways can be utilized to move traffic a little better compared to the rest of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 2:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.