London Construction - Development News Thread#1

[new age]

You bring up 210 Queen st. which is two thirds empty, and already has a parking garage. All his lots are leased to Impark it is thousands of spaces it has nothing to do with parking for people leasing his space it is for the money made from the leases to Impark. Tenants in the Royal Bank building went out and leased parking in the Market building on their own.

If you don't think he should have had looked into a demolition permit before buying the Capital Theater how about the Lithography Building he pulled the same antics.

And there are many more, he just threatened to end leases in the Bell Building if the city didn't lease it. After buying it up from under the city by waving his conditions of sale. which the city could not do because of an expectation for due diligence with tax payers money.

[ForestryW]

Originally Posted by Snark

1) If the City can acquire $500M from whatever source(s) and then spend it on what it wants to, this is effectively City-only funding, as the City is controlling its disbursement.

OK...I never said I thought this was city funding or not. It may be that the city acquired $500mil from somewhere...it may be a partnership of some kind...it may be that the city has been sitting on it for 80 years. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Snark

2) Why do you think that City is acquiring $500M? Ever considered that this is a public/private scheme where much of the funding is private for private developments, or perhaps a 3P arrangement?

If it IS a public-private partnership there should be more transparency than the mayor simply saying that something big is going to happen...and it's going to be worth $500mil. Shouldn't the public know where money is coming from and where it's going? Keeping in mind all we know so far is based on anectodal news reports.

Originally Posted by Snark

3) Perhaps not everyone (or even the majority) thinks that the cornucopia of urban development is a LRT (I assume that's what you are thinking when you say "transit'. I'm sure that you didn't mean to imply more buses). Perhaps some people have alternative ideas for economic development outside of the world of public transit that might produce more rapid payoffs in terms of economic growth and job creation. Outside of students, public transit is far from foremost in the vast majority's mind.

No, LRT is NOT what I think of when I think of improved transit in London. Maybe in the distant future but for now they need to focus on one or two BRT routes (N-S and E-W), more frequent service and the possibility of a central bus terminal. All of this would cost well under $500 million.

*Resists urge to compare London to Kitchener-Waterloo*

IF the city has indeed acquired $500 million or negotiated a P/P partnership worth $500 million for the specific purpose of revitalizing a specific neighbourhood (which I have absolutely nothing against, by the way)...why can't the same effort be put into acquiring much less funding for a few simple steps to a vastly superior transit service that the city badly needs?

[GreatTallNorth2]

I think Joe is throwing out the number $500 million because that what he thinks could be the total with a new city hall, Fanshawe dt campus, and some more apartment/condo towers. He obviously wants some synergies with what the city is doing and the private sector.

As far as transportation investment goes, the problem with this city has always been vision and the balls to do what is right for the long term. It's people like Snark who need to be ignored as they have been the problem with London. The theory that we can't build a great transit system (yes, including LRT) because it's not in the majority of Londoner's minds is ridiculous. London has always been a "reactionary city" with regards to transportation - meaning we try to solve our transportation problems when it is too late. Forty years ago we could have had a great expressway system in our city, but we tried to please everyone and we lost out. Now as K/W are close to deciding on LRT or real BRT (with real lanes for transit), we don't even have express buses nor are we asking for the multi-millions in transit funding that K/W is getting. Instead, we have some people pushing for a ring road. A ring road makes absolutely zero sense for London. Why do I want to drive outside the city to get around the city???? Let's improve transit and roads IN THE CITY!! Let's focus on pedestrians and not cars and big box stores!

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

As far as transportation investment goes, the problem with this city has always been vision and the balls to do what is right for the long term. It's people like Snark who need to be ignored as they have been the problem with London. The theory that we can't build a great transit system (yes, including LRT) because it's not in the majority of Londoner's minds is ridiculous. London has always been a "reactionary city" with regards to transportation - meaning we try to solve our transportation problems when it is too late. Forty years ago we could have had a great expressway system in our city, but we tried to please everyone and we lost out. Now as K/W are close to deciding on LRT or real BRT (with real lanes for transit), we don't even have express buses nor are we asking for the multi-millions in transit funding that K/W is getting. Instead, we have some people pushing for a ring road. A ring road makes absolutely zero sense for London. Why do I want to drive outside the city to get around the city???? Let's improve transit and roads IN THE CITY!! Let's focus on pedestrians and not cars and big box stores!

I don't see a need for a full ring road per se, but I believe parts of it are needed. Primarily, I believe the VMP needs to be a full freeway, and extended north towards St. Marys and Stratford. I believe that at least a partial ring road is one component of a multi-faceted transportation plan that puts emphasis on mass transit.

[ForestryW]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I don't see a need for a full ring road per se, but I believe parts of it are needed. Primarily, I believe the VMP needs to be a full freeway, and extended north towards St. Marys and Stratford. I believe that at least a partial ring road is one component of a multi-faceted transportation plan that puts emphasis on mass transit.

Why specifically? What would making VMP a full freeway accomplish that it doesn't already provide?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by van Hemessen

Why specifically? What would making VMP a full freeway accomplish that it doesn't already provide?

Increased speed and safety, i.e. no traffic lights or at-grade intersections. Also if it were to be a freeway it would have to be integrated with a freeway north or south of the city for it to be worthwhile.

[ldoto]

Downtown called a priority over possible fair plans
Planning: Western Fair considers hotel, RV parking

The councillor who represents the downtown area is calling for caution after it was revealed the Western Fair Association is considering a $20 million makeover that might include a hotel.

Ward 13 Coun. Judy Bryant said on the weekend the city and Western Fair should be careful not to siphon energy away from downtown.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the cities that are going to make it in the 21st Century are the ones that have great central core areas. We need to continue to focus on that,” Bryant said.

The Free Press has learned the Western Fair Association has been working on a strategic plan that includes ideas such as creating a 365-day market and retail operation and a 10-storey hotel linked to a trade-show facility. Other ideas call for razing the association’s aging Special Events and Canada buildings and buying and demolishing homes on Rectory St., along with properties owned on King St., to create a parking area for 40 RVs.

Bryant, who hasn’t seen the plan, said it’s always good for an organization to do blue-sky thinking.

“We all want the very best for London,” she said.

What she wouldn’t want to see would be unfair competition for downtown businesses from Western Fair, which has tax-free status.

“We have spent a lot of money on downtown development and there is no doubt downtown is very different from when I came here 13 years ago. We are still very excited about moving forward. How this would compete would be the question I would have,” she said.

John Ferris, a former chairperson of the Western Fair Association and a member of the organization’s senate, said he has yet to see the confidential plan.

The association has a standing strategic planning committee that constantly reviews the organization’s options, he said.

Before any action is taken, plans have to be approved by at least three levels — the fair directors, the board of governors, and the senators, a senior body of past presidents.

“All of those would have input before anything would go to the membership to be adopted,” he said.

The plan

WHAT MAY GO UP

Agriplex: Large addition and conversion for trade shows.

Grandstand: New stadium seating and glass enclosure.

Raceway: Paved infield parking. Widened vehicle underpass and creation of pedestrian underpass to raceway infield.

Main parking area: Landscaping, green areas and traffic roundabout

Hotel: Explore partnership for 10-storey hotel connected to trade-show facility.

WHAT MAY COME DOWN

Special Events Building and “the link.”

Canada Building, West Annex and former administration building at 900 King St.

Nearby properties including those already owned on north side of King St., and others on east side of Rectory St., to make way for parking lot for 40 RVs

Infield tote board and stage at the raceway, to make way for parking

[MolsonExport]

to make way for parking lot for 40 RVs

Whadda bunch of crap

[Highinthesky]

210 Queens? I said 201 Queens which is not two thirds empty and does not have a parking garage next door. If this is how reliable your information is I don't see much point in commenting on anything else you say.

Originally Posted by new age

You bring up 210 Queen st. which is two thirds empty, and already has a parking garage. All his lots are leased to Impark it is thousands of spaces it has nothing to do with parking for people leasing his space it is for the money made from the leases to Impark. Tenants in the Royal Bank building went out and leased parking in the Market building on their own.

If you don't think he should have had looked into a demolition permit before buying the Capital Theater how about the Lithography Building he pulled the same antics.

And there are many more, he just threatened to end leases in the Bell Building if the city didn't lease it. After buying it up from under the city by waving his conditions of sale. which the city could not do because of an expectation for due diligence with tax payers money.

[new age]

Yes you are right 201 not 210. 210 seems to be a parking lot already. 201's parking is an underground lot, first photo provided by Farhi himself is of all the empty parking spaces.

[Highinthesky]

Yes 201 Queens has some underground parking but not nearly enough for the over 80,000 Sq.F. of available office space. Add to the fact that he also owns the old Canada Trust building at 220 Dundas with its almost 80,000 Sq.F. you have over 160,000 Sq.F. in two buildings. That ignores that now the Capitol Theater is office space and he owns the glass building on the opposite corner of 220 Dundas. Now realize that Farhi doesn't own all of the parking lots behind the Capitol and surrounding 201 Queens so maybe just maybe he has an issue with finding parking that nearly every office tenant wants.

That's just half of one block downtown. So maybe the capitol theater would have been better used as parking space for Farhi. Afterall Farhi paid for the building when no one else was willing to do so.

[MolsonExport]

I think there should be a moratorium on any new at-grade open-air parking lots in the downtown area bounded by York, the Thames, Colborne, and Oxfart.

New parking should be in the form of multi-level lots, and/or underground/rooftop parking

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I think there should be a moratorium on any new at-grade open-air parking lots in the downtown area bounded by York, the Thames, Colborne, and Oxfart.

New parking should be in the form of multi-level lots, and/or underground/rooftop parking

I agree - those open-air lots are a poor land use, and they lower the attractiveness of the downtown area.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I think there should be a moratorium on any new at-grade open-air parking lots in the downtown area bounded by York, the Thames, Colborne, and Oxfart.

New parking should be in the form of multi-level lots, and/or underground/rooftop parking

Why is it that we can think this makes sense yet the city cannot put something in place to make this happen?

I completely agree, of course everyone knows downtown parking needs an improvement if they put a 3 level limit on new "lots" it would either make people re-think it OR would make them truly build a parking solution that would help everyone within the area.

[ForestryW]

Unfortunately, what matters most to downtown business owners (and therefore to city hall) is the bottom line. Multi-story parking lots are uber-uber-expensive to construct, and the theory in London is still parking=business (consider that in Toronto this is NOT true, there is widespread parking deficiency but growth remains strong because of transit).

[MrSlippery519]

Exactly and that is the difference, Toronto has multiple transit means to get people places. If London had something LRT, BRT whatever it may be, the current parking logic would be more than adequate.

I also understand there is a substantial cost difference in building a multi level parking however at the same time of someone were to build a 3-5 level parking structure and charged a reasonable price like the market does it would pay for itself.

[new age]

black top parking lots do not generate much property tax revenue compared to a mix use high rise. You look at the Rennaissance development, you lose two hundred open spaces but gain 400 or so units which come with their own parking. If even half of these people used to drive downtown to work or shop, then there is no loss to the parking supply and an addition of new residents. It all = money for downtown in property tax and retail traffic.

[ForestryW]

Yes absolutely. Unfortunately I don't think that logic would be enough to sway city hall into imposing a moratorium on surface parking downtown.

[Highinthesky]

Unfortunately, what matters most to downtown business owners (and therefore to city hall) is the bottom line. Multi-story parking lots are uber-uber-expensive to construct, and the theory in London is still parking=business (consider that in Toronto this is NOT true, there is widespread parking deficiency but growth remains strong because of transit).

This is exactly true, the engineering costs are huge for such a structure.

I also understand there is a substantial cost difference in building a multi level parking however at the same time of someone were to build a 3-5 level parking structure and charged a reasonable price like the market does it would pay for itself.

Its easy for people to come up with all these solutions when they aren't the one who have the put the actual money up to do any of it. If a multi-level parking garage was really a great business opportunity in downtown London in todays business environment it would be built. The fact that there is no mention of any private entity having any interest in doing this tells me that a multi-level parking garage being a good investment opporunity simply is not the case.

[ForestryW]

If there was a moratorium on new surface parking downtown, coupled with intensification policies and strategic planning for TOD, it probably would be a good business opportunity. Try explaining that to the folks at city hall, though. That kind of thinking is too long term.