Urban Planning

[CanadianTalk]

Couldn't find an appropriate thread to add this info to, so thought I'd make one for this as, in my opinion, this is kind of big news in terms of planning.

As of May 25, 2022, the city's plan called The London Plan is in full force as the official plan. This means that any planning application submitted going forward, no longer is required to reference the previous 1989 plan. Until now, applications referenced both the 1989 plan and The London Plan which lead to some conflicts at times.

This has been a long process, with the city starting this in 2011. The city completed and Council approved the plan in 2016, however of course, numerous appeals have been submitted to the Ontario Land Tribunal since then. This somehow took 5 years to resolve, but OLT's final approval in May now brings The London Plan into full force and effect.

https://london.ca/newsroom/ontario-l...es-london-plan

[jammer139]

New parking strategy for London.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...499235?cmp=rss

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by jammer139

New parking strategy for London.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...499235?cmp=rss

wow, some common sense!

[ssiguy]

It's a very good move. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything about curren t parkinbg lots, especially downtown.
They should have added that there will be no more "temporary" parking renewals and begin to place maximum parking lot sizes in the downtown core ie 20 cars/lot. This would still guarantee small businesses needed customer parking spots but force parking landlords {ie Farhi}.
Such a move would have to be phased in like having all parking lots over 40 spots having to go by 2025, 30 spots by 2027. The city can't tell a person to change their existing parking lots but can still force them to by denying them permits hence the land is still taxed but no longer produces revenue.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The city can't tell a person to change their existing parking lots but can still force them to by denying them permits hence the land is still taxed but no longer produces revenue.

There's a good idea. They won't generate revenue to pay their taxes, they go into bankruptcy, the city seizes the property and opens a parking lot lol.

This is great though. First it was encourage developers to put public parking in their developments so they can put a building on a parking lot. Now, tell them they don't even have to worry about parking at all, let alone for the public. But the city wants people to come downtown. London Transit can't service a concert or a Knights game, even after BRT comes along, and even if half the crowd is from downtown and walks. Tricar and the like will now put 100 parking spots in a new building with 300 units and tack on a huge price for them. That should help with affordability. Plenty of parking was the basic sales pitch for putting things like the arena downtown when people had doubts it would work there.

[jammer139]

The real issue is not that there is a lack of parking downtown. A report done a few years ago counted nearly 15,000 parking spots both public and private in the downtown. The issue is that there is no free parking within steps of the door of the business people want to visit. We have a culture of laziness that means if you have to walk any distance you will complain. Hence the drive thru business model, the obesity crisis and all the health issues that comes of that. You see this at play even in suburban malls and plazas with people trying to squeeze in to park their trucks and SUV's as close to the door as possible rather then out 100 feet where there are few if any vehicles and the parking is easy.

[CanadianTalk]

Council passed their new parking regulations bylaw yesterday. This will apply to any new planning application submitted going forward.

Essentially, parking minimums have been eliminated for places in a transit village, along a "main street", and along the rapid transit corridors (see map below). This does not mean that parking will be banned, just that it is now up to the developer, whether to include parking or not.

For places not along a rapid transit corridor, "main street" or in a transit village, parking minimums have been reduced by half. This applies to both, residential and commercial developments.

[jaradthescot]

Originally Posted by CanadianTalk

For places not along a rapid transit corridor or in a transit village, parking minimums have been reduced by half. This applies to both, residential and commercial developments.

Didn't know about this part. That makes this proposal much better. It was already a step in the right direction but making city-wide changes is much more significant.

[jammer139]

The new parking plan is definitely an improvement. Having government decide on parking minimum requirements for the downtown core and transit hubs is a bad idea. Let the nature of the development determine how many parking spaces are built to support it.

[jammer139]

LFP article on parking strategy.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-in-new-builds

[jammer139]

City has purchased land to build a park on Dingman Dr near White Oaks Rd.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...hall-thinks-so

[jammer139]

Line of Sight review for Emergency Communications System.


https://london.ca/sites/default/file...20-%20aoda.pdf



Would be nice if they included a map of current antennas and receivers that make up the ECS. Relocating them to new locations on top of new high rises would likely improve the performance. Suggesting that new developments may be denied is a non starter.

[jammer139]

London Rethink Zoning video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAuAbRLkrYc

[jammer139]

Sad news for the London development community with passing of Greg Bierbaum at age 59.


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...dies-at-age-59

[jammer139]

Interesting article on proposal to convert space at Old Oaks Forest Hill apartments to a child care centre. Some opposition already due to parking constraints in the area.



https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...graphics-shift

[CanadianTalk]

The City of London is undertaking a Comprehensive Review of The London Plan, which will include a land need review and a policy review of The London Plan.

Some of the questions the Comprehensive Review is expected to ask are:

• Is there enough land available to meet the City’s growing population and its need for housing and employment?
• Is there enough land designated for housing and other urban land uses?
• How much of new development should be targeted to grow “inward and upward” versus “outward” (i.e. redevelopment and infill versus “greenfield” vacant land)?
• Is there enough Industrial-designated land to meet expected growth in employment, and are the Industrial lands in the right locations?

The result of the land need review may be a review of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The need for a UGB review will be based on the findings of the Comprehensive Review’s Land Needs Assessment.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/london-plan-review

[jammer139]

Wasn't a review of the UGB already scheduled to start this year? This seems to imply it wasn't already planned?

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by jammer139

Interesting article on proposal to convert space at Old Oaks Forest Hill apartments to a child care centre. Some opposition already due to parking constraints in the area.



https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...graphics-shift

This is a really good idea. I saw the application sign when it went up. I live in the Proudfoot neighbourhood and there are lots of families living here, so such a facility would be really beneficial. Yes parking can be a pain in the area, but it’s like that everywhere.

There are already at least 3 new planned developments in the area already which will likely be attracting many more families. Adding this additional use to what is almost an exclusively residential neighbourhood will create huge benefits.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by CanadianTalk

The City of London is undertaking a Comprehensive Review of The London Plan, which will include a land need review and a policy review of The London Plan.

Some of the questions the Comprehensive Review is expected to ask are:

• Is there enough land available to meet the City’s growing population and its need for housing and employment?
• Is there enough land designated for housing and other urban land uses?
• How much of new development should be targeted to grow “inward and upward” versus “outward” (i.e. redevelopment and infill versus “greenfield” vacant land)?
• Is there enough Industrial-designated land to meet expected growth in employment, and are the Industrial lands in the right locations?

The result of the land need review may be a review of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The need for a UGB review will be based on the findings of the Comprehensive Review’s Land Needs Assessment.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/london-plan-review

Maybe it is time to annex Arva. Arva folks would not be pleased.

Development beyond an urban centre is parasitic because it feeds off the host community. It is urban sprawl.

So why is London helping Middlesex Centre attract people who might otherwise live in London? Middlesex Centre must build its own sewage treatment plant. If it won’t, Arva must be annexed. It is destined to happen at some point. Why not now?

Those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. Did someone say Westminster?

https://lfpress.com/2017/10/13/marti...could-backfire

[jammer139]

As previously posted in the Rumours thread. Middlesex Centre is looking to extend the sewage deal.


This is heading towards some kind of serious discussion that will likely end at the Minister of Municipal Affairs desk. Let's see how the debate falls at city council.



https://pub-london.escribemeetings.c...cumentId=97339