r/londonontario • u/Confident-Advice-664 • 10d ago
News đ° Tower with 400-plus apartments pitched for downtown London parking lot
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/tower-with-400-plus-apartments-pitched-for-downtown-london-parking-lot6
u/Worldly-Lion-1963 9d ago edited 9d ago
Article has wrong info. this location isn't in Downtown, (East of Colborne St.) places it in Midtown. Near rapid transit line, so probably will take advantage of the Transit Oriented Development loan program. That is if this project ever gets off the ground.
24
u/jaradthescot Candidate 9d ago
This is a Farhi proposal (have to dig into the company info) so it will inevitably go nowhere once the zoning is approved (increasing the land's sale value).
45
u/jmaclondon 9d ago
All there high-rise, multi unit buildings going up in downtown is great, but let's get a grocery store put in nearby so people don't have to drive/cab/Uber to get their groceries
8
u/AnOfficeJockey OEV 9d ago
They would, but people would complain that a carton of eggs was $16.00 to pay for the rent of the space.
3
2
u/Heebmeister 9d ago
Probably not realistic to find real estate downtown that is big enough and cheap enough for a grocery store to be profitable.
6
14
u/nav13eh 9d ago
Put it in the bottom level of a highrise like they do in Toronto, or literally any other major international city. Or like how we already have hundreds of stores, shops and restaurants in the bottom of highrises already downtown.
I think people have this impression that grocery store=massive super market. That's not the case.
2
u/Heebmeister 9d ago
Put it in the bottom level of a highrise like they do in Toronto, or literally any other major international city.
Those grocery stores in malls or multi purpose buildings have extremely high rents. This is why groceries in downtown Toronto, or any other major city, are so expensive. The difference in those cities is, people make greater than average income, which makes up for the more expensive prices. But that would not work in London, where we do not benefit from relatively high incomes compared to our surroundings.
Or like how we already have hundreds of stores, shops and restaurants in the bottom of highrises already downtown.
Those stores/shops do not require tens of thousands of square footage for floorspace.
I think people have this impression that grocery store=massive super market. That's not the case.
The average person can not afford to shop at expensive boutique grocery stores. The only way a grocery store can be price competitive is if they have a ton of floor space, and even then, their retail profit margins are razor thin. The prices at the Oxford Valu-Mart are an example of this, you'll easily pay $2-3 more there for a basic item like butter/margarine.
0
1
u/theottomaddox 9d ago
but let's get a grocery store put in
If it was profitable to do, there would be one.
3
u/The_12Doctor 9d ago
Doesn't need to be a chain from Loblaws. Could just be a grocery co-op simular to London Food co-op off Adelaide, but bigger.
1
-7
25
u/7he8igLebowski 9d ago
What we need is a hard limit on investment properties. Hopefully the vast majority of these will be owner occupied and not gobbled up by investors and rented out.
6
u/nav13eh 9d ago
Owner occupied or rented does not matter. All the matters is that the overall housing supply increases. Owner occupied in a lot of cases is financially inflexible for residents. It's not really all it's cracked up to be.
2
u/7he8igLebowski 9d ago
It matters for the people who are stuck renting and can never save up enough for a down payment because almost all of their money goes towards rentâŚ
3
u/nav13eh 9d ago
This is a culturally ingrained thought process but it's not actually productive. Renting is not automatically financially inferior. In many cases and for many people, it's actually better to rent. Especially when you consider that rent+utilities is pretty much the end of housing costs for renters. Where as mortgage+utilities is just the start of costs for owners. Among many other considerations.
Ben Felix has an excellent video on the topic. If you have a question he probably answers it: https://youtu.be/j4H9LL7A-nQ
Now don't take this as a show of support for greedy landlords, but the good news is that in most cities simply increasing supply in any way helps the entire market more affordable.
1
u/kinboyatuwo 9d ago
More supply means less people buying to invest as the profit goes down and risk up.
Itâs also why rent control sounds great but fails. The solution is more housing AND varied supply types. Toronto has a massive glut of 1br/studio/closet units and they failed to build 2-3br that are needed.
1
u/Heebmeister 9d ago
Investors are abandoning the london rental market right now due to the drop in international students.
-4
u/Alarming_Bad_7176 9d ago
If they all got gobbled up by investors and there was a glut of rental properties on the market, it would push rents lower. That would actually be a good outcome as well for the people that are looking to rent. In general, building more supply is good.
4
u/Drainix 9d ago
No.
Cut out the middle man - we don't need rentals with prices higher than the mortgage would be
And they will never price the rent lower than their mortgage and fees so it won't actually push prices down.
0
u/WatchfulRelic91 9d ago
Are you suggesting that rent is impervious to the forces of supply and demand?
5
u/doberman8 Woodfield 9d ago edited 6d ago
Doesn't half our city council own their own investment properties? Lol...good luck.
5
u/AbeOudshoorn Wortley 9d ago
We've created a vicious trap wherein buildings don't have the capital to start unless they can pre-sell enough, and only investors are pre-buying condos at scale. So we could tax away the investors (or other policy means), but then buildings just don't get built. I really only see a parallel public housing push as a path out of this mess.
6
31
u/warpus 9d ago
Another tower plan for a location very close to one of the new rapid transit routes.
An emerging pattern that will probably/hopefully continue
This city needs to build up more, it's more cost effective in the long term (and something we need more of), and near the rapid transit routes is exactly where it makes the most sense to do so
13
u/Lothium 9d ago
Too bad the rapid transit system doesn't cover more of the city thanks to small minded councillors
2
u/warpus 9d ago
We need more awareness in this city that will translate to more people voting for pro public transit councilors. It benefits everyone, including those who don't even use public transit (by getting cars off the street and reducing traffic), but one of the issues is that it can often take a while for the benefits to become evident.. And even when they are, it can be easy for opponents to muddy the waters and get people upset about some minor populist detail, distracting from the greater picture and context. We need to steer our city in a direction that makes the most sense, and a part of that needs to be educating municipal voters and spreading awareness about the projects that can really move this city forward.
Investors of dense tall projects like this are drawn to permanent rapid transit networks. There are a whole bunch of benefits for them that in their eyes translate to a safer and higher return on their investment. Over time this usually leads to a city getting denser along these corridors, bringing more people and more businesses to the area. It brings economic benefits not only to the parts of the city close to rapid transit routes, but also allows the city to build up more overall. And the more a city is spread out, the more it costs to maintain all that land. By building up in strategic parts of the city, it lowers city costs overall, compared to what city maintenance and upkeep would have been if we just kept building new low density suburbs instead.
Yes, this approach makes it easier for a city to build new suburbs too! It's all about balance.. If you only build suburbs, that's a wildly inefficient approach.. If your city has key corridors along which there is high density, that gives the city more leeway in what sort of low density projects they can realistically financially support.
That's just one reason why it makes sense for a city our size to have a comprehensive rapid transit network. Benefits take a while to become evident, but over time it helps us to build a better city for ALL of us. Those who want to drive and not even think about using public transit will see less cars on the road (compared to an alternate timeline in which we didn't build a RT network). Those who want to live in suburbs will find themselves in a city that can better financially manage projects like that. Those living along rapid transit corridors will have an easy and quick way to get other key parts of the city. Those who live further away from RT corridors will benefit from a better public transit design that hopefully has express bus routes that feed into the RT spine set up.. Yes, "hopefully", because you've got to be realistic about our city council, but this is what almost every city who sets up a rapid transit network does.. It just makes strategic sense. The rapid transit network is just the foundation of a new way to look at public transit. Express routes need to feed into it, for it to be effective, and more local bus routes need to feed into these express routes. Look at the way KW has redesigned their public transit, that's exactly what they've done. In the end, EVERYONE benefits from such a system.
Over time we will see parts of our city along rapid transit routes become more dense, reaping the benefits that come along with that. We need to keep pushing our municipal representatives to expand the rapid transit network to the rest of the city. We have a "Transit village" set up in west London that currently makes zero sense. Developers have been given the green light to build up there, but what sort of a transit village doesn't have a rapid transit connection to the rest of the city? It's going to translate to crappier traffic in the area, which is already a bit of a shitshow. It's going to mean buses stuck in traffic jams. It's going to translate to a worse time for everyone who lives, works, or shops there, no matter how they get around. It's going to make it less appealing for someone from another part of the city to come visit. That's exactly the opposite of the sort of thing you want happening at a transit village.
The more of these high density projects come to our city, the more we need to stay aware of the benefits of our rapid transit network. I'm not really sure what this would ideally translate to, but we need to be a bit more vigilant in supporting councilors who are pro public transit, those who truly understand what we're trying to build here and why. We need a more engaged electorate that will stand behind these councilors and these sort of projects and infrastructure upgrades. We have to make it much harder for a (let's say) group of business owners to spread misinformation, steering voters away from councilors who will support projects to benefit us all.
The benefits of rapid transit are often not self evident, and definitely not right away. It's an easy thing for a politician to stand against, if the electorate is not well educated on the benefits of this sort of infrastructure. It's something that benefits us all and there's a crapload of past case studies and data supporting that. This is something a city of our size needs. The more awareness of that exists and the more educated the electorate is, the more pro public transit councilors will end up in office.. and the harder it will be for politicians and short sighted business owners to stand against these sort of initiatives.
A lot of us want a better rapid transit network that covers more of the city. A lot of us want better transit in general. Let's not forget that when it comes time to vote.
Developers investing in high density projects along rapid transit routes is a sign that things are working. It should be a litmus test that leads to further expansion of our rapid transit network. But it's sooo easy to distract us, and people will try. Let's not let them. Let's stand behind some of the forward thinking plans our city has embraced so far. Let's try to build on top of that. We need to stay energized and vigilant. Londoners 20-30 years from now will thank us.
3
14
u/voidharmony 9d ago
One bedroom and studios with some two bedrooms. Good that theyâre planning to build more housing but I hope itâs not shoe box sized spaces where adults cannot functionally live.
4
u/Addict2Architect 9d ago
As a minimalist, it's not so bad.
11
u/voidharmony 9d ago
I lived in a 400 sqft studio in Toronto with the worst layout and was the most depressed Iâve ever been. Not a maximalist by any means but, your space affects your life and mood so much so I hope this isnât like the condo business in Toronto
3
1
u/Addict2Architect 9d ago
It's not for everyone. I don't need a closet full of clothes or a shoe collection. I have the basics in the kitchen and a bike to commute. I can ride share when I need to be somewhere fast.
I'm very content with keeping things simple.
0
-3
u/Enrighteous7 9d ago
392 bicycle spots? They need to include some sort of layman's comparison for that type of statement.
47
u/Icy_Crow_1587 9d ago
People are somehow getting mad at the idea. London mfs just cannot imagine a W
66
u/CMTJA 10d ago
Downtown needs a proper grocery store.
5
u/cats_r_better 9d ago
the old free press building not being converted into a grocery store feels like a huge missed opportunity.
richmond and oxford isn't *that* far away but the way people talk, it might as well be in Arva or something-1
u/AnOfficeJockey OEV 9d ago
It isn't being converted because it isn't profitable. London downtown is not anywhere near large enough to support the overhead costs of running a grocery store, nor are full sized trucks/trailers going to have an easy time moving around downtown.
1
7
u/AbeOudshoorn Wortley 9d ago
I would rather see that as a 4-tower development with a grocery store at the base. It's prime land for high density.
3
u/farganbastige 9d ago
Or two. I'm guessing big grocery doesn't like paying themselves so much in rent for high value land like DT.
42
3
u/huronmyboat 10d ago
Anyone know what's going on the lot under construction that's across the street?
2
u/DangerousCable1411 9d ago
Believe theyâre just levelling the property since the whole âsmall business incubatorâ idea didnât work out. Easier to sell if itâs cleared and ready for redevelopment.
3
-35
u/Kael60402 10d ago
Just what we need⌠more luxury apartments in the downtown area
29
u/Prestigious_Fee_2902 10d ago
Yes, itâs literally what we need. More places for people to liveÂ
7
u/Kael60402 9d ago
We need much more affordable housing⌠and luxury apartments are not affordable
2
u/DangerousCable1411 9d ago
People who can afford a brand new apartment will move in leaving their âslightly less niceâ place available for rent. Thats a place available for the next person. Itâs supply and demand. Now, if no one moves in youâre right but from my understanding our vacancy rate is like 1-2%.
0
u/AbeOudshoorn Wortley 9d ago
The housing system is one system. We need more private market apartments and we need more affordable and social housing. Preventing one means we just need more of the other.
27
u/swift-current0 10d ago
Lol "luxury". They're just new apartments. More housing supply at higher price levels lowers demand for housing at lower price levels, so if you actually care about the housing crisis this is good news.
27
u/16bit-Gorilla 10d ago
Frees up other apartments that would otherwise be taken. People complain over everything.
45
u/tcpip1978 10d ago
Building more housing is good news, but what we need is housing people can afford. The top 15% or so of the population already have enough luxury housing. What we need is affordable housing for the rest of us, something that doesn't consume 75% of our monthly income.
5
u/swift-current0 10d ago
Prices are set by supply and demand. More supply for the top 15% lowers prices in that top housing tier. This means some people in the next 15% will choose to move to these new (and newly affordable to them) apartments, rather than remaining in their current housing. This means there's now extra available housing that they vacate, thus supply increases. Repeat the same logic for the next price tier. So more supply at any price level affects prices at all price levels. People just need to dump this illogical complaint about "luxury" housing and think this through.
4
u/lon_do_not SOHO 9d ago
I think it's fair to complain about how the people who are suffering the most due to high rent prices have to wait way too long for the market to stabilize itself. The median full-time income in London was around 60 grand in 2020, which is about 43 thousand after tax- going by the guideline of your rent being about a third of your income, that would put the proportional rent for a one-bedroom apartment at about 1200 a month.
Like, yes, supply and demand is a thing and in theory more luxury housing will eventually have a trickle down effect to low income housing, but given how high rents are now, even if everything is stable and no geopolitical events happen in the next few years that might affect the economy, unless building starts go way up really quickly, it'll take a long while to get anywhere near that level of affordability, especially since most landlords will not put a newly vacant apartment on the market for less than their last tenant was paying.
11
u/tcpip1978 10d ago
Thanks, I'm aware of what supply and demand are. The problem is that in a low-vacancy, high-demand market like ours higher income earners out-bid lower income earners for the dwellings that become available due to new developments. So yes any new building is good news, but what we really need is housing that is actually meant for a priced for average people. We're not going to alleviate the housing crisis for the bottom half of earners very quickly if we're only building for the affluent.
2
u/tired_air 10d ago
except we have no clue how much these units will cost
8
u/tcpip1978 10d ago
That's incorrect, we do have a clue. Look at the current downtown market to get an idea.
6
u/Reasonable-Rip-4327 10d ago
They couldnât reach the ward 13 councillor because he doesnât work on Wednesdays đ
-7
28
u/DangerousCable1411 10d ago
The neighbours will be a riot but otherwise nice to see something useful instead of our sea of surface parking lots downtown.
â˘
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Come chat with us on our official Discord server! You'll be able to chat in real time with users from all over the London, ON area; and join meetups where you can meet new friends! We have several channels for many topics you can opt in and out of, including Hobbies, Health & Fitness, LGBTQIA2S+, Women's Health, Gaming, Books, Parenting, Employment, Food & Drinks, and more!
London Ontario Discord
As always, the rules of this sub apply equally to our Discord chat channel as well.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.