York Developments plans a 30-storey apartment building for the northeast corner of Ridout and Kent. Their development would replace the above 30-unit rental building at 550 Ridout Street North and three buildings on Kent Street that are over 120 years old. The latter apparently don't have enough architectural or historical significance to merit saving. London's City Council has passed the proposed development 11 to 4, with only Councillors Hopkins, Trosow, Rahman, and Ferreira voting against. Remember this at election time.

Those in favour of the development argue that it meets London's number one planning goal, to build high-density residential buildings downtown. I do support that goal, since we need to prevent urban sprawl and bring people back to the core.  

But there are numerous problems here, beyond the loss of the three older buildings. First, this is a poor fit for the neighbourhood and is sure to increase traffic on older, narrow streets. Call me a pessimist, but next thing you know, more housing will need to come down to widen our roads.

Second, the development runs counter to planning rules by exceeding the site's height and density limits. This spot is just outside the downtown planning district (literally across the street), where the tallest buildings are permitted. City staffers suggested an 18-storey building for this site, in agreement with the current zoning. In my opinion, an 18-storey tower here would still be in the wrong place, but at least at that height, the city wouldn't be breaking its own rules, and our city planners would be heeded.

Then there's the fact that the apartments at 550 Ridout constitute affordable housing. It now appears that low-income Londoners are being displaced for developer profit. Oh, and developer buddies on council can congratulate themselves on providing intensification.  This project is not housing policy; it's developer greed.

As a rebuttal (or PR move) to the affordable housing argument, York Developments stated it will either help the displaced tenants from 550 Ridout move or assist them in locating another apartment. Councillor David Ferreira responded, and I agree, that York should offer the tenants a spot in the new building for the same rent. (Except where do they go in the meantime?) And no matter what warm, fuzzy solution York suggests, the city doesn't have the power to enforce it. 

Three recommendations to prevent this from happening again:

1. As Councillor Skylar Franke points out, London needs a tenant assistance and relocation plan similar to that of Toronto. A responsible city helps displaced tenants move, if it can't prevent their displacement to begin with. We also need rent gap payments to cover higher rents if tenants can't find an affordable unit elsewhere. 

2. Council must heed city staff recommendations. When staff recommend refusing a zoning change because the proposed highrise is too tall and incompatible with adjacent heritage-listed buildings, City Council should vote no to the project. Otherwise, why do we have a planning department?

3. As I've explained before, we need to develop the downtown surface parking lots. While the city can't force the owners of the lots to sell, it could certainly pressure them. We also need to convert more of our vacant buildings into affordable housing, as I've pointed out here. 

Without the above, London appears uncaring, irresponsible, and governed by developers and their toadies.