Affordable Housing: Suggestions for a Responsible City

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. 

Development on Surface Parking Lots

A developer plans to build a 38-storey tower on the parking lot on the southeast corner of  York and Colborne streets. To see what that might look like, look here. Of course, the details may change. 

According to the Free Press story, the development proposal comes from "BSN London in collaboration with Siv-ik Planning and Design." I haven't heard of these folks before, and an online search hasn't revealed much about them. I don't know if they actually build anything or just talk about it, like another local developer who comes to mind. 

Many will say this is just another ugly tower on a podium. And that the proposal isn't in a great neighbourhood. "Location! Location! Location!" They might be right, but I still support this development.

Why? Because, for years, heritage preservationists such as myself have suggested developing the city's surface parking lots rather than knocking down heritage buildings. Just think! Here's a tower that could be built without folks like me complaining! Wouldn't that be refreshing? And, gosh, density, infill, and downtown revitalization! 

And it's about time. According to this CBC report, London has 29-30 acres of surface parking lots on 67 different sites. This is a huge waste of valuable real estate. And if we don't want to spread into our surrounding farmland, these sites should be developed. 

How are other cities doing? The Parking Reform Network has a series of maps showing how much land in major cities is taken up by parking lots. In Las Vegas, for example, 33% of the central city is off-street parking. New York City is 0.4%. OK, the maps are of American cities, but there's also a blog about parking reform lobbying in many communities internationally, including our very own Ottawa. The progressive trend is to develop parking lots. And London needs to be progressive. 

If you agree with me that this is the right way to go, I suggest you write to the City Hall Planning and Environment Committee. Deadline for comments is December 3. 

Convert empty buildings into affordable housing!

The empty lot at right, 514-520 South Street,  is the former site of an 1853 cottage. The once-adorable home listed on the city's Register of Cultural Heritage Resources was demolished in November 2024 after years of deterioration. See here for pictures of its advanced decay and subsequent demolition. 

The cottage may have been in poor shape when Anmoor Homes purchased it in 2022, but the company didn't make a heroic effort to save it. Damaged by fire in April 2024, the house was removed from the city register in July and knocked down in the autumn. 

Anmoor later requested a rezoning of the property to allow the building of about 25 stacked townhouses. Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommended this be done, and London City Council agreed at their August 26 meeting. 

Whenever a demolition by neglect (DBN) happens - and it happens frequently - the same thoughts come to my mind. One is that London needs a powerful property standards bylaw that charges hefty fines to the owners of deteriorating and/or vacant buildings. The current system is complaint-based and clearly doesn't prevent DBN. A mandatory inspection regime with escalating penalties could deter neglect, though enforcement costs and owner pushback would pose challenges. 

Another observation is that, in an age with lots of homeless people and a lack of affordable housing, we also have vacant buildings.  Little wonder that unfortunate individuals break into an empty structure to take shelter. And if they start a fire to keep warm in winter, who can blame them?

Some might argue that single-family homes on large lots should be replaced with densely packed townhome developments more often. We need lots of infill to house our increasing population, right? After all, we can't expand the city forever, using up more and more valuable farmland (although the city seems to be doing just that.) I would argue, though, that densification is ruining our historic neighbourhoods by replacing traditional architecture with newer buildings that don't blend in. Hence, new construction should be limited in such areas as South Street in Soho.

I'd rather see larger buildings in the core renovated into affordable housing. We already have older buildings that have been reused for this purpose, like Youth Opportunities Unlimited in the former Grigg House. Or the former Honest Lawyer bar, now converted to apartments. And Bluevale is converting a newish office building at 376 Richmond Street into one-bedroom and studio apartments; see here for details.  

Still, we're going to need more of these conversions if we're going to a) increase our stock of affordable housing, and b) prevent historic neighbourhoods from losing their charm. I'd argue that the buildings below would have made excellent housing units if only the city, a non-profit organisation, or even another corporation had wrestled them away from their current owners:

But I suspect demolition by neglect and inappropriate infill are here to stay. The cottage’s loss is only part of a larger debate, that of "progress" versus preservation. And progress means densification in older residential neighbourhoods unless public pressure shifts the narrative.