Development in the right place for once

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. 

Let's convert our 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.