(07-03-2019, 10:23 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: For connectivity, at a minimum, the City should require that a broad double-path (one for cyclists, one for pedestrians, like in Waterloo Park) be included immediately beside the railway, all the way from Borden to Stirling. Also, I understand there was a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks; if I have that right, it should be re-opened and connected to said path. This is just a matter of ensuring that obvious city planning takes place and should go without saying.

(07-04-2019, 12:14 AM)Acitta Wrote: Editorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

(07-04-2019, 09:25 AM)panamaniac Wrote: AcittaEditorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

Firewall ...

Quote:Unfortunately, the reality of the initial redevelopment plans for the site fall short of these exciting possibilities.

High-rise towers over 30 storeys tall, townhouses, a six-storey office building and retail space shoehorned into this parcel of land won't leave people saying "wow." The plans for this fairly predictable, high-density development named The Metz will make them ask, "Is that all there is?"

Surely London, Ont.-based Auburn Developments can do better with this property.

Quote:Surely London, Ont.-based Auburn Developments can do better with this property.

(07-04-2019, 09:25 AM)panamaniac Wrote:

(07-04-2019, 12:14 AM)Acitta Wrote: Editorial: Bolder vision needed for former Schneiders site

Firewall ...

(07-04-2019, 04:06 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Or pay for a subscription … it's less than $10/month to get coverage of local news and issues.

(07-04-2019, 05:19 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:

(07-04-2019, 04:06 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Or pay for a subscription … it's less than $10/month to get coverage of local news and issues.

I want to second this comment. Regardless of what you think of the Record (and I actually think they've been fairly decent lately) having a local paper is pretty important to the health of local government. As out friend Joni says, don't know what you've got til it's gone...

(07-16-2019, 01:57 PM)Acitta Wrote: Article in The Record about last night's public meeting.
Schneiders redevelopment could create ‘traffic hell’, residents say

(07-17-2019, 05:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(07-16-2019, 01:57 PM)Acitta Wrote: Article in The Record about last night's public meeting.
Schneiders redevelopment could create ‘traffic hell’, residents say

From the article:

"Public space includes a public park of 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres), an urban plaza of 0.44-hectares and a new multi-use trail. That's far less than required under the city's parkland dedication policy, which would require about 5.6 hectares (13.9 acres) of park space."


Is that really correct? The entire parcel is only 10 ha, and the policy says that 56% of it should be dedicated to parkland?

Quote:
1.0 General

Parkland Dedication Policy

The Planning Act authorizes municipalities to require the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes. The amount may not exceed 2% for commercial or industrial development, and may not exceed 5% for all other development; alternatively, land in the amount of 1 hectare per 300 residential units may be required. This authority extends to subdivision approvals, consent (e.g., severance, easement, right-of way), and site plan approval for the development or redevelopment of land. It is the municipality’s option to require cash in lieu of land.

For residential development the City will require parkland dedication based on 5% or 1 hectare per 300 residential units, whichever is the greater.