My Point of View: Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos? Part 4

[The following continues a series of thoughts about the development process as it pertains to an empty lot at the corner of Wortley Rd. and Bruce St. in Old South, London]

Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos?’

I say no, not as a current proposal stands at present.

A Feb. 17 meeting at City Hall that focused on certain features of a four-story commercial-residential building hardened my feelings.

First, each of the four variances developer David Tennant Jr. (Hampton Group) requested very clearly indicate the proposed building is too big for the lot.

[Please link to Part 3 for context.]

That the city and developer would shake hands on such a proposal tells me they haven’t spent much time, if any, in Old South.

Second, the Feb. 17 meeting at City Hall, organized to collect input from the community, was chiefly about design objectives for the building, and not about something far more important to the members of the community that had assembled there.

A list of ‘Design Objectives for Consideration’ (14 points in all - see below) was presented, a though a feeling of democratic give and take seemed to be part of the process, the list served as more of a distraction than proper focal point.

In other words, discussing the list felt like a PR exercise, and instead of seeing democracy in action that evening, I sat in the middle of ‘distraction in action’ for almost four hours - all hours I will never get back.

Can you imagine how many felt while discussing the first three design objectives for the building - i.e., 1. quality, comfortable, functional pedestrian realm; 2. contribute positively to Village character; 3. provide iconic architecture to further identify with the community - while being told the height of the building was not up for discussion?

Would not a building taller than all others in the area have some negative affect upon pedestrians? Would such a tall, massive building not seem out of character for the Village? Would not its architecture actually identify with the community if it was somewhat the same size as most other buildings in its immediate surroundings?

Would those questions not be worth discussing at great length, keeping the overall size of the building in mind?

How could members of the community, including myself, not be disappointed while discussing further design objectives that related to the shape of the proposed windows when the main thing hitting us in the face was the size of the structure?

We were told the size was not on the table. It was a done deal.

I could go on to discuss draperies too, and the most practical types of toilets for a building of that size in Old South, but the problem with the proposed building is that draperies and toilets are small potatoes, mere distractions, when considering the design of a building that does not fit with the area at all.

I’m sure Mr. Tennant was happy to see all assembled broken into discussion groups and talking about other design considerations - i.e., 7. quality design on all building faces; 8. provide a focal point in centre of Village; 9. take advantage of terminal vista; 10. avoid generic architecture; 11. avoid auto-oriented design, etc. - knowing discussion about the building’s height was closed.

Though many would like to say (and said), “The focal point at the centre of the Village sure is going to be big,” height was off the table.

If City Hall thinks the meeting was to promote democracy in action, or helpful input from concerned citizens, then I’d hate to see a meeting when democracy is not in action or peoples’ chief interests are not considered.

Third...

***

Please click here to read part 5.

.