131 King Street - 31s (Under Construction) - Page 2

UpstairsCranberry · #1 Posted **Nov 15, 2018, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

was referring to the 131 King rendering at bottom.

I know. I was just saying both images are dated. It would seem they have updated the 230 North Centre Rd image to reflect the design that was approved.

I know some have said it looks ugly, and I disagree, but what I find the most important is the streetscape/human element part. It is absolutely gorgeous. This is something you would find in Toronto and what has not been done with any of the Tricar buildings downtown. The building still has a parking garage podium, but it's not hidden by fake windows. It is broken up in a way that hides it perfectly. Riverwalk does a better job... but will look so weird since they were not able to acquire that one property.

Rendering of street scape

jammer139 · #2 Posted **Dec 16, 2018, 2:47 PM**

Construction fencing now up around the lot. Sign of start? Or just blocking for the parking lot?

kaiserLDN · #3 Posted **May 24, 2018, 9:26 PM**

I will put blame on the city. The city is getting better but still suffering from when the killer Bees were so anti development. If we really really wanted cranes up and all over we could get them with the right mayor and councilor's shedding some red tape and speeding up time.

jammer139 · #4 Posted **May 30, 2018, 10:03 PM**

There is plenty of blame to spread around City Hall. Also the soon to be dead OMB and the appeals process that anyone can throw at a project.

kaiserLDN · #5 Posted **May 31, 2018, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

There is plenty of blame to spread around City Hall. Also the soon to be dead OMB and the appeals process that anyone can throw at a project.

I agree about the blame

jammer139 · #6 Posted **Aug 15, 2018, 8:19 PM**

Back to the drawing board for some more "tweaks" to the design.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/..._autoplay=true

Sad to see the BRT proponents trying to link this to the BRT. This project has nothing to do with whether BRT exists or not.

TallerIsBetter · #7 Posted **Aug 15, 2018, 11:41 PM**

[QUOTE=jammer139;8282540]Back to the drawing board for some more "tweaks" to the design.
/QUOTE]

If they mean get rid of the alley, make it more square as opposed to rectangular, adding levels of parking above ground as well as underground, and additional parking egreess off York in exchange for significantly increasing height - do it. That part of the downtown should have a bunch of 400+ footers. All the proposals and builds are like a donut around the inner core of the core, so to speak. Because,

Taller Is Better!

MrSlippery519 · #8 Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

Back to the drawing board for some more "tweaks" to the design.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/..._autoplay=true

Sad to see the BRT proponents trying to link this to the BRT. This project has nothing to do with whether BRT exists or not.

These seem like a few minor changes not "back to the drawing board" and per Usher " very serious issues".

I am sorry but Usher is a moron, his concern is traffic leaving the market...on a one way street? He understands there are 2 lanes on King Street right? This is downtown, it is busy yes, sort of what you want for the area.

Hope to see a tweaked proposal sooner than later, this should have shovels in the ground asap given the location and ease of development land wise.

TallerIsBetter · #9 Posted **Nov 3, 2018, 2:44 PM**

Fugly.

jammer139 · #10 Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 12:11 PM**

Committee approves the project and it goes to Council on Nov 20.

Artist rendering looks good.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...proval-finally

UpstairsCranberry · #11 Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 1:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

Committee approves the project and it goes to Council on Nov 20.

Artist rendering looks good.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...proval-finally

Both of those images used in the article are ancient.
Artist rendering

You can barely see it in the rendering, but the cory planning document has elevations showing coloured spandrel panels.
The tricar photo is the 22 storey one.

jammer139 · #12 Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 1:34 PM**

was referring to the 131 King rendering at bottom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpstairsCranberry

Both of those images used in the article are ancient.
Artist rendering

The tricar photo is the 22 storey one.

TallerIsBetter · #13 Posted **Feb 2, 2019, 5:21 AM**

That's cool, because Taller Is Better!!

Looked at the Planning Committee webpage and the pdf for the meeting doesn't give a new specific height. Guessing that 102 + 3 or 4 meters would get us up to the 345 or maybe 350 foot level. Should be asking for like 5 or 10 storeys more, like go for it!!!

Free Press piece mentions the dreaded 35 storey limit. What pinhead at City Hall came up up with that - I'm also gonna say I bet it is arbitrary. Should be no limit and approval based on case-by-case reasonableness (so yes 70 floors is probably not a good fit). But to set some stupid limit is so London.

jammer139 · #14 Posted **Feb 2, 2019, 10:59 PM**

If any city councilor argues against this they should be fired on the spot for gross stupidity.

MrSlippery519 · #15 Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 3:48 PM**

Cannot see how this is not approved quickly since they did make the changes requested already.

By "next construction season" I assume they mean they would like to start this spring? That would be amazing if accurate, London needs another company who can produce results like Tricar has shown.

MrSlippery519 · #16 Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 8:58 PM**

Our city is painful sometimes...were they so busy they could not fit this in and move along? Lets make them wait a month and then likely ask for more changes/recommendations

Politicians opted not to hear a presentation about changes York Developments hopes to make to a planned 30-storey tower at 131 King St. on Monday night, instead pushing a delegation request to the next planning committee meeting later this month

TallerIsBetter · #17 Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 9:47 PM**

From the FP:

When asked about the urgency of the pitch, Laverne Kirkness, a consultant representing the company, said his client “definitely wants to start digging that hole on King Street in March.”

That should have been signed, sealed, delivered as first order of business. With a offer from Council to give another 5 floors if you'd like. Maybe shadows are a problem for that portion of the core? </sarcasm>

jammer139 · #18 Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 10:19 PM**

Totally agree. The ineptitude of City departments and councilors brings tears to ones eyes.

TallerIsBetter · #19 Posted **Mar 2, 2019, 7:52 PM**

PDF for Feb. 19 meeting is up on City Meeting site. Says motion passed 4-0, which is good. I don't know the workings of the city well enough to get if that means its a done deal or it has to go to Council. Maybe someone can confirm.

Document shows new height to roof is 106.5m, which is right about 350 feet. So thats 40 feet more that TD South, and 15 feet more than 515 Richmond. So that will be the 2nd tallest in the city, of everything built or under construction.

Will be great if this gets going soon as the developer alluded to in the Free Press report from a month ago or so.

jammer139 · #20 Posted **Mar 4, 2019, 11:56 AM**

Interesting that this will be taller given 515 Richmond is going to be 32s. Must have some taller podium floors or penthouse level given 31s is shorter then 32s.