505 Talbot Street / 30s / 315 ft / U/C - Page 3

GreatTallNorth2 · #41 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 4:27 PM**

At the same time, it's easy to say London has other empty lots to build on, but if those lots aren't for sale or one of Farhi's, then developers cannot build. You can't say "Right project, wrong site" if those sites are not for sale.

bolognium · #42 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 4:31 PM**

That's where the city needs to step in. If there's real interest and developers are looking to build downtown, council needs to stop renewing permits for surface lots. That would have owners selling quickly.

Knocking down century old homes because some stubborn surface lot owners won't sell definitely isn't the answer.

K85 · #43 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 4:38 PM**

Wasn't calling you a nimby, was calling the people who live there or near there that are advocating against this. It's like McCormicks. The area itself is in need of a huge improvement. Now that a company has made a substantial effort in changing it with plans, and everything associated with it (not yet started), there are people complaining that it doesn't fit "their neighbourhood". Some people live here a few years, other 20+. From what I've gathered, people who have lived here a long time want the change.

In respects from that to this development, I think people really need to do just what you said they can't - "preemptively designating every friggin' building before the developers get to them". If something matters that much, do what you can to save it or prolong its life. I'm not saying every building, but those that really do matter.

I'm still pissed off about that asshole farhi wrecking that building on Queens (if I remember right, there was actual historical significance to it (can't remember the specifics)), but then NOT building anything he had said he would. That's what needs to stop. If you plan it, destroy something to do it, then you should be legally required to build it, or face large fines. If these guys have that plan in place, wreck those three buildings, and build it, fine. If they wreck em, and leave nothing there, then I'll be the first to call myself an idiot, and happily send some emails and make phone calls to select people.

bolognium · #44 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 5:10 PM**

That NIMBY comment was more me just getting defensive. Maybe shell-shock from past LFPress comment discussions (and a bit of a followup to Pimp's comment).

I feel you on McCormicks. Something drastic needs to happen there, and now isn't the time for people to be complaining about losing some greenspace. I can see where they're coming from (the neighbourhood will be unrecognizable once it's done), but the benefits to all of Old East Village will be immense.

That's how I feel about the Tricar project. I know the tower will be better for all of downtown, but I'm still happy to see people bringing attention to heritage homes. We need developers to know that they can't demolish whatever they want without a bit of a fight. And I don't think designating everything beforehand is realistic. Designations also make it difficult on the owners in regards to maintaining/renovating their buildings (which might not be ideal for this neighbourhood). These houses may not be significant in a true historical sense, but together they create an urban fabric that is significant. People have a hard time seeing that.

And don't get me started on Farhi's Queens Ave house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was connected to a murder? I watched it get demolished from my apartment:

flar · #45 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 5:14 PM**

I actually included all three houses in question in my Talbot neighbourhood photo thread.
I even gave 505 a caption, which I rarely do.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164891

And Tricar is good for nothing but ugly commie blocks. The Renaissance is a blight on my former neighbourhood (I lived in London for 6 years)

It's ridiculous that London will tear down a perfectly preserved 1880s Italianate mansion, which is a prime example of London's unique white brick Victorian architecture.

bolognium · #46 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 5:22 PM**

Beautiful tour, flar. You captured another house that was recently demolished (literally on the same block as Tricar's proposal). This is a great example of what I was saying earlier, about how Talbot is being eroded house by house. People don't notice when one yellow brick mansion bites the dust, and now we're allowing three more to be leveled.

The house on the left was demolished for the expansion of the neighbouring church:

Credit: flar

MolsonExport · #47 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 5:30 PM**

Please not another Farhi commie-block or parking lot. Please.

I have had it up to Herehi with Farhi.

MrSlippery519 · #48 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 7:38 PM**

Farhi wrecking the building on Queens will forever be a piss off, especially with nothing to show for it. I do agree this city needs to find a way to make developers accountable, especially when an older building being torn down comes into play.

I am still torn on this, happy to see a decent looking tower be approved and with Tricar's track record in London I think we will see shovels in the ground sooner than later with the design ending up damn close to what we have seen.

I still hope Rygar's development can somehow incorporate the old buildings into the design.

MolsonExport · #49 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 7:40 PM**

Tricar means three autos, could it be another nefarious parking lot?

flar · #50 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Tricar means three autos, could it be another nefarious parking lot?

I'm guessing this will get built, after all, Tricar are sw Ontario's leaders in commie block development.

Their portfolio speaks for itself:
http://www.tricar.com/rentals

Pimpmasterdac · #51 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 8:49 PM**

@bolognium, not calling you a NIMBY, I've read your comments and you certainly are looking at the development from a rational basis, than an emotional (NIMBY) one in balancing the competing interests.

It was the comments that are in the city report on the development. Some near residents/neighbours of the development are of course opposed to it for the usual NIMBY crap; "Their view" will be obstructed, the increase supply new of condos will devalue theirs, they assumed the homes would remain for time-immemorial. IMO they realized that those opinions hold zero sway to stopping the development, so they piggy back on the heritage issue in hoping to stop or delay the development with that argument.

This is a London wide issue though. Nearly every proposed development to in-fill the core seems be getting detractors for some, marginal at best, NIMBY arguments. Wellington & Wolf development because their backyards will be seen into, Clarence & King the design is weird/awkward, Middlesex Health building redevelopment, people from the Renaissance towers assuming they "own" their view to the river wanting to veto it. I'm sure the mentioned Rygar development will face similar arguments.

London needs investment in its core, and if developers are willing to invest $100s of millions to get it out of mediocrity why stand in the way!? Heritage and history is important, but should not trump future development and prosperity. Talbot Block a perfect example, while it was historically significant, and was the heart of old London, its redevelopment into Bud Gardens helped transform the area and give it economic growth much more than the old block could've done.

On top of that, if RT & High Speed Rail come to the core in the next 10 years it will make the core a more desirable place to live, get more economic growth than can be imagined now!

haljackey · #52 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 9:35 PM**

I'm a little torn, but I think this was a win in the name of progress.

London needs density. This will certainly add to it. I'll miss the Black Shire though, some good times there.

flar · #53 Posted **Aug 25, 2015, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

@bolognium, not calling you a NIMBY, I've read your comments and you certainly are looking at the development from a rational basis, than an emotional (NIMBY) one in balancing the competing interests.

It was the comments that are in the city report on the development. Some near residents/neighbours of the development are of course opposed to it for the usual NIMBY crap; "Their view" will be obstructed, the increase supply new of condos will devalue theirs, they assumed the homes would remain for time-immemorial. IMO they realized that those opinions hold zero sway to stopping the development, so they piggy back on the heritage issue in hoping to stop or delay the development with that argument.

This is a London wide issue though. Nearly every proposed development to in-fill the core seems be getting detractors for some, marginal at best, NIMBY arguments. Wellington & Wolf development because their backyards will be seen into, Clarence & King the design is weird/awkward, Middlesex Health building redevelopment, people from the Renaissance towers assuming they "own" their view to the river wanting to veto it. I'm sure the mentioned Rygar development will face similar arguments.

London needs investment in its core, and if developers are willing to invest $100s of millions to get it out of mediocrity why stand in the way!? Heritage and history is important, but should not trump future development and prosperity. Talbot Block a perfect example, while it was historically significant, and was the heart of old London, its redevelopment into Bud Gardens helped transform the area and give it economic growth much more than the old block could've done.

On top of that, if RT & High Speed Rail come to the core in the next 10 years it will make the core a more desirable place to live, get more economic growth than can be imagined now!

You probably don't remember the full Talbot Block from way back. It was probably the biggest mistake London ever made. It was supposed to be a mega mall, but the Galleria beat them to the punch. The arena was only built about 20 years after the block was razed, it sat as ruins/parking lot for all that time (while the Galleria was built and failed during that same period)

GreatTallNorth2 · #54 Posted **Aug 26, 2015, 1:01 PM**

Sorry, but regardless of what Tricar has built in the past, I don't think anyone would call this building a commie block tower. And it's supposed to have design enhancements even further.

MolsonExport · #55 Posted **Aug 26, 2015, 1:05 PM**

^Hopefully it will turn out like the render and that tricar will not pull a Harriston on us.

bolognium · #56 Posted **Sep 3, 2015, 1:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

At the same time, it's easy to say London has other empty lots to build on, but if those lots aren't for sale or one of Farhi's, then developers cannot build. You can't say "Right project, wrong site" if those sites are not for sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolognium

That's where the city needs to step in. If there's real interest and developers are looking to build downtown, council needs to stop renewing permits for surface lots. That would have owners selling quickly.

Knocking down century old homes because some stubborn surface lot owners won't sell definitely isn't the answer.

Damn, this is a relevant article:

Coun. Tanya Park targets core parking lots in London

HillStreetBlues · #57 Posted **Sep 3, 2015, 9:51 PM**

I hate the tone the London Free Press takes with issues like this. The opening line is "An unexpected battleground looms in city council’s push to spur more highrise development in downtown London: parking lots." What's unexpected?

London will see how progressive its new council is with votes like this. I hope they will vote correctly, but I can understand the pressure suburban councillors (which they pretty much all are) would be under when the issue is "parking" for their constituents. Most Londoners I know who work downtown and do pretty much nothing else there require little prompting to complain about how bad the parking situation is in downtown London. Reality doesn't factor into this opinion. Many will view revoking parking lot permits very negatively.

K85 · #58 Posted **Sep 4, 2015, 1:11 AM**

Over the past two weeks, I've grown a huge hate for the lfp... Their stories lately have been very poorly researched, adhoc, and just childish... Quoting Reddit users as fact, trying to lure readers with horrible titles...

AM980 is my new go-to due to the nonsense at the freep...

Rosso Corsa · #59 Posted **Sep 4, 2015, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolognium

Please don't call me a NIMBY for appreciating heritage.

I see both sides as well. There are many empty lots for these proposed developments, so I'm not sure why the yellow brick heritage buildings are being selected over the empty parking lots. Furthermore, heritage homes are in limited supply with such proximity to the core. They would indeed make good future restaurants to add character in the west end of the core.

On the flip side, have you seen the interiors of those yellow brick buildings? They are offices, and appear to have been renovated in the 80s. Their only heritage quality is their exterior. The insides have been carved up. If their historical value was kept inside, the heritage argument would carry more weight. Haven't been in the iConnect building, so can't speak for it.

At this point I think downtown development trumps a block of heritage home offices. London really needs a push in downtown development to get it going. I'm sure a compromise could be made in the design of the tower to incorporate the yellow brick heritage style as did the JLC. Yellow bricks are unique to London so I agree this heritage should be preserved when possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by K85

I'm still pissed off about that asshole farhi wrecking that building on Queens (if I remember right, there was actual historical significance to it (can't remember the specifics)), but then NOT building anything he had said he would. That's what needs to stop. If you plan it, destroy something to do it, then you should be legally required to build it, or face large fines. If these guys have that plan in place, wreck those three buildings, and build it, fine. If they wreck em, and leave nothing there, then I'll be the first to call myself an idiot, and happily send some emails and make phone calls to select people.

Don't get me started on the old library (empty) and Wright Lithographing building (empty, vandalized) - both on the same block across from the heart of our business district.

GreatTallNorth2 · #60 Posted **Sep 4, 2015, 8:52 PM**

From Matt Brown's weekly email (regarding the changes to 505 Talbot)

Council approved the demolition of three 19th century buildings located at 505, 507 and 511 Talbot St. to allow construction of a 29 storey, 199 unit residential building with conditions that include: a podium design sensitive to the heritage designated church located to the north; using salvaged and reclaimed architectural artifacts and building materials from the existing buildings on the site; use of brick and clear glazing materials; floor-to-ceiling window walls on the podium; projecting canopies; frosted glass windows on the upper levels to allow for nighttime lighting; a visually interesting building cap that will contribute positively to the Downtown London skyline; and public art with a value up to $250,000