HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2461  
Old Posted May 10, 2015, 10:41 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 699
Good the building is being re-purposed. Harmony Buffet went downhill very quickly, and building was looking rough after going through other shitty tenants. I recall parking by there a year or so, and seeing the front doors and windows kicked in on the building.

Nice rendering for the building, hope it ends up looking like that. However the area has always been run down, they forgot to render all the cabbies and bums in the marketing material if is has the same demographics..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2462  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 1:12 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,179
Interesting...didn't think this would happen even with the smaller stores. Will be interesting to see how it is set up. Official announcement coming at 10am so should get some more information.

http://www.am980.ca/2015/05/13/ikea-to-open-store-in-london/

They are already doing work on the old Angelo's location as of last week, so chances are unless they are expanding it this will open up fairly quick.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2463  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 2:35 AM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,747
A couple of items of interest for the upcoming Urban Design Peer Review Panel meeting on May 20th. The agenda is now on the city of London website and Tricar is proposing a new residential building (I'm assuming it's a tower) at 505 Talbot Street. Zelinka Priamo, who typically represents developers, has a residential proposal for 356 Dundas. Not sure if this is a tower, but one would think so.

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...-Design/2015-05-20/Agenda-2015-05-20.pdf

London - the city of endless proposals, but never any cranes in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2464  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:14 PM
Rosso Corsa Rosso Corsa is offline
Downtown
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 102
You wonder why GreatTallNorth? Take a look at this - from the 560/562 Wellington recommendation:

"City hall is a landmark building and should be prominent given its function and symbolic meaning. The proposed building would be almost twice as high as City Hall and rise above Victoria Park as an exclusive, architectural landmark. For one the proposed architecture does not merit that distinction and secondly, where tall buildings do address a large city park or open space, it is in conjunction with buildings of a similar scale and height and even design in some cases."

Apparently we're stuck in the stone ages - no growth above 12 stories. Wouldn't want to overshadow fantastic city hall!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2465  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:24 PM
HillStreetBlues HillStreetBlues is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: KW/Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 995
Can you link to that recommendation? Although I might not agree with that assessment (certainly not about "overshadowing" City Hall- I have no problem with that, given what our City Hall is), I'm pleased they're carefully considering how buildings will interact with the park. Wellington adjacent to the park probably is not an appropriate place for a very tall building- though a podium might make it perfectly fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2466  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:37 PM
Rosso Corsa Rosso Corsa is offline
Downtown
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues View Post
Can you link to that recommendation? Although I might not agree with that assessment (certainly not about "overshadowing" City Hall- I have no problem with that, given what our City Hall is), I'm pleased they're carefully considering how buildings will interact with the park. Wellington adjacent to the park probably is not an appropriate place for a very tall building- though a podium might make it perfectly fine.
https://www.london.ca/business/Planning-...18-UDPRP-Memo-560-562-Wellington-fnl.pdf

Perhaps their job is to be critical, but seems the panel is focused on reasons against construction. What about the potential architectural and design benefits? A chance to break free from the concrete skyline, introducing modern design elements into the city, etc. On a separate note, don't get me started on the economic benefits it will bring to downtown ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2467  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 2:29 PM
HillStreetBlues HillStreetBlues is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: KW/Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 995
You’re right, they provide little positive feedback and no recommendations to change the proposal. For instance, how “pointy” do they require the point tower to be to satisfy them as to shading (no shading analysis was done, I see, but they could still make a suggestion)? How could the first floor be reconfigured to better interact with the street? Oh, and if they have a problem with 100% lot coverage (which shouldn’t be an issue downtown), they should propose a compromise. Maybe in lieu of landscaping on the lot, they could make a payment to the municipality to install some amenity in the park- the one right next door.

It’s a podium, which is good. Maybe the tower needs to be narrower, who knows. The proposal is to take down a five-storey building and replace it with a four-storey podium, so I find their argument that the podium is not in keeping with the height of its neighbours to be questionable. On balance, I agree with you: it feels a little like they think it’s their job to find faults with the proposal.

Oh, and thanks for the link!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2468  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 3:17 PM
Rosso Corsa Rosso Corsa is offline
Downtown
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues View Post
Maybe the tower needs to be narrower
Likely. The recommendation says proposed density is 144% greater than the permitted density, so I imagine narrower is the answer. Anyone know who makes and sets the density limits? Let's hope its not the same council making these recommendations....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues View Post
Oh, and thanks for the link!
No problem - curious to see the outcome of the recommendations for 505 Talbot, 50 King St, and others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2469  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 7:21 PM
K85's Avatar
K85 K85 is offline
Sanity merchant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 550
VIA Rail to make London its southwest railway hub

Not sure if this has been posted here yet. But, speaking with a friend who now works with VIA, he told me about this. He mentioned that there are substantial things that may happen in respects to VIA coming to London (Depot, repair facilities, etc)


----------


http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/news-...o-make-london-its-southwest-railway-hub/


While the City of London has made it clear the VIA Rail station will be a focal point of downtown revitalization, it seems the rail company is also viewing London as the key to its own renaissance in southwestern Ontario.

Transportation cuts make... We're waiting, Via Rail

Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, VIA Rail Canada president and CEO, was in the Forest City on April 28 to speak with members of the London Chamber of Commerce. The discussion was two-fold, the need for dedicated lines throughout the southwest area, as well as the addition of two new train frequencies on existing lines between London and Toronto.

“We really want to make London a hub from an operations point of view to service southwestern Ontario,” Desjardins-Siciliano said. “Ridership is going down, partially because we are having reliability issues around running on time due to increased congestion on the rails from more and longer freight trains, but also more regional trains in and out from metropolitan areas, Toronto and Montreal.”

With the existing lines facing new freight trains, as well as new regional trains from GO (in Toronto) and AMT (in Montreal), together with proposed new VIA Rail frequencies, congestion is impacting the carrier’s on-time performance.

Desjardins-Siciliano said that has to be addressed as a way to bring back ridership. The best way to do that, he added, is dedicated track.

“We are trying to promote, we are looking at, seeking private investment to build a dedicated passenger corridor between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal for a first phase,” he said. “Then at a later phase expanding it east to Quebec City and west to London.”

Desjardins-Siciliano acknowledged VIA Rail has to factor in what the provincial government will do. The province has announced its own high-speed rail plans from Toronto to London and now to Windsor.

With that in mind, Desjardins-Siciliano said VIA Rail needs to co-ordinate its effort to avoid duplication of activities and funding as “ultimately we all serve the same master, the taxpayer.”

He said, in the train business, everything takes a long time. Equipment takes long to obtain and construction can only be done during the summer seasons.

With that in mind, a dedicated track corridor between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal would be at least four to seven years away.

In the meantime, however, there are still things he said VIA Rail can do. In particular, offer additional trains between Toronto and London, two frequencies in each direction.

The goal, he said, is to launch the added trains no later than January 2016, but hopefully as early as the fall.

“The holy grail of the travel business is frequency. That is why some of the frequencies we are introducing now are allowing people to come to London from Toronto, have a complete business day in London, and vice versa,” Desjardins-Siciliano said. “Someone can leave London around 6:10 a.m., have a full business day, then come back either midday around 1:30 or end of day, 4:30 or 5:40, so they have an option. The idea over time would be to add other times, even a late train, so you could catch a show in Toronto and get back in at a decent time.”

The Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal corridor would likely happen incrementally, starting in 2017 with completion by 2022.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2470  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2015, 8:12 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,158
Anybody know what they are building on Hyde Park Rd just north of Lowe's? A crane went up last week.

Edit: Think I found it: http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...01-Hyde-Park-Road-Urban-Design-Brief.pdf
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2471  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2015, 1:36 AM
Snark Snark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Anybody know what they are building on Hyde Park Rd just north of Lowe's? A crane went up last week.

Edit: Think I found it: http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...01-Hyde-Park-Road-Urban-Design-Brief.pdf
I miss the drive in theatre that used to be there. Good times, but in a different time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2472  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2015, 8:27 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Anybody know what they are building on Hyde Park Rd just north of Lowe's? A crane went up last week.

Edit: Think I found it: http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-D...01-Hyde-Park-Road-Urban-Design-Brief.pdf
Saw the crane last weekend as well, that must be it. Looks identical to the ones going up on Southdale/Col Talbot, which is not a bad thing as they look decent.
That said since the plan is calling for 3 towers, would be nice to see some varied height and designs to mix it up a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2473  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2015, 1:16 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,158
Interesting how much densification is occurring on the periphery; in big box barf land. I am not opposed per se, but I would rather see (yet) more infill in the developed areas, particularly downtown and old East.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2474  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2015, 1:58 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,912
I know there have been all kinds of talk about new buildings downtown/inner city but is anything actually under construction as we speak or is it just wishful thinking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2475  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2015, 1:06 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,158
wishful thinking and proposals only.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2476  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2015, 12:34 PM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,747
Eventually one of these proposals has to get built. To add to the pile, the LFP said that Southside wants to build a "massive high-rise" at 183 King Street.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/06/15/city-staff-oppose-demolition-bid

So here are the developments in some sort of planning for downtown...

1) Tricar (Talbot & Dufferin)
2) Middlesex County (50 King)
3) Southside (183 King)
4) Ayerswood (King & Clarence, 2 towers)
5) Auburn (560 Wellington across from Vic Park)
6) Rygar (Fullerton)
7) Creative Properties (SOHO/Roundhouse?)

I wouldn't hold my breath for all of them to be build. We might see 2 or 3 of them built depending on market conditions, but even if that is the case, 2 or 3 30 storey towers would have a big impact downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2477  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2015, 2:11 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,912
It strikes me as odd as so many cities seems to be building a lot of mid-rise {ie 5 to 10 stories} buildings in their core but London doesn't. He seems to get nothing and then a massive building or complex will be built such as Renaissance. It's too bad as I prefer more mid-rise buildings than a couple tall ones and fills in the gaps in the downtown and makes for more continuity.

I wonder why downtown London seems to be developing in such a manner?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2478  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2015, 1:31 AM
Rosso Corsa Rosso Corsa is offline
Downtown
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Eventually one of these proposals has to get built. To add to the pile, the LFP said that Southside wants to build a "massive high-rise" at 183 King Street.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/06/15/city-staff-oppose-demolition-bid
Based on that article and many others, I've developed a theme for London's city (mis)planning and council in a nutshell:

1) Express a strong need for downtown infill and development, London plan, etc.

2) Rebut, reject or challenge any and all potential developments downtown that would aid in meeting objective 1.

Seems logical, right? Someone tell me how to get elected to city council so I can lead this city in the right direction (21st century)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2479  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2015, 1:35 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Corsa View Post
Based on that article and many others, I've developed a theme for London's city (mis)planning and council in a nutshell:

1) Express a strong need for downtown infill and development, London plan, etc.

2) Rebut, reject or challenge any and all potential developments downtown that would aid in meeting objective 1.

Seems logical, right? Someone tell me how to get elected to city council so I can lead this city in the right direction (21st century)
It depends on the situation, when there is a heritage building in play I completely support needing to do everything to keep those buildings and or at least find a way to maintain the skin as part of a new facade.

That said I do agree with you as many cases we have seen you are left wondering why. The towers on Wellington downtown for example, would be surprised if those end up getting built as the city seemingly has a problem with every little detail. They just do not seem very accommodating while like you said touting how we need more people downtown, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2480  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 2:39 AM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,747
3 Towers for former London Mews lot...35, 32 & 19 storeys. New tallest residential for downtown.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/06/28/a-resi...nned-for-the-former-smugglers-alley-site
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Projects & Construction Updates
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.