195 Dundas Street - 25s (Complete) | 35s, 32s (Approved) - Page 2

MrSlippery519 · #21 Posted **May 17, 2016, 12:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The city should be careful here. Even if the developer is shady as all get out, he has plunked down some serious cash to start the development process. If the city delays the project to accommodate the transit hub, he could well ask for his money back and decide to kill the project, which would not be a good thing for the downtown core.

It strikes me as odd that the city would approve the project and then turn around and change the setback and other details for the sake of the transit hub. Sounds like a case of poor coordination on the part of planning officials, almost a classic 'right hand doesn't know what the left is doing' situation.

I tend to agree, which is also why I think there must be much more to the story than we are hearing. The developer should be happy there is a major transit hub near by as that means more people would be attracted to these new towers/restaurants/etc.

Certainly there is the argument of how much space is the city requesting and how much of an impact is that really to the developer? Hopefully the 2 sides can sit down and get this worked out, I do not see that happening until the rapid transit plan is finalized (and approved)

philcar1994 · #22 Posted **Sep 17, 2016, 2:20 AM**

Saw in the Free Press today, looks like this development has been shelved by the builder:

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/09/16/do...nt-are-stalled

ssiguy · #23 Posted **Sep 17, 2016, 4:57 AM**

I'm glad it was shelved. Too high density on such a small lot.

jammer139 · #24 Posted **Sep 17, 2016, 11:46 AM**

Sorry to see it was shelved due to City Hall and developer lack of planning and vision.

To address your comment on density. I don't agree. If anything the location is perfect for a development that is even higher density then what was proposed. It is centrally located in the core and a great location for even taller buildings. 40-60 story towers.

On the bright side it might now sit for another 10 years and the other projects will get built so the demand will be strong in the future. The worst thing would be to waste this land on some 8-20 story buildings. DENSITY is the key. There is only so many acres of land in the core and waste it on low density projects is a epic mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I'm glad it was shelved. Too high density on such a
small lot.

jaradthescot · #25 Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 6:32 PM**

Sad to read about 50 King St being stalled in that same article:

Quote:

50 King St.

$100 million, 30-storey, 200-unit residential highrise, with 4,500 square metres of commercial space, proposed by Middlesex County government. Project is headed to the OMB. Residents opposed in the nearby Renaissance Towers fear it will block their view of the Thames River. A pre-hearing set for Sept. 26.

Rosso Corsa · #26 Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcar1994

Saw in the Free Press today, looks like this development has been shelved by the builder:

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/09/16/do...nt-are-stalled

was a bitter sweet article

MrSlippery519 · #27 Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 12:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaradthescot

Sad to read about 50 King St being stalled in that same article:

I would imagine at the OMD hearing they will nicely tell the people in the Renaissance Towers to F off...honestly your bought a condo in London Ontario that is hardly "on the water" and is not tall by any means. Then complain about more people in the core because it may block a few units "view".

How do they think people in NYC feel near Central Park?

In regards to this site and the developer backing out, to be honest they must not have been very serious in the first place. If I were a developer and the city came to me suggesting they needed to work together on a plan as a they needed more space to integrate a rapid transit station I would be jumping at the opportunity to help incorporate that into the building design. You are talking about adding a major hub with thousands of people getting on and off daily right need your commercial and residential tower which was set to be the tallest in London. To me it doesn't sound like they were that serious.

GreatTallNorth2 · #28 Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 1:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I would imagine at the OMD hearing they will nicely tell the people in the Renaissance Towers to F off...honestly your bought a condo in London Ontario that is hardly "on the water" and is not tall by any means. Then complain about more people in the core because it may block a few units "view".

How do they think people in NYC feel near Central Park?

In regards to this site and the developer backing out, to be honest they must not have been very serious in the first place. If I were a developer and the city came to me suggesting they needed to work together on a plan as a they needed more space to integrate a rapid transit station I would be jumping at the opportunity to help incorporate that into the building design. You are talking about adding a major hub with thousands of people getting on and off daily right need your commercial and residential tower which was set to be the tallest in London. To me it doesn't sound like they were that serious.

Totally agree with all you said. I also never thought the developer was serious about building as well. Look at his so called plans compared to Rygar's plans. One looks like it was created in Sim City and the other looks like actual plans. Here's hoping that the block is developed at some point b/c the site is ripe for prime development.

MolsonExport · #29 Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 9:33 PM**

Imagine a city skyline composed of all the unbuilt projects proposed over the years for London.

kaiserLDN · #30 Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 4:47 PM**

Hope to see this project come alive again with an even taller building maybe incorporated into the future RT terminal!

kaiserLDN · #31 Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 3:09 AM**

This is what happened to this project.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/03/02/de...r-transit-plan

database · #32 Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 12:06 PM**

What an unfortunate lack of vision on Danforth's part.

If they were really serious about the development, they would realize that this property's proximity to the RT transfer point is an absolute gold mine. Surely there is a workaround or a redesign that can accommodate five...five!!!... metres. If I were the city, I'd be revoking his temporary surface parking permit ASAP.

Our problem here in London is our developers are all so boring.

Sad.

GreatTallNorth2 · #33 Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 2:10 PM**

Not the first time this guy has caused trouble. Imagine suing the city for that much money when he bought the lot for $8 million? I don't think he was ever serious about building the project and I don't think he has anywhere near the money to build a project the size he was proposing.

MrSlippery519 · #34 Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 6:12 PM**

Such a joke, I agree with the other comments that this person was never serious about building on this lot, not to that scale anyways.

This is a large piece of land which will be directly beside a major transit route, in what world would a developer not want to accommodate accordingly? This is literally prime land downtown...

kaiserLDN · #35 Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 8:50 PM**

I think there is 2 sides to this story. The city always drags there feet on everything and then nothing happens. London always has pissed business and developers off. Hopefully there will be a compromise and they give the developer a bonus to go 40+ stories IFFF the developer is serious enough about it. That being said... asking 53 million is outrageous and this developer should be happy there is 2 transit lines converging next to the property. Hopefully they are serious and comprises are made. Has this company built any other buildings in London?

jammer139 · #36 Posted **Jun 5, 2017, 10:47 AM**

So will they drop the law suit now? LFP speculates in this piece.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/06/04/br...m-legal-action

kaiserLDN · #37 Posted **Nov 8, 2017, 3:47 AM**

Looks like it’s back!

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/11/07/wi...own-tower-a-go

Djeffery · #38 Posted **Nov 8, 2017, 11:27 AM**

This part doesn't makse sense to me, unless it's a Free Press typo.

Quote:

Ayerswood will submit a site plan application to the city for a single, 25-storey tower with 137 units.

That is the first phase in what will be three towers, totalling 700 units, of 35-, 32- and 19-storeys and a four-storey office building on what’s now a parking lot at King and Clarence streets.

GreatTallNorth2 · #39 Posted **Nov 8, 2017, 12:44 PM**

Yeah there's definitely something wrong there. It must be the smallest tower they are starting with, but having said that I still don't know if these guys are real. The only tower of substance I have seen them build is one small tower in Byron. Hope I am proven wrong but being a Londoner automatically makes you a skeptic with all these wonderful proposals that come and go every year.

MrSlippery519 · #40 Posted **Nov 8, 2017, 3:08 PM**

Clearly a typo in the article but interesting news none the less, this development would be amazing for London.

Hopefully we get some clarification, seems strange they would start with building the 19 story building unless the intent was the build the 4 story building fronting Dundas at the same time?