HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2010, 12:45 AM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 310
Yes, a low-rise office building connecting the two towers...I think. Anyone know for sure?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2010, 8:35 PM
sparky212's Avatar
sparky212 sparky212 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London Ont.
Posts: 502
now 95% sold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2010, 9:17 PM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 310
*95% rented.

It will be interesting to see what it takes to attract a developer willing to risk a condo tower in downtown London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2010, 2:14 PM
biggoalie biggoalie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: londoner living in the canadian rockies
Posts: 31
does anyone know what is going on with the middle building? the crane is down and it seems like no one has been working there for a few weeks now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2010, 1:23 AM
ldoto's Avatar
ldoto ldoto is offline
Londoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London,Ont
Posts: 1,321
Yes the crane is down?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2010, 11:00 PM
sparky212's Avatar
sparky212 sparky212 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London Ont.
Posts: 502
BIG GOOD NEWSThey have started digging the foundations for tower two of the Reniassance just drove by and all the ashfalt is gone and the site has 1 escavator
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2010, 11:38 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 3,197
Awesome news!

So I would assume it's "proposed" state here will have to be changed to U/C?

Not sure how that is done. Might have to contact someone who manages that section and maybe provide a source.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 12:58 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey View Post
Awesome news!

So I would assume it's "proposed" state here will have to be changed to U/C?

Not sure how that is done. Might have to contact someone who manages that section and maybe provide a source.
we need a London Mod.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 1:09 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
It is considered to be under construction when permanent structural components are being installed. Excavation doesn't count. (You can read our guidelines here.)

There are multiple editors based in Ontario. You can make a thread in the requests and corrections sub-forum or send a PM to an editor (Tony and WhipperSnapper are both based in Southern Ontario, I'm in the north but our editing abilities are universal so it doesn't matter who you send it to), preferably with a photo or news article when the actual construction starts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 4:24 AM
Kokkei Mizu's Avatar
Kokkei Mizu Kokkei Mizu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 447
I am very excited! A lot of big projects happening in downtown London recently
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 9:27 AM
bolognium's Avatar
bolognium bolognium is offline
bro
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London, ON
Posts: 507
Anyone else think having two Renissance towers is going to look stupid? Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see more people living downtown, but our city is already busting with concrete/stucco twin towers as it is.

Thankfully we have One London Place to draw the eye away from our dozens of ugly buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 2:42 PM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 310
^^^ Which is blocked from the west by that concrete block called the Harriston. The view of downtown from Mt. Pleasant Cemetery used to be one of my favorites, but now all I see is concrete and stucco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 3:31 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolognium View Post
Anyone else think having two Renissance towers is going to look stupid? Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see more people living downtown, but our city is already busting with concrete/stucco twin towers as it is.

Thankfully we have One London Place to draw the eye away from our dozens of ugly buildings.
I agree, but at least the Renissance's concrete is painted.

Looked at the Hilton recently? It's in dire need of a paint job, and the TD towers would look awesome with a colourful paint.

One London Place is by far the best looking building in the city. It's a shame phase two didn't happen, but the foundations are in place....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2010, 4:20 PM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,447
I totally agree that we have have way too many stucco towers in this city. Could they not change the design of the second Tricar tower to be a little taller and skinnier?

On another note, why is Drewlo continuing to build the same cookie cutter concrete towers on Wonderland at Oxford? Is there no on in City Hall to work with them to change the design?

The problem in this city is that not many politicians care about design - Anne Marie doesn't have a clue, Tom Gosnell and Van Mer Burgen are pro-ugly design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2010, 5:30 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Is there no on in City Hall to work with them to change the design?

The problem in this city is that not many politicians care about design - Anne Marie doesn't have a clue, Tom Gosnell and Van Mer Burgen are pro-ugly design.
So let's go on that concept a bit further: Let's say that you went to the bank and you got approved for a $240,000 mortgage your new dream house. It's going to be a 1,600 square foot backsplit. The reason that it's a backsplit is that you can only afford a 40 foot frontage lot, so the house will have to be narrow and tall. It will be clad in a little brick veneer in the front, but primarily vinyl siding on the rest of the house. The driveway will initially be gravel, with asphalt to come later. Landscaping will be pretty much grass and little else. This is a pretty typical house in terms of standards, but it will be designed for your personal uses in mind, and it will be YOURS.

So, you go into City Hall to get a building permit for your new project. The reviewer takes a look at the plans as you wait. You see him taking a red pencil to the drawings, scribbling notes. Eventually he looks up and speaks to you:

"I'm sorry sir, but your plans do not adhere to our urban design requirements for private developments. Your lot must have a minimum 60 foot frontage, in order to allow you to build a ranch-style bungalow, as this area of the city is designated for only single story homes. The City's urban design committee long ago determined that rear-heavy backsplit houses on lots narrower than 60 feet were unsightly and are not permitted in this area. As well, vinyl siding is strictly prohibited anywhere in the municipality. Approved exterior cladding materials include kiln-fired brick, glass, or natural stone - preferably granite. Asphalt shingles are not permitted - only cedar shakes, slate, or approved metal designs. Oh, and lastly, I don't see the landscaping plan in your drawing package. When will we be able to take a look at that, including the details on the paving stone that will make up your driveway? Please make the appropriate revisions to your design, and you will be welcome to resubmit your revised building plans, including your proposed landscape plans, at a later time for review and approval."

So, now your new house will indeed have to look much more attractive than the sort of houses typically built in most places in Ontario, and the entire neighborhood that you plan to build in does look stunning. Truly a showcase.

Unfortunately, you won't be a part of it though. It will now cost you $365,000 to build your house to the standard that will adhere to the municipal minimum design standards for private developments. If you want to continue with your dream, you will have to move to the next town up the road, where no such requirements exist. You start flipping through the Yellow Pages, looking for a good moving company....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2010, 5:53 PM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,447
Snark, is your real name Tom or Paul?

Your comparison is apples vs. oranges - you are comparing a suburban home and a downtown tower. Our downtown is something that reflects our city image much more than a suburban home. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a city full of concrete, stucco clad buildings. As our city evolves, we have to change the attitude of politicians and developers and people like you. If you are happy with London building designs, I honestly don't know why you would be on a forum that is for people that love beautiful architecture.

If small towns like Stratford, Bayfield, St. Jacobs, etc. as well as larger cities can have a say in developments, then so can we.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2010, 8:15 PM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 310
Actually, I'm afraid I have to agree with Snark that the city should not take control of the nuances of urban design.

In K-W, the city has little control over the architectural design of major developments and, yes, we do end up with stuccoed concrete boxes like London. Yet there are numerous attractive, high-quality projects proposed and under construction here.

The fact is that developers in London stick to what's cheap and safe. Just like most Londoners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2010, 9:09 PM
bolognium's Avatar
bolognium bolognium is offline
bro
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London, ON
Posts: 507
To most visitors and tourists the downtown represents and greatly influences the feels of the city as a whole. When you come off the of 401 and are driving down Hamilton or Wellington, what is the first thing you see? Our gross concrete skyline, that's what. While I do agree that the city should probably have little say in architectural and urban designs, you'd think there'd be some way they could at least steer developers in the right direction.

Oh well, cheers to the next concrete monolith
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 12:32 AM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 310
I think London will need a few more concrete monoliths in order to attract the kind of population downtown that will steer developers towards more expensive, attractive projects.

Having said that, the current Medallion building under construction on Dundas East seems rather attractive. There is also a large amount of old industrial building stock in central London that has huge potential to be recycled into attractive residential properties. Maybe attractive luxury housing in the core isn't too far off?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 2:29 AM
Snark Snark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Snark, is your real name Tom or Paul?

Your comparison is apples vs. oranges - you are comparing a suburban home and a downtown tower. Our downtown is something that reflects our city image much more than a suburban home. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a city full of concrete, stucco clad buildings. As our city evolves, we have to change the attitude of politicians and developers and people like you. If you are happy with London building designs, I honestly don't know why you would be on a forum that is for people that love beautiful architecture.

If small towns like Stratford, Bayfield, St. Jacobs, etc. as well as larger cities can have a say in developments, then so can we.
Jeez man - it's a metaphor. Not to be taken literally. Read between the lines. Try to understand that it's about economics, not art.

And, the mayor and board of control do not personally approve development applications or set urban design guidelines (and they are guidelines, not standards). Personalizing this is terribly ignorant of the actual process. Actually, it's unbelievably ignorant of the process.

Your claim that the other municipalities dictate the style and appearance of private developments is simply incorrect. The municipality may try to encourage or guide a development's style, but it cannot dictate except for very exceptional circumstances. Something about land owner's rights. Usually when the developer goes along with the suggestions of the municipality on the appearance of the development, it is because the developer believes that the style will enhance the value of his development. The municipality is not dictating how a development must look however.

I remember having this discussion here probably 3 or 5 years ago, explaining how economics dictate how things are developed in different parts of Ontario according to market conditions. The market conditions outside of the core of the GTA usually don't allow for the construction of the glass and steel "art towers" that folks want to see in other cities. I remember trying to explain this back then, and the response was a Homer Simpsonesque "well, ya, but I really like those art towers. London sucks! I blame the (insert name here)".

Learn the Planning Act. Learn how the OMB works. Learn the economics of private development.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.