435-451 Ridout Street North - 40s (Approved) - Page 4

ssiguy · #61 Posted **Aug 6, 2021, 6:47 PM**

I think the Conservancy has a very valid point.

I am writing from a city that has allowed development to take place at any cost. The city has lost so much of it's architectural heritage and history because the city allows almost anything to be torn down. This is not a model London should be following.

The City is to blame for this as the Conservancy rightly points out. The reason developers are having to destroy existing buildings to put up new ones is because , thru it's policies, it makes it cheaper for developers just to leave the lots vacant made worse by these laughable "extensions" for non-development.

That_Chris · #62 Posted **Aug 6, 2021, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

People getting all upset about a proposed Farhi 40 storey tower is a waste of time. He isn't building it.

I feel you, and Farhi is the worst, but this one does seem to be getting a lot more work on it than his other phantom proposals. The get approval then sell it to a developer route does not seem unlikely at this point.

TallerIsBetter · #63 Posted **Aug 7, 2021, 2:07 AM**

Ssiguy, I believe this proposal does not destroy the buildings, only builds the tower behind them.

Djeffery · #64 Posted **Aug 7, 2021, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Ssiguy, I believe this proposal does not destroy the buildings, only builds the tower behind them.

Yep, and all the renderings clearly show those 3 buildings still there.

ssiguy · #65 Posted **Aug 9, 2021, 5:24 AM**

I do know that but with a condo hovering above it, much of the historic representation of the buildings will be lost.

That_Chris · #66 Posted **Aug 9, 2021, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I do know that but with a condo hovering above it, much of the historic representation of the buildings will be lost.

Perhaps, but that seems like such a subjective consideration though. I'd say the buildings sitting empty rotting is far more damaging to their historic representation, and this development would benefit that representation in a way nothing else could.

haljackey · #67 Posted **Sep 23, 2021, 1:39 PM**

I'll just leave this here...

'The river is running high and fast. It has flooded the parking lot in Harris Park (where council approved an apartment building be built). Be safe today. #ldnont'

https://twitter.com/meggiewalk/statu...09057649807363

jammer139 · #68 Posted **Dec 22, 2021, 4:24 PM**

10.5 years of planning he says.

https://londonincmagazine.ca/2021/12...ound-terminal/

K85 · #69 Posted **Dec 23, 2021, 3:44 AM**

I too like to lie openly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

10.5 years of planning he says.

https://londonincmagazine.ca/2021/12...ound-terminal/

jammer139 · #70 Posted **Jun 25, 2022, 11:15 AM**

Heritage group drops OLT appeal to the Landlords proposal. They hope to go thru the cities site plan approval which they expect to take another year and get started.

LFP article - https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...downtown-tower

jammer139 · #71 Posted **Jul 9, 2022, 4:47 PM**

The Landlord is proposing a 28s $60M tower on Riverside on the downtown Windsor waterfront. What could this mean for his 40s proposal on Ridout?

Windsor Star link - https://windsorstar.com/news/local-n...partment-tower

Spoofy · #72 Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 2:30 AM**

.

jammer139 · #73 Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 10:55 AM**

What changes??? We haven't seen any business model changes from the landlord in the last 25 years. He has applied for zoning changes and hyped new building proposals many times in the past and built nothing. Case in point the zoning change for the old Central Library on Queens which was to have a 30s tower coming out of the middle. He had renders drawn and got the zoning and then has done nothing in the past 25 years since.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoofy

I wonder if these recent changes in Farhi's approach to his land holdings are indicative of either a change in his outlook as he approaches the end of his life/a shift in who is making the decisions as he passes the business down to his son.

Oh to be a fly on the wall at 620 Richmond St..

jammer139 · #74 Posted **Jan 11, 2023, 3:35 PM**

Apparently the 12s IN8 proposal for the 200 Albert St parking lot is interesting given that the Landlord owns the lot. Did not hear that the parking lot was sold to IN8 for this 12s apartment building proposal. Maybe IN8 did purchase it? Or could IN8 be partnering with the Landlord? If so might IN8 take the lead and build the 40s proposal here at Ridout?

jammer139 · #75 Posted **Jan 8, 2024, 2:06 PM**

Well 2023 came and went and we heard nothing but crickets from the Landlord on this 40s proposal.

MolsonExport · #76 Posted **Jan 8, 2024, 3:45 PM**

40s stands for 40 (parking) spots. It is Farhi. He never builds or invests, only holds and/or tears down.

jammer139 · #77 Posted **Jan 12, 2024, 5:44 PM**

I noticed that the city zoning application sign was removed from the Ridout St side for the 40s proposal. Still has the Landlord for Lease signage up thou.

jammer139 · #78 Posted **Jan 22, 2024, 5:58 PM**

It's pretty telling that the "Landlords" website has no mention of this proposal on their upcoming future projects page.

https://developments.farhi.ca/#future

Djeffery · #79 Posted **Jan 23, 2024, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

It's pretty telling that the "Landlords" website has no mention of this proposal on their upcoming future projects page.

https://developments.farhi.ca/#future

It has the Woodstock project across from my house that only was proposed last fall. And also the Colonel Talbot project has the NW description on it lol.