195 Dundas Street - 35s, 32s, 19s (Under Construction) - Page 3

jammer139 · #41 Posted **Nov 10, 2017, 11:43 PM**

Maybe not a typo at all.

Original project was for 35s, 32s and 19s towers. Maybe Ayerswood has downsized the project to 25s.

Would be a sad if true.

jammer139 · #42 Posted **Dec 21, 2017, 9:21 PM**

Zoning change request posted.

http://www.london.ca/business/Planni...-17-Notice.pdf

Danforth is the owner. Wonder if this is different then Ayerswood Dev?

Djeffery · #43 Posted **Dec 21, 2017, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

Zoning change request posted.

http://www.london.ca/business/Planni...-17-Notice.pdf

Danforth is the owner. Wonder if this is different then Ayerswood Dev?

Yes Danforth is one of Tony Graat's company names.

jammer139 · #44 Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 12:34 PM**

Looks like progress on this 3 tower project is happening.

The north tower is going to be 25s rather then 19s now it seems.

http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/19/do...ts-green-light

ssiguy · #45 Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 8:51 PM**

Not too big a fan of 3 towers so close together but still very good news for the Core.

Question.........The old London Mews had underground parking, was that parking {now the parking lot to be filled thank god} filled in or simply covered over with concrete leaving the underground portion intact? If it's the latter this would make building the towers much easier and cheaper as the parking foundation is already there.

It's great to see the tower will be set back bringing the idea of a "flex street" to Dundas even more appealing.

jammer139 · #46 Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 11:34 PM**

The Mews parking was filled and paved over.

Irregardless; towers of the proposed size would require all new foundations and support piles driven below the lowest level of new underground parking that i would expect these 3 towers to have.

At least 3 levels of underground parking will likely be needed.

MolsonExport · #47 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 1:48 AM**

cool...i look forward to seeing this one rise, and replace the awfulness that is the current former London Mews site.

ldoto · #48 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 3:58 AM**

The new towers will look great in that location!!!!! For London’s skyline!!!

Djeffery · #49 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 4:07 AM**

The drawing in that Free Press article is showing the buildings on the south side of the property along King at Clarence. The building being built first according to the article is the one not shown in the drawing. I wonder how that is going to look, considering 195 Dundas is a very narrow property. It's not even wide enough for 2 cars to park lengthwise across it currently. Part of that gap between the 2 buildings on Dundas includes a driveway accessing the parking lot behind 183 to 189 Dundas, which I'm guessing isn't owned by Ayerswood or they wouldn't have it separated from the main parking lot this whole development is going on. The 100 foot setback is basically the empty space between 189 and 199 Dundas that would be too narrow to build on anyway, and the rectangle behind 185-189 Dundas along with the back part of 195 seems like a very small space for a 25 storey building. Will be interesting to see how that goes.

TallerIsBetter · #50 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammer139

Looks like progress on this 3 tower project is happening.

The north tower is going to be 25s rather then 19s now it seems.

http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/19/do...ts-green-light

This looks very interesting. Note on the PDF how small the footprint of the building is (which is square, I prefer square as opposed to long and rectangular for residential), and how it leaves the rest of the parcel to the south as one big rectangle.

Lots of potential there. Just speculation on my part, but I wonder if the whole plan is being redesigned. It could integrate the transit terminal. It might also incorporate a grocery store - I heard some suggestion of that on the radio yesterday (again just speculation but would be a good spot for it).

I am also intrigued by the height increase to 25 floors. Could that be some kind of bonusing to make up for the project being derailed and part of dropping the legal action? If so, could that also be the case with the other two towers. I'd like to see them become a 50 and a 40 storey pair of offset square/rounded towers!

Because Taller is Better!

Oliverfox · #51 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I am also intrequed by the height increase to 25 floors. Could that be some kind of bonusing to make up for the project being derailed and part of dropping the legal action? If so, could that also be the case with the other two towers. I'd like to see them become a 50 and a 40 storey pair of offset square/rounded towers!

Because Taller is Better!

I'm not sure if developers are even allowed to build that tall in London, I believe the city capped highrise height somewhere between 30 and 40 floors.

TallerIsBetter · #52 Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverfox

I'm not sure if developers are even allowed to build that tall in London, I believe the city capped highrise height somewhere between 30 and 40 floors.

There is a parcel on the Bud Gardens block that is currently zoned to 150m. If there is some cap that runs completely against the whole inward/upward notion (though going above 150m would likely look out of place). I think every proposal/location should be considered on its own merits rather than some central-planning hard cap.

If any block can go that high and not impact other stuff its this one. Taller is Better!

MolsonExport · #53 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 2:25 AM**

What is the point of a highrise height limit in London? I mean, what vistas are we seeking to protect? Very tall buildings are unlikely to come in any event, but why ban something that isn't a threat and even if it were to come to pass...what exactly is the downside?

I am not talking about a 50 storey building casting a huge shadow on some low rises....nor am I saying that there shouldn't be any height restrictions in any places....but a blanket ban is just plain stupid, err...Londonesque (i.e., always aiming for mediocrity and not quite making it).

K85 · #54 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 3:08 AM**

iirc, it was the soil or something like that that prevents higher buildings. I think OLP is even nearing the limit for where it was built

MrSlippery519 · #55 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by K85

iirc, it was the soil or something like that that prevents higher buildings. I think OLP is even nearing the limit for where it was built

I remember reading something about that years ago, I however do not believe that to be accurate. With today's technologies I doubt the ground is much of a limitation as there are ways around that.

I would love to one day see a 150m tower in London, I really do not think its far off.

K85 · #56 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 3:58 PM**

Assuming that could happen (man would I ever love that, even though OLP is pretty nice looking to me), what would be the best spot for a 150?

bolognium · #57 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 5:45 PM**

I've also heard that OLP utilized a special foundation to reach the height it did. Something along the lines of it floating in the sandy soil, versus being actually anchored to bedrock for example.

I'm sure with technology any height is possible, but the land value would need to be high enough to justify the extra building costs.

kaiserLDN · #58 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 5:45 PM**

I know there was an article a few years ago saying developers like parking garages only 2 stories below because of something with the water table. Any lower they have to spend more money on the garages. Rygar is going lower than 2 garage floors ( if its is built ). I didn't read anything about height limits because of soil conditions. A lot of the buildings have there foundations super deep almost as tall as the building with piles driven into the earth. The article regarding this ^^^ was in an article talking about Rygars development a few years back.

If there is an article about the soil preventing height that would be an interesting read if anyone can find that. I agree with taking the cap off height.

MolsonExport · #59 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 6:28 PM**

London is underpinned by clay (From the days when a vast lake covered this part of the world). makes for basement problems, hence the absolute need for sump pumps.

K85 · #60 Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 8:02 PM**

just spent a half hour trying to find where I read that at and I'm not having much luck. sorry if the information is wrong, just remember getting into the discussion with someone about tower heights a few years ago, and reading that there was a cap (not sure specifically if it's the height + pilings, or just height)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiserLDN

If there is an article about the soil preventing height that would be an interesting read if anyone can find that. I agree with taking the cap off height.