London Back in the Day - Page 2

Simpseatles · #21 Posted **Feb 2, 2011, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by K85

Yep, ditto on when they blew down the old smoke stack at Parkwood.

Ya, I remember being at that one!

When was the CN building taken down, and why?

Kokkei Mizu · #22 Posted **Feb 3, 2011, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simpseatles

When was the CN building taken down, and why?

I don't know when, but VIA Rail wanted to build a new station. I don't think CN used any of the offices, like they once did, and the station on the main floor was showing its age.

go_leafs_go02 · #23 Posted **Feb 4, 2011, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokkei Mizu

I don't know when, but VIA Rail wanted to build a new station. I don't think CN used any of the offices, like they once did, and the station on the main floor was showing its age.

2001 I believe was when it was taken down.

Snark · #24 Posted **Feb 6, 2011, 1:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simpseatles

Ya, I remember being at that one!

When was the CN building taken down, and why?

Why? because CN had essentially abandoned it. This was part of the larger trend of large organizations not needing armies of staff at regional headquarters once high speed telecom and cheap computing became available. Prior to that time, national organizations needed large regional headquarters to operate that particular geographic region. Now, technology allows it all to be run out of the national head office (i.e. Toronto). Towns like London have been hit hard by this phenomenon. It now forces towns like London to fill those big gaps with home-grown businesses. It's a huge challenge, but you are starting to see successful responses to that.

manny_santos · #25 Posted **Feb 6, 2011, 2:08 AM**

As I recall when I last went in the old station in 1999, the VIA station was all that was left. The restaurant on the main floor was abandoned, and with the exception of some VIA operations on the second floor, the rest of the building above it and the basement were abandoned.

haljackey · #26 Posted **Feb 6, 2011, 3:29 AM**

According to the Skyscraperpage database:

CN Building

197 York Street, N6A 1B2
London ON Canada

Status: destroyed
Construction Dates
Finished: 1969
Destroyed: 2001
Floor Count: 10

bolognium · #27 Posted **Mar 20, 2011, 12:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

Were these pictures taken from Peter McGregor Tower at the west end of King? The two-story floorplans and outdoor walkways are like nothing I've ever seen before in London.

I might be moving in with my brother at the start of next month. Can't wait to see what the view from the balcony is like.

Simpseatles · #28 Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 11:44 PM**

Well, I was doing some youtubing about retro London stuff, and I managed to find a few gems! There's something about commercials, PSA's, logos, and TV idents from the 70's and 80's that both creeps me out and intrigues me at the same time. That's why I love watching old, VHS recordings of things. It's like a little slice of what everyday life would have been like back then!

Anyways, I hope you enjoy a little bit of CFPL London

:

• Video Link
There are no words to describe how cheesy that is!

• Video Link
I like CFPL's old logo with the tree in the 0!

• Video Link
This one sends shivers down my spine!

The super happy family, the music, and weird logo that apparently was from 87! The fact that they had TV advertisements.

• Video Link
Okay, the only reason I posted this was for the music.

MolsonExport · #29 Posted **Mar 29, 2011, 1:22 PM**

^wow, those are awesome tunes. Sounds like porno music.

haljackey · #30 Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 4:00 AM**

London, 1989:

The skyline would dramatically change in 1991, when One London place rose and took the crown as the city's tallest building.

Fun fact: Canada Trust's HQ was in London before the merger with TD.

See the old Canada Trust logo?

Whisper09 · #31 Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 8:02 AM**

Wasn't One London Place suppose to have a twin?

haljackey · #32 Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisper09

Wasn't One London Place suppose to have a twin?

Yes but they wouldn't be identical twins. Two London Place would have been shorter but included a spire that made it almost as tall as One London Place. The project was canceled because there was already too much office space in the city.

However it can go up at practically any moment. The groundwork and parking structure was completed before the project was canceled.

MolsonExport · #33 Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 4:35 PM**

^I may be dead before it goes up. Although I am always hoping. Maybe it can be filled with offices for Tim Best's business empire.

I heard that he is opening a paralegal joint that focuses on getting DUI convictions quashed. Also, a poodle-grooming establishment.

Whisper09 · #34 Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I heard that he is opening a paralegal joint that focuses on getting DUI convictions quashed. Also, a poodle-grooming establishment.

One of the Best

comments ever.

koolgiy · #35 Posted **Jul 14, 2011, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by haljackey

Yes but they wouldn't be identical twins. Two London Place would have been shorter but included a spire that made it almost as tall as One London Place. The project was canceled because there was already too much office space in the city.

However it can go up at practically any moment. The groundwork and parking structure was completed before the project was canceled.

It's odd because you can see the second building on little drawings for Downtown.

Also I heard somewhere that they can't build any buildings taller than the One London Place in the city because of some structural reason, like the city's ground isn't strong enough to support it or something. Any truth to that?

haljackey · #36 Posted **Jul 14, 2011, 3:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koolgiy

Also I heard somewhere that they can't build any buildings taller than the One London Place in the city because of some structural reason, like the city's ground isn't strong enough to support it or something. Any truth to that?

Nope, never heard anything of the sort. There may be structural conditions that would make construction projects more expensive, but according to the planning department and my professors, the sky's the limit! (As long as you're downtown, there are height restrictions elsewhere.)

bolognium · #37 Posted **Jul 14, 2011, 6:32 AM**

I've actually heard something very similar to that. Basically One London Place had some kind of special, more costly "floating foundation" built because of how sandy our soil is. So yeah, maybe we can build taller only it'll cost more than average like Haljackey said.

Also, I may or may not have one of those neat downtown signs you're referring to, Koolgiy

MolsonExport · #38 Posted **Jul 14, 2011, 12:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisper09

One of the Best

comments ever.

I saw the poodle at Costco again the other day.

ForestryW · #39 Posted **Jul 14, 2011, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koolgiy

Also I heard somewhere that they can't build any buildings taller than the One London Place in the city because of some structural reason, like the city's ground isn't strong enough to support it or something. Any truth to that?

Apparently it's true for certain spots, especially Oxford/Richmond (there's a reason a sinkhole formed there), but not true for all of downtown.

My geologist friend tells me, though, that Vancouver has much much worse soil, yet they build taller than London.

manny_santos · #40 Posted **Jul 15, 2011, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by van Hemessen

Apparently it's true for certain spots, especially Oxford/Richmond (there's a reason a sinkhole formed there), but not true for all of downtown.

My geologist friend tells me, though, that Vancouver has much much worse soil, yet they build taller than London.

Not to mention in New York, parts of Manhattan are landfill, so when the original World Trade Center was built, a special foundation had to be built in order to prevent water from leaking in.