41 Wilson Street | 103, 101 and 100 m | 3 x 30 fl | Under Construction

[craftbeerdad]

In my head, I too like to think that 75 John St. N. - Lot #2 is being saved for something special.

With the Alectra building and Fire station #1 right there, as well as King William around the corner, hopefully it will be a nice complimentary building using high quality materials and keeping people like Vranich far far away from this lot.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Seconded on the awesome pics! Drones are one of the best updates possible for construction projects IMO.

I'd love to request some drone pics of the 4-5 condos in Stoney Creek going up if possible, but up to you!



I too look forward to the lot to the south dying a painful death, but every lot gone is a good lot gone in my opinion.

I live downtown and don't make it to Stoney Creek often, but if I do i'll make sure to bring the drone.

[TheRitsman]

I noticed the other day that the old Chinese Association building has been boarded up. The fact that they've told those living there to vacate tells me they're planning on actually building this thing. Which maybe isn't surprising because of the developer behind it, but it's good to see this isn't a stalled project nonetheless.

[TheHonestMaple]

1 Jarvis went before the DRP in December of 2019, and broke ground in June of 2021 (18 months later). So maybe we can expect ground breaking in the fall of 2022. I really hope it's sooner than that though.

[onetimetoomany]

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2022/...-street-north/

[craftbeerdad]

Right this is Emblem's project. Yup they want to move. They do not mess around it seems. Looks nice in the renders, let's hope they don't consult Vranich on panels from the Eastern Bloc

[TheHonestMaple]

The old ti-cats office at 1 Jarvis got demolished early May 2021. Construction for 1 Jarvis started kicking off in September of 2021. Just 4 months later. So we may expect construction here to get started in the summer.

[Crapht]

This could end up looking clean which is nice but I just wish there was some variation in the tower heights. This area is in desperate need of some lovin’ and Wilson is just a sh*t show.

[Pipedreams]

Originally Posted by Crapht

This could end up looking clean which is nice but I just wish there was some variation in the tower heights. This area is in desperate need of some lovin’ and Wilson is just a sh*t show.

Hard caps on height will make the variation hard - developers will look to maximize which is going to give our city a flat skyline effect. At the rate we are going our city skyline will look a lot like Edmonton's prior to the stanton tower development.

[905er]

Loving these new towers that are starting to pop up across Hamilton. It breaks up the older 70's drab brick towers that dominate the skyline. I hope this breaks ground soon!

[onetimetoomany]

Here’s hoping if it’s completed in phases the final tower is built higher. I agree variation on height would visually be preferred.

[TheRitsman]

[lachlanholmes]

[StEC]

lol

[TheRitsman]

While I think you can argue the cost implications, I think the visual affects are negligible or complète irrelevant at street level. My humour wasn't toward anything to do with planning, but in response to the silliness of a tabletop skyline. I'll make the point that Mississauga looks great from a distance but up close it's a turd of epic proportions.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

While I think you can argue the cost implications, I think the visual affects are negligible or complète irrelevant at street level. My humour wasn't toward anything to do with planning, but in response to the silliness of a tabletop skyline. I'll make the point that Mississauga looks great from a distance but up close it's a turd of epic proportions.

We're in agreement on this point. It's (in part) for this very point that it just does not make sense for the City to put such a priority on limiting tower height!

I also don't disagree with you on Mississauga's "urbanism."

Is it really tower height that is the problem in Mississauga though?

I don't see how. I see many other factors, though:

- Huuuuge right-of-ways not conducive to walking, cycling, or an urban experience;

- Big huge suburban setbacks in addition to the already massive ROWs;

- Ridiculous parking requirements further cementing the auto-oriented nature of MCC;

- The fact the whole thing is centred on a gargantuan shopping mall and surface parking lot; and

- A fragmented, suburb-style road network with lots of curves and dead-ends rather a properly sized walkable grid network.

At the end of the day though, I just don't see how the towers being thirty, or forty, or twenty, or whatever count of storeys would change this picture, and the things wrong with it:

[TheRitsman]

I didn't say it was the height causing the problems in Mississauga. My point was that bad urbanism is more important than height limits. Hamilton could have 150 storey towers and be world class for having the tallest towers, but if it's shitty at ground level, it's shitty at ground level. Most of my time is spent on the ground. So that's what I care about most. The street is my backyard.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I didn't say it was the height causing the problems in Mississauga. My point was that bad urbanism is more important than height limits. Hamilton could have 150 storey towers and be world class for having the tallest towers, but if it's shitty at ground level, it's shitty at ground level. Most of my time is spent on the ground. So that's what I care about most. The street is my backyard.

Again, I think we agree. I have long wanted the City to focus on the ground-level experience, to focus on the quality of the streetscape, to focus on encouraging high-quality architecture and urbanism, but I've just not seen it happen.

What I have seen is a focus on all the wrong aspects - not just holding up the height limit, but an opposition to dealing with parking minimums, the introduction of angular planes and ridiculous ziggurat-style transitions, adamance for absurd road widenings, and so on...

I want to see all these policies changed. I want to see the planning department shifted more towards making new developments the best they can be, through an increased focus on the street-level and the urbanism aspects of proposals. This can't be done without decreasing the time spent on the wrong aspects, one of which is the focus on limiting tower height.

[905er]

My city is not a "turd of epic proportions".. there's a lot more to Mississauga than just the massive developments in it's new downtown. there are several beautiful neighbourhoods in Mississauga with far better urban experiences than a downtown area that is being created from where there was none to begin with. Port Credit and Streetsville for instance have established neighbourhoods with far better urban experiences. Mississauga has an incredible tree canopy unlike most cities of it's size and numerous beautiful parks. Despite the lack of 'coolness' downtown, the streets are remarkably clean for the most part which is a lot more than I can say about several other cities throughout Canada. If you would like to make a point about a city as a whole, perhaps have a little more decorum and engage in constructive criticism which isn't so juvenile and offensive. There's no reason to resort to just being mean, Hamilton is far from perfect too after all, ... as are most Canadian cities for that matter.

I love Mississauga, even with it's flaws and even though I no longer live there... and I'm excited to see its future.

[Hawrylyshyn]

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

There are definitely some nice neighborhoods, you can love your (old) city and be excited for it's future. But the main downtown is still arguably the worst urban experience in any large Canadian city. Of course the streets are clean, pedestrian experience and use is non-existent. Truth may hurt, but Mississauga (for the most part) is certainly a turd