Downtown Update

[bigguy1231]

If that document gets approved it should pretty well put a halt to development in the downtown. They aren't going to build anything unless they can make a good profit and limiting size is a profit killer. There is a reason there are so many vacant lots in the downtown. City council tried the same thing back and the 70's and 80's and the people who own all of those vacant lots, who had plans for those lots, just said screw you and turned them into parking lots.

[hamilton23]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

the art gallery is beautiful.... maybe a nice museum ...to show off some of Hamilton's history and other artifacts..... the Jackson square cinemas are nice but they really should have a main entrance off of King street lit up .....and aquarium by the water front would be amazing too.
even something as simple as a nice shoppers drug mart would be nice

A large sized Shoppers or Rexall would be amazing. Super practical for people living in the core.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Draft maximum building height for the downtown area


Jason Thorne
https://twitter.com/JasonThorne_RPP

Provide your comment about the draft plan:
https://www.hamilton.ca/city-plannin...ntown-hamilton

that's a lotta 30 story building coverage...

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

If that document gets approved it should pretty well put a halt to development in the downtown. They aren't going to build anything unless they can make a good profit and limiting size is a profit killer. There is a reason there are so many vacant lots in the downtown. City council tried the same thing back and the 70's and 80's and the people who own all of those vacant lots, who had plans for those lots, just said screw you and turned them into parking lots.

the size limit is for 30 stories, which is currently higher than most of the buildings in the downtown.. I don't see that being a massive obstacle to people building. That's pretty damn high. Most of the current buildings being built are either under that or just slightly over it.

[matt602]

I hope they do stick to those limits. There's absolutely no reason to be building anything taller than 30 stories when theres so many empty lots downtown.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by matt602

I hope they do stick to those limits. There's absolutely no reason to be building anything taller than 30 stories when theres so many empty lots downtown.

best response ever.

[davidcappi]

theres so many empty lots downtown.

For now! Interested to see how this will age over 40 years as downtown land becomes scarcer and we begin to see more lot assembly for development.

In a weird way I can see it being easier to seek additional height with these guidelines since you'd be asking for a smaller increase than what the current zoning specifies.

example: Right now, a lot is zoned for 12 stories, and a developer wants to build 35. They would have to seek a variance for the additional 23 stories, but under the new secondary plan, the variance would only be 5 stories (assuming the lot falls under an area with a 30 story limit)

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

For now! Interested to see how this will age over 40 years as downtown land becomes scarcer and we begin to see more lot assembly for development.

If I had a time machine, I'd love to go into the future a mere 5 years or so to see what the downtown will look like with all these currently planned buildings up. Well, that and go 7 hours into the future and get the winning 6/49 numbers.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by matt602

I hope they do stick to those limits. There's absolutely no reason to be building anything taller than 30 stories when theres so many empty lots downtown.

Look at the top of the page. It's called Skyscraperpage. Anyone advocating for height limits probably shouldn't be here.

[king10]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

If that document gets approved it should pretty well put a halt to development in the downtown. They aren't going to build anything unless they can make a good profit and limiting size is a profit killer. There is a reason there are so many vacant lots in the downtown. City council tried the same thing back and the 70's and 80's and the people who own all of those vacant lots, who had plans for those lots, just said screw you and turned them into parking lots.

As long as the dc exemptions are around, investors will still be making very good money off developments even with height limits.

The break even point for land values in downtown Hamilton doesn’t warrant 50 plus stories.

Like other posters have said, it’s better to fill up vacant lots with medium high rises vs empty lots next to a super tall.

[king10]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Look at the top of the page. It's called Skyscraperpage. Anyone advocating for height limits probably shouldn't be here.

Guess we should close the transportation threads, zoning threads, suburb threads, architectural threads.

Height for the sake of height isn’t a good thing.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Look at the top of the page. It's called Skyscraperpage. Anyone advocating for height limits probably shouldn't be here.

As stated in another thread, height for the sake of height is poor planning.

And besides, this board has been the de facto Hamilton development fan club for the longest time.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Look at the top of the page. It's called Skyscraperpage. Anyone advocating for height limits probably shouldn't be here.

I agree 100%. Although I have a feeling developers will just go the the committee of adjustment.

Also just because there are vacant lots, that doesn't mean anything is going to happen on them if the owner doesn't want to sell for whatever reason.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by drpgq

I agree 100%. Although I have a feeling developers will just go the the committee of adjustment.

Also just because there are vacant lots, that doesn't mean anything is going to happen on them if the owner doesn't want to sell for whatever reason.

cue the lot that was once robinsons beside the pigott building.

[ScreamingViking]

Given the market (demand and supply) the economic case for residential buildings taller than 30 storeys in Hamilton may not be there for most developments, so for many developers these limits are probably fine. Specific proposals may be discussed... they're grandfathering some of the currently active ones so I don't see why the city would not be open to reviewing future proposals that exceed the [draft] limits.

Note that they're much more generous than previous ones in many parts of the core, from what I recall.

Also interesting to me is that they've gone with floor count vs. height in metres. If the escarpment is such a key limiting factor, would the latter not be the best rule?

Future revisions to the planning might reflect changes in the condo market.

[bigguy1231]

Most of you are missing the point. There is no reason to set limits on height. We don't have a problem with excessively high buildings being proposed. The developers themselves will determine whether or not a development is viable at whatever height they determine. They will self regulate for the most part. Adding additional red tape and costs just for the sake of doing so is not conducive to getting plans off the drawing board.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Most of you are missing the point. There is no reason to set limits on height. We don't have a problem with excessively high buildings being proposed. The developers themselves will determine whether or not a development is viable at whatever height they determine. They will self regulate for the most part. Adding additional red tape and costs just for the sake of doing so is not conducive to getting plans off the drawing board.

This is bad planning advice. Height for the sake of height is not a good thing. There have been numerous psychological studies that show overbuilding is not good for humans. A good variation in height is better for the people who live there, as well as for the overall look with the heritage buildings not being crowded out. I think Hamilton has little interest in being the next Toronto. The reason I love Hamilton is specifically because it's not Toronto.

I love y'all buildings, but I won't let my one interest become obsessive and overrun my knowledge that the city will be terrible if every current lot gets a 150 storey condo tower. It would ruin Hamilton. Maybe not to you, but you're not everyone that lives in Hamilton, and furthermore that's your subjective opinion. The objective reality is that endless condo towers would not be good for Hamilton. I don't think many want to change the name of the city to Coruscant.

[hamilton23]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

This is bad planning advice. Height for the sake of height is not a good thing. There have been numerous psychological studies that show overbuilding is not good for humans. A good variation in height is better for the people who live there, as well as for the overall look with the heritage buildings not being crowded out. I think Hamilton has little interest in being the next Toronto. The reason I love Hamilton is specifically because it's not Toronto.

I love y'all buildings, but I won't let my one interest become obsessive and overrun my knowledge that the city will be terrible if every current lot gets a 150 storey condo tower. It would ruin Hamilton. Maybe not to you, but you're not everyone that lives in Hamilton, and furthermore that's your subjective opinion. The objective reality is that endless condo towers would not be good for Hamilton. I don't think many want to change the name of the city to Coruscant.

You bring up some good points.

Specifically when you say, "I love Hamilton specifically because it's not Toronto". This is what most people say when they visit Hamilton or move to Hamilton from Toronto, so I understand your statement.

Hamilton doesn't have the extremely tall skyscrapers of Toronto, nor does it have the foot or car traffic and other stuff. Alot of people from out of Town, enjoy Hamilton because it's quieter than Toronto and it's more peaceful in general. It has a more laid back and positive vibe, yet also very productive vibe and group of individuals that make up its population.

However... You have to realize that a lot of the posters in the Hamilton board have either lived in Hamilton for their entire lives, or for most of their lives, and are looking for Hamilton to take a significant leap in development moving forward. And why not? Downtown Hamilton wasn't a place most people wanted to hang out in during the 90's and for most of the 2000's. It was only up until 5-6 years ago, that people started doing more things Downtown on a regular basis. Hamiltonians want to see their Downtown prosper, have more people living there and have more businesses active there as well. You can't fault any of them for this. It will bring more jobs to the city and Downtown, will clean things up even more, will bring quality businesses, etc, etc. It's actually a really good thing that Hamiltonians and the posters are passionate about wanting this. It's the city they live in, so why shouldn't they want the best?

I guess it's a catch twenty-two. I get your point. Hamilton is just different than Toronto. Both cities have a lot of character, but Hamilton obviously has a smaller population and less modern skyscrapers, making a lot of that old school charm 'pop' more than in Toronto. I don't think you'll see that charm go away in Hamilton. What you may see go away are empty parking lots or abandoned buildings.

I think it's safe to assume Hamilton will never have as much development as Toronto. That's just facts. You also won't see the "150 storey condo tower" you refer to lol. Doesn't even exist in Downtown Toronto.

I think Hamilton will always be different than Toronto, no matter how much development occurs here. Two different cities and it's for the better. It would suck if every city was the same.

[Chronamut]

it's a fine line.

As someone who is involved extensively in documenting hamilton's past, I will tell you that there was a time where hamilton was just as big as toronto was - you have to understand that hamilton is in a hub location between several major cities in canada and the usa. It was big at one time, until toronto pulled ahead.

toronto started to overbuild and hamilton.. didn't. They chose to suburbanize on top of the escarpment, whereas toronto decided to start to build up. Toronto also had a lot more surface area to build on, whereas hamilton had to start to amalgamate cities around it into it to grow. Having a bigger area helps.

Additionally, toronto building the CN tower took it from just another city to a city with a central piece of architecture to use as a point of reference.

Thus if hamilton wants to be able to build to higher heights, they need a central spire that is tall enough to use as a "mountain peak" reference. Then everything slopes away from that.

People also forget something - and that is the shadow studies- hamilton doesn't want whole neighbourhoods to be cast in eternal shadow and thus height restrictions are largely based on that these days as well.

There is a lot to consider. And as has already been said, we don't WANT to be toronto. Not saying we never might become like them but we are a smaller city and always will be.

Also, higher buildings require larger surface areas at the base. Look at what they are building in new york - an entire city block is used as the base for ONE building. How many places in hamilton can you say there are where you have an ENTIRE city block to build ONE building? Not many places.

No megaskyscrapers for hamilton.



do you WANT hamilton to look like THIS?



And no replicator city either

[Chronamut]

personally, if it came to a more futuristic taller look, I'd rather have new buildings look something like this:



If you're going to go futuristic, go full dubai-like futuristic. (also loving the forests on top of the buildings - another sorely underutilized part of hamilton..)

Imagine if every footprint taken up by a building was then restored on the top with a garden or park area? That way from above it would almost look like there wasn't even a city there

You could even do roof walkways that connected building to building - gradually sloping up from building to building - so you could go for a walk in the "city park" without ever even needing to leave the city

[Sehnsucht]

Originally Posted by king10

Guess we should close the transportation threads, zoning threads, suburb threads, architectural threads.

Height for the sake of height isn’t a good thing.

Agreed. However, those advocating for height are not doing so just for the sake of it, I believe. They're providing logical, defensible reasons.

Yes, they're too many vacant lots. But that doesn't logically mean that developments on these vacant lots should have arbitrary height restrictions. Core land will inevitably become scarce, and density is a good thing, of course.

I advocate more height for a few reasons, one of which is that valuable space frequently gets taken up by squat, ugly little buildings.

Two examples, the Staybridge suites would've been much better on a smaller footprint and with more height--slender, more height, more glass.

And the newish rental apartment building with the ugly brick-panelling across the street from the Hilton is another example of brutal, squat architecture that does nothing to enhance the skyline. And those two lots are now lost for more meaningful development.

If Brad Lamb can sell out his big towers, then why not let him build them?