Renovation of 95-109 James Street North

[King&James]

Even a more modern look that steps up the height between the two adjacent buildings. I dont mind a contrast, but lets improve on density

[davidcappi]

I genuinely don't mind the height, having thought about it for a bit. It's going to be a really modern and purpose built building so to include more floors would make this way too expensive. They'd have to be expensive condos and I don't think that's what these developers are about. I'm just stoked on some modern infill. They've started pouring foundations along the sidewalk, so I'm guessing it's happening soon.

[HamiltonPlanning]

Not too sure how I feel about second storey metal, does not fit in with the streetscape at all. I pictured this all brick, with a nice, vibrant patio outfront. Will be interesting too see what happens...

[davidcappi]

The building is technically 1.5 stories. The metal isn't a second storey cladding, but the roof. Its a pitched roof that will angle up from the street wall, similar to how the old Mex I Can building was.

[interr0bangr]

Looks terrible, but I'd need to see a better color rendering before I write it off completely. Happy about a potentially new brewery though.

[eatboots]

probably zoned for that size and easier to build in that footprint than spend who knows how long trying to get things changed.

[ScreamingViking]

It would have been nice to see at least 2-storeys, but this may end up looking pretty good.

One thing I think they should do is increase the amount of glass by making the centre and right windows taller to match the height of the entry... otherwise that's a lot of brick above them (not that I mind brick, it just looks like a little too much or too thick for the street face, especially in relation to its neighbours)

Originally Posted by davidcappi

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Yeah, @eatboots has probably nailed it; the lot is likely zoned for a building that size. It'll be fine or better than fine based on their other work.

[durandy]

so tired of this regular 'yeah it's shit, but at least it's got XXX' whenever a new proposal comes around.

This project would work on Locke Street, not on James. WTF are these developers thinking??? Look at the buildings to the right and left! Build the same effing thing with three more stories and way less marginal costs. Give me a break if the city wouldn't give you that rezoning in a heartbeat if by some weird chance it's zoned one story.

This is more garbage, plain and simple. Compare it to Core Urban at King William which looks pretty much exactly the same in terms of streetwall, and exactly the same thing could have been done here. The only explanation I can think of is the developers want a quick buck.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Yeah, @eatboots has probably nailed it; the lot is likely zoned for a building that size. It'll be fine or better than fine based on their other work.

I have heard from somebody involved with the project why it was only one story and I can assure you it wasn't zoning.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by durandy

so tired of this regular 'yeah it's shit, but at least it's got XXX' whenever a new proposal comes around.

I hope it lacks XXX. There needs to be less of that downtown Hamilton.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by King&James

Even a more modern look that steps up the height between the two adjacent buildings. I dont mind a contrast, but lets improve on density

It's not exactly unprecedented: AFAIK, there has never been a building any taller on this site. You can see as much on turn-of-the-century fire insurance maps, or in mid-century archival photos — the John Patterson Building to the south and Thomas Appleton Building to the north were built later but the space between (101-107) never saw an upgrade, despite a grand opera house being built across the street in the same period.

101-107 was apparently always a utility space. The address was home to cigar-maker, a shoemaker, confectioners, and other small, individual occupants — a warren of uses later concealed behind a bland façade familiar to fans of the Mex-I-Can era. (That revision dates to 1969, circa the Jackson Square/York Boulevard mega-kludge.)

[NortheastWind]

Frankly I'm surprised they wouldn't want to continue on with the great project next door and finish off the street wall.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

Frankly I'm surprised they wouldn't want to continue on with the great project next door and finish off the street wall.

Exactly. Does it really matter that the demolished building was a similar height? This is still a missed opportunity to correct a previously existing development deficiency for this block.

Did the design review panel feel this block to not be significant enough to evaluate this redevelopment, or will it be reviewing this?

[davidcappi]

Did the design review panel feel this block to not be significant enough to evaluate this redevelopment, or will it be reviewing this?

DRP has no real authority to tell the developers to do anything. They make suggestions, and the developer has to elect to present their plans to the DRP. It's not mandatory.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Does it really matter that the demolished building was a similar height? This is still a missed opportunity to correct a previously existing development deficiency for this block.

Wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just not clear if the situation is as cut-and-dried as it appears. IIRC, the plan was never to tear the original down; it was forced because of structural issues.

There are other imperfect solutions nearby.

• 123 James North was once a building of similar vintage to these, but it stood vacant, burned out and in collapse for 9 years before it was ordered demolished because of structural concerns. Then another 7 years between a proposed solution and the infill.
• 108 James North was torn down 12 years ago because of structural concerns and while cleared for a 22-storey condo, its highest use is currently as a graffiti wall/haunted house/parking lot/ashtray.
• 185 James North has been a wall of hoarding for more than a decade. That hoarding doubled in size once the neighbouring Threshold School of Building (181) was levelled in 2009 to make room for a seven-storey rendering.
• 20-50 James North took 17 years (and $37 million in public funds) to emerge from its coma.

Consider as well that, as CBC Hamilton reported, J. Beaume "had held onto the parking lot for decades waiting for the area to slowly gentrify." (More sweet-talk: “I really like Hamilton. I always have — even with all its warts and hairy sores.”)

I'll be interested to see more on this proposal. It's a deep lot, for one thing — looks to be about 50% larger than the Templar site on King William.

[davidcappi]

I genuinely think this will surprise once it's built. Being a tall 1 storey, this building has a maximum ceiling height of 5.5 metres. That's pretty tall, and should make for an interesting space. Another big difference is that the single storey form with a sloped roof will be tightly executed, as opposed of the old Mex I Can structure which was sloppy looking, and from many angles didn't appear to have any sense of shape. I like that this will have a clearly visible sloped roof/skylights from the street.

I hope the bricks they use are interesting, and different from the neighbouring developments. I have no doubt this will be one of the nicest infills on James.

[davidcappi]

[NortheastWind]

I thought there was a requirement for higher density.

[Beedok]

Well, it will be a good future opportunity for infill.