Highrises work better with this sort of street than midrises. The midrises look bulky and out of place, trying to feign unity. A highrise will clearly be taller than the surrounds and creates a different view axis. Rather than just sticking out awkwardly it creates its own angle. Sure, you can debate the quality of design, but if you want density and development in the core you've either got to tear down serious chunks of it for bulky midrises or accept a few graceful highrises.

I believe they couldn't set the building back any further because of the existing theatre structure. If you look at the renders, the new tower only sits on the space where the existing theatre front was. I doubt they can build on top of the existing structure because it wouldn't support it, thus why the setback wasn't as far back as it should be.

on a side note, this development would make way more sense if it included that cornet lot at York and James. The awkward positioning of the Tivoli property doesn't make it suitable for this kind of height, and despite being an advocate for intensification, I will continue to dispute this development as it stands. The architects didn't seem to take any historical considerations when designing this building; I would call this tower anything but graceful.

Disappointing.

Aside from the height, it seems part of the problem is the blank, windowless sides of the proposed building. If there were windows/ balconies on the north and south sides of the condo, the City might have been more amenable to its construction.

Would be better if these apps were treated so black and white. Approve with conditions, height, glass, other elements, at least the developer can work to see if the restrictions make the project feasible. With this, it iwa guessing game, and another application. Process is way too slow.

Bear in mind this was staff's recommendation. Whether it gets denied by the Planning Committee or not, we'll see.

There's also opportunity for the developer to amend and resubmit their proposal, given the city's perspective of it. I don't buy the density and height arguments in the staff report, but some of the design considerations seem valid (like the setback issues, the "predominately solid nature of the elevations" of the north and south faces and their "minimal fenestration and glazing").

Perhaps the planning staff view the stretch of James north of Wilson as something of a successful work in progress and they don't want developments that differ too much from the existing form to mess with that. But at the same time, if the city hopes to intensify, the issue of projects that may not conform with existing built form is going to be a recurring one.

^ This!! We need significant density in the downtown core.

I'd love to see some significant density increases throughout downtown.. but I have to say, this design is hideous and screams a lack of respect for the rest of the street

Straight up. We need smart intensification, not just intensification in general.

This is a big problem. At this height, those sides would be very prominent- and, as proposed, very ugly from a number of different vantages.

The building code calls for buildings to be set back from neighbours, or glazing area minimized. I am not sure if there is a formula or what, but the report makes mention of the fact that the lot does not accommodate a further set-back from the north and south neighbours, so those windowless walls are the alternative.

What davidcappi said about including the corner at York and James would be the solution to this issue. In my opinion, that is the issue here: this is not a corner lot, so has constraints that make a building of this height on this street unsuitable. It’s not to say that James should not have high-rise buildings, but not all lots will accommodate them. If at the corner, it could have been stepped back above the fourth storey properly, and had attractive balconies or windows to be seen from all angles. But it’s not a corner, so instead they have to propose windowless walls that will become a prominent part of many vistas, and step-backs that would detract from the street level experience.

Tivoli condos incompatible with area: city staff
By: Meredith MacLeod
(The Hamilton Spectator: Monday, March 02, 2015)

City planning staff says a proposed 22-storey condo development at the site of the Tivoli theatre is too tall, too dense and out of character for its James Street North neighbourhood.

The tower would be "overwhelming," "imposing" and "disrupt" James North's pedestrian-friendly streetscape, argue staff, though they acknowledge the project would bring desired residential density and would be well-served by transit.

Staff is recommending the planning committee reject an application for a rezoning on the property when it comes before the Tuesday meeting.

Diamanté Investments Ltd. proposes a 106-unit residential tower that will include commercial and offices uses in a three-storey podium. The plan calls for 69 parking spaces, 17 in a surface lot and 52 in a stacked system within the podium at grade.

The development team declined to speak on the record until after Tuesday's meeting.

In a 56-page report, planner Edward John and chief planner Steve Robichaud contend the proposal is incompatible with the area.

"The development would fail to preserve and enhance the character of the existing area, would represent an overintensification of a midblock site and set an unsuitable precedent for the design of tall buildings within downtown Hamilton," they wrote.

The area is low- to medium-scale historically significant buildings and requires developers to seek approval to build above six storeys.

Hamilton's urban official plan defines high density as 100 to 200 units per hectare in that area. This proposal would result in about 378 units per hectare.

Staff argues the plan doesn't specify how the existing historically designated auditorium will be preserved. Plans call for demolishing what is left of the lobby after a partial collapse in 2004, restoring the auditorium and incorporating it and a new lobby into the new construction.

Staff says approving a rezoning is "premature" until preservation plans are clear.

Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr says he expects to ask the committee to table the staff report for two weeks so the developer can meet with staff and the Beasley Neighbourhood Association.

He added the developers haven't presented a business plan for the restoration of the theatre as requested by staff.

"They could also maybe look at some of the design review panel suggestions that perhaps weren't completely accommodated with respect to the design," Farr said.

The city's design review panel, which is made up of local and out-of-town experts, said it had concerns with the height and noted terracing had not been considered to "reduce the impact on the street to justify an increase in height."

An independent third-party review of the project by a Toronto firm determined it would not conform to design policies for tall buildings in other cities (Hamilton has no such policy) and could set a precedent for development on adjacent properties.

But public feedback has been generally positive. The city sent letters to 345 nearby property owners and got only one letter back expressing concern about parking and height.

Notes from a Sept. 10 public meeting found that of 28 property owners and renters who indicated whether they were in favour of the project, only one respondent objected. The others said things like:

"Great building — architecturally appealing. What this city needs to bring it up to par with other great cities;"

Theatre consultant Janis Barlow says the Tivoli is the last example of a vaudeville-era auditorium left in the city and the developer has a well-thought-out plan to bring it back.

"James Street North needs more activity than just a monthly artw crawl. This would be a catalyst for activity," said Barlow.

The Tivoli will require huge upgrades in its mechanical and technology systems, accessibility, backstage and lobby amenities, she said. That will cost at minimum $8 million to $10 million.

"That means there needs to be significant residential to justify the project," said Barlow, who has worked with the developer on the project.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/54...i-condo-tower/

'Community consultation.' Ahhhh yeah...

Councillor will push approval of Tivoli condo project

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...condo-project/

Downtown Councillor Jason Farr will ask his colleagues to approve a 22-storey condo tower at the Tivoli theatre site, despite the objections of staff.

He says he understands the concerns of city planners who say the proposal is too high and dense to fit the neighbourhood, but Farr believes the pluses of restoring the theatre and bringing residents to the street far outweigh the negatives.

"I consider this a heritage project with a secondary use of condo units," said Farr. He says saving the Tivoli is such a unique opportunity that it deserves granting an exemption on height limits.

"People fear precedence here, but show me another old vaudeville heritage property anywhere else along there. I don't want a wall of towers along the street either."

Farr says he'll propose a motion at Tuesday's meeting he hopes can satisfy everyone.

Tuesday is also the city's deadline to offer a decision on the application. If it takes longer, the developer can take the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board for non-decision.

Farr requested the planning committee's decision Tuesday be ratified at a special council meeting already scheduled for immediately afterwards. The matter was deferred at Farr's request from the March 3 planning meeting because he wanted to see more meetings with staff and neighbours.

"It's been delayed enough. April 8 is the next council meeting. I've heard from the proponents that they are eager to move forward."

If the height allowance is not granted, developer Domenic Diamante vows to appeal to the OMB.

"I won't drop it," he said. "I see it as a sore wound on the street. I want to see this street go in the right direction."

Diamante says the project brings people to live in a neighbourhood of galleries, restaurants and shops that need customers beyond a monthly art crawl.

"They won't be able to survive unless people are here all the time. Right now, after 5 or 6 p.m., there aren't many here," he said. "It would be part of a changing downtown."

But Diamante says there is no business case for restoring the theatre or remediating the site without building all 22 storeys and 106 units.

"We've looked at the numbers very carefully. It's risky as it is. It's touch and go, but I believe in it."

The proposal includes a "front of house" for the historic theatre with a lobby, washrooms, ticket kiosks, a café and a restaurant. That would cost somewhere between $3 million and $4 million.

The restoration of the heritage-protected theatre to working performance space and fundraising for it is to be handled by a non-profit group.

Jason Thorne, general manager of planning and economic development, says staff evaluated the proposal based on city policies and the context of the street. Tall buildings belong in some settings but not in all, he said.

"I hear that people want to see more people living in the area, but it's a question of the form it should take," he said, pointing out the 30-storey Connolly development a few kilometres south was endorsed by staff because it fits with what's around it.

"The restoration of the theatre is a very high priority and council will take that into account as well," said Thorne.

Public consultations on the proposal have generated plenty of positive response, but it's far from unanimous. James Street North property owner Dan Di Rocco says the development would "overwhelm" the street and "open the door to radical change" and "stand out like a sore thumb," he wrote to council.

The project's planning consultant Brenda Khes says there are unfounded rumours circulating that once the developer gets approval, he will tear down the theatre and build another condo tower behind it.

"That's just simply not true. This whole development is premised on saving the Tivoli. That's the whole reason for doing any of it. The Diamantes have a very, very soft spot in their hearts for the Tivoli."

Man I hope this gets approved for 22 floors. Good on Farr, I suggest skyscraper fans email Farr, and all the councillors that you approve of the height.

CBC Hamilton: NEW | Tivoli 22-storey condo tower approved unanimously


City council planning committee unanimously approved the proposal for a 22-storey condo tower on the site of the Tivoli Theatre on James Street North on Tuesday.

But there are conditions.

Under a modified comprise proposal, the city will require developers to put the structure on a five-storey podium, and give it a further step back from the street.

And the theatre must open first before the condos.

Ward 2 Coun. Jason Farr's compromise motion to planning committee put a series of conditions on the proposed 22-storey condominium project on James Street North, including ensuring one parking spot for every two units, an increase in the podium at the base of the building from three to five storeys, and setting back the high-rise further away from James North.

But in terms of height, no concessions were made.

full story...

Thank You. The site has been empty for a decade, the building looks like a decent post-mod, good height for downtown (TOD) and the theatre is a jewel, our last remaining of the old theatres.

the james market will now sit for another few decades. get ready for the speculators.

Glad to see this got approved. I can understand the step-back being further, but why a 5-story podium? Would it not look better at 3 so it matches the build next to it?

For once I'm happy to see them ignore the staff advice. :P

Bring on the Lister Tower next.