Perhaps the final design is not finalized? I mean as it stands the project is not very likely to move forward in it's current incarnation anyway. I think Hamilton wants taller and more dense, but I am unsure the city its councilors are ready to welcome this type of development.

I think now is the right time, but hey, I'm an optimist. Furthermore, these developers really need to start building on parking lots! They're so damn ugly.

the city currently won't build higher than the escarpment, so that makes soaring heights challenging

It's unfortunate that Hamilton has the escarpment, because it is a pretty well-known best practice to not build taller than a natural feature like the escarpment. Maybe in the future once all the parking lots are filled with less than 40 floor condos and apartment buildings one or two 50+ can be built to spearhead the skyline.

I think it then becomes a matter of "if you gave those exceptions then whats to stop the rest of us from following suit"

I do fear there will get a point where I look from the escarpment and I can no longer see all of hamilton or the water.. one good thing about hamilton in that manner is that it's not toronto.

There is a model of the buildings in the sales centre which is having its grand opening event on the 28th.

If anyone is there, it would be great if we could get some pictures!

Don't get what the relevance is of not building taller than escarpment, when we already have apartment buildings on the top Ridge of escarpment anyways. I say build to the economic value that make sense and still maintains a livable city.

Is there actually any binding regulation that prevents building higher than the escarpment? I keep hearing this mentioned.

I like tall buildings as much as anyone here, but one of the first things they teach you about Urban Planning when you take a course in the topic, which I did in my Geography minor at McMaster, is that developments must attempt to follow "good planning" practices. One of the most basic best practices it not building above a natural feature like the escarpment, because once the view of the bay is lost it can never be regained.

I love tall beautiful towers, and think Hamilton should definitely have a few. But there are also enough surface parking lots to double the population or more of the entire downtown. I bet you could move nearly every building in the downtown on the a surface parking lot, and still have the exact same amount of parking. Instead of trying to build fifty, 60 storey towers, or what is more likely ten, 60 storey buildings as the condo market becomes saturated, they should aim a little shorter and try to use up those surface level parking lots.

The people coming to the downtown will push the renaissance of Hamilton, but not having sketchy parking lots and derelict streets will too, which will both be helped by more buildings that are slightly shorter than 40-50 storeys. Furthermore, Hamilton does not want to be Toronto. Look at how they are now fighting tooth and nail against all this ultra-tall development. It has made the city a nightmare in a lot of ways. My opinion has always been that density should spread out like in Europe. Instead of 70 storey buildings in one place, and bungalows less than 25 minute drive from that, there should be closer to 50 storey, with 5 storey 25 minutes away, and 3-4 storey 40 minutes away. It leads to better public transit options and means you don't have to drive as much to get what you need.

Well said :)

I also took urban planning, and you always want to highlight whatever landmark you want to focus on - in hamilton its the bay and the escarpment, in toronto it's more so the CN tower

The argument that developers should only build on empty lots is irrelevant; this developer owns this lot, and he builds towers. If you want to have a philosophical discussion on building heights, the general discussion thread would be a better place.

I wouldn't say it's philosophical in nature, and I also believe it's relevant considering this would be one of the tallest buildings in Hamilton, and is likely to be denied due to its height.

the idea that there will be soo many tall buildings that the bay and the city views will be blocked is not valid.... you would need as many tall buildings as Hong Kong or New York in order for that situation to occur - and that is not likely to happen in Hamilton ... ever lol
so if we allow a few tall building in Hamilton to create an interesting skyline i have a feeling that the views will be just fine. as it is our tallest is around 45 and does nothing to block any view anywhere

So when is CHCH moving out? Nothing can be built until they move! But where are they going? I am afraid they will move the studio's to "Channel Zero's" facilities in Toronto and just have a little office in Hamilton to down load video's and recharge to camera batteries.

The DNA is trying, but they're not being very successful. I'd suggest you spend some time on the ground in Hamilton rather than citing what your Mac profs told you.

Unlikely. This will probably move ahead at 40 stories, with a maximum reduction of 10 floors.

It's irrelevant because this project is not proposed on an empty lot, so it's not worth discussing. Lamb has acquired three properties in Hamilton, only one of which is empty.

I'd be happy to summarize a list of developments proposed for empty lots if you'd like.

Side note; they're having a launch party tonight at the CHCH house. Sales began on the 20th with public sales launching on Saturday.

Well I disagree. I would also point out, as I have occasionally in the past, this is the skyscraperpage forum, not the low rise enthusiasts forum.

Firstly it's extremely condescending to demean the education someone has received as a counterpoint to their opinion. As if all I ever learned was from school and nothing else. Possibly some may be ignorant to that of the world outside school, but I am not.

Secondly despite this being a skyscraper forum, I think that not only can you be critical of skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers, but you should also make note of those that make good urban planning sense. Blindly loving something with no attention given to those who criticize and the criticisms given is blind Faith, and not something that benefits most. I like this development, but I refuse to blindly believe it's good for the city simply because I love skyscrapers. I'm not just a skyscraper enthusiast, but also a Hamilton enthusiast.

Now, I'd like to not derail the thread, so could we please stop arguing, it's quite silly for adults really to be doing so. Cheers.

From @ihearthamilton on Twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DK2wa7CXoAAGbPd.jpg

I like the second invisible skyscraper better :P

Skyscrapers with cloaking devices - view obstruction solved! :P