It's unfortunate to see no retail along King or Caroline. Despite being a pedestrian focused spot in the downtown secondary plan, the south side of King won't have a single commercial unit from Bay to Caroline.

That should be King St. WEST

I kind of grew to like the previous render, though I'm not much of a fan of green glass. This one could be ok... depending on material quality...

More hotel rooms though -- bring it!

This will apparently be rentals:

https://outline.com/Abxtrc

I'm really disappointed in the height loss here, other than 2 or 3 current proposals literally everything is being proposed to be 30 floors in this city. The city needs to revisit the height limit as were going to have a solid wall of 30 floor buildings everywhere you look downtown.

Not saying every building should be taller but come on we need some architectural interest and different height peaks to break up the skyline!

Last concern is shared with others which is a complete lack of commercial on this side of King St.

I will continue to disagree with this for the tabletop dislike. Nobody complains about the tabletop skyline of Paris. You don't look at Paris from a distance, you experience it up close. Hamilton should aim to do the same. Mississauga's skyline is more impressive, but I'd argue it's a hellhole compared to Hamilton

https://c1.wallpaperflare.com/previe...f-interest.jpg

and here's a view of arguably the most vibrant city on earth. I don't understand your argument. Cities can be vibrant with tall buildings, they can also be vibrant without them. Hamilton needs people, bottom line. And a good way to get that, is taller buildings.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PEX8PF/vie...day-PEX8PF.jpg

I love when canadians bring up some european city as a defence against any kind of height. A lot of Paris looks like this lmao. It's a huge city, with many different architectural styles, built at wildly different times under many different conditions. Showing some midrise Parisian blocks in a tourist area is misleading. I don't think people are arguing for height for the sake of height - they're arguing to shape the heights of buildings to provide good access to views, light and space. I'd also caution against the Mississauga hate - again, huge city, with many different areas built up at different times. Port Credit is different than Clarkson which is different than Mississauga city centre, vs streetsville/cooksville. At least they're actually constructing an LRT, have multiple go stations with all day service, and they've got 2 huge waterfront projects happening (brightwater and lakeview village)

https://i.imgur.com/urvC1wx.png
https://i.imgur.com/vliq0sr.png
https://i.imgur.com/AWOpvz3.png
https://i.imgur.com/ueXf8d3.jpeg

massive difference between what westerners like to look at when they vacation and how parisian people actually live.

As solid as Ottawa’s downtown is, the streets also tend to feel very cut off from each other because everything is just full of buildings that are the same height and fill their whole lots. It’s much nicer to get layers of city when you look around you, so planning that encourages space between buildings and sprinkling in 3-10 floor buildings between towers would be nice.

I don’t think the city needs to raise the height limits any time soon, though. There’s a lot of parking lots to fill up first.

Some really solid perspectives against the anti height narrative. The lower city needs to house more people and diversify its demographic. Tall buildings are a great way to add more people. What I find interesting is that the European cities that are typically referenced for their low rise density are usually ones that consist of block upon block of low rises with no interruption from SFH neighborhoods. That’s just not the case here and plugging in low rise buildings here and there won’t achieve the same density.

It's the same with Toronto. People love to cite cityplace/the south core as reasons to be against height - but you can't make a call about an entire city when you're judging it based on the part you drive through when you're going to a hockey game or to the ROM.

A lot of people associate Toronto with this:

https://i.imgur.com/j57pofZ.png

but if you actually venture into the city, live here, or spend any meaningful time here you'd know it looks more like this:

https://i.imgur.com/QXpeRzV.png
https://i.imgur.com/ynCTDKN.png
https://i.imgur.com/jZ931Ck.png
https://i.imgur.com/pN6GlbZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/CblRZIB.png
https://i.imgur.com/S1T8MTt.png
https://i.imgur.com/tIvS3Qk.png
https://i.imgur.com/wapOrqA.png
https://i.imgur.com/RO8YPHK.png

It doesn't seem fair to lump people into one of two categories: for or against height. I think each site is unique and any buildings should be carefully designed for each site. Terracing of heights is important (not just terracing stories of an individual building, but terracing of different buildings in relation to eachother) and Toronto does it for a reason - to ensure access to views, light, for both residents and pedestrians alike.

Based on the design of the building, this will likely be a higher-end hotel brand. I'm guessing it'll be a Delta hotel just based on the look.

We agree then. I'm not for or against height as a hard and fast rule. I oppose those who are for height for no real reasons. "It doesn't look good from Waterdown" isn't really a good reason. Site is incredibly importantd simply hand waiving the concerns of local residents as NIMBYs is toxic as Ancasterites and Binbrookites arguing against 4 storey buildings or 6 storey buildings causing issues or bringing the "wrong kind of people". I lived in the shadow of a taller block for years in Hamilton, and it kind of sucked. Having a skyscraper adjacent to duplex and triplex missing middle doesn't make a ton of sense in my mind, and new mid rise developments in Toronto show that really nice developments can go up while respecting the local community, going so far as to include cultural spaces with stages and local business initiatives.

I truthfully don't think the height limit is hurting Hamilton in any way. Toronto and other cities without height limits or as restrictive limits get the same shitty builds. Core Urban proves you don't need to even max out height to be profitable. Shit the DRP members told Core Urban they could have gone taller on Augusta and James S. Being angry at Thorne or DRP for creating policies that reduce land speculation, without other recommendations because of our shitty council, or providing feedback on specific sites is the antithesis of your point that each site has specific needs and design expectations.

hhmmmmm not so sure about this - again, core has a weird funding model - and the drp had lots more to say about the project than just the heights (such as the bad landscaping, poor block plan and much more)

I don't really agree that it's not hurting hamilton - in the case of 41 wilson, they've clearly determined they need 90 total residential floors to make this project work, but the height limit doesn't give them any flexibility to terrace the heights of each building to guarantee better urban design. They're maxing out what they're allowed because the city hasn't given them any room to negotiate. Again, I think 40, 30, 20 would have been way better at 41 wilson, but the height limits remove any ability to negotiate (not only heights, but benefits in exchange for height)

In this case, the block is being completely built out with poor tower separations, no mid block connections, minimal greenspace and landscaping, and it shows. It's relentless and frankly crappy.

at least mississaugas buildings are interesting - hamiltons new designs are just boring glass rectangles with picture frame jutout accents and precast and no top lighting. I await the day people with actual money build things of actual beauty in this city skyscraper wise..

I really don't care one way or the other about height, all I care about is that the building is built well, and has design elements that make it appealing to look at and give it value. People look at buildings to be impressed, not necessarily by the height but by the design elements of them - the ellen faircloud building is the perfect example of a universally negative reaction to design. At least with core urban I feel like they at least tried in that avenue.

Mississauga is a garbage hole of a city, it's okay by the lake but otherwise charmless. That shampoo bottle building is cool but wasted there.

The Monroe towers are terrible. They have had multiple suicides and its filled with prostitutes and drug dealers. My friend knew someone living there, and they hated it.

wasn't there a murder at the george st one that was just built? Or was it a suicide..

That was a murder suicide I believe, but that's also a one off. The Monroe towers have it consistently to the point that people have moved out. They're also condos I believe and not apartments so it makes it a lot worse.

I will say, though, as much as I’d like some more midrises filling parking lots, once more of those are filled up the downside to ‘missing middle’ over towers it it risks having to eat up a lot more of our historic building stock to fit the same amount of people. Unless the city gets a lot more thorough with historic designations.

You do realize that you compared Hamilton to Paris?? This specific area of Paris has a height restriction due to its insanely historical buildings which are stunningly beautiful and preserve the view of the world wonder (Eifeel Tower)

WHAT ON EARTH IS HAMILTON PRESERVING??? an escarpment which is hundreds of kilometers long?

Also, Paris has skyscrapers and is building more as we speak ....quite a beautiful skyline .... same thing in every major city in Europe which used to have height restrictions of buildings