also not to be forgotten that the low-rise portions of Paris are some of the least affordable real estate in Europe.

It may look pretty, but it's a playground for the rich because density is restricted meaning new supply can't get to market.

It's not like Paris is the only city like this though. Most European cities are sparse of towers. A better example in the Canadian context would be the tabletop skyline of Montreal's mixed use neighbourhoods, making Montreal look mediocre from a distance (the fear of some local forumites) but Montreal is one of the best, most livable, and culturally filled cities in North America (my concern).

I've lived in Europe for a while, you're romanticizing Europe.

Okay? I'm not talking about anything subjective here, I'm purely focusing on objective elements of urban design, including health, mobility, and urban design.you can't really romanticize health...

Alright. Are you ready to flatten every historic brick home for a three block radius around Locke or Ottawa and build new triplexes there, or would you say it’s better to keep that historic building stock and just drop a few small 10-20 story towers on less historic lots to get that density?

Not every neighbourhood is the Durand. The houses around Ottawa St. and especially past Strathearne were built en masse, so those surveys can afford to have a few lots bulldozed and replaced with more efficient housing, not unlike the small apartment blocks near the stadium.

Exactly, blocks of existing neighborhoods would need to be replaced to have any sort of meaningful impact of improving density and offering what a handful of towers can.

I don't know what y'all are on about, there are thousands of hectares of land within city limits that could be increased in density. We don't need to bulldoze half the city to increase density without towers (remembering I'm not against towers in places where they make sense). Here is a map I have been working on with a team of volunteers that shows surface parking lots and vacant land in yellow polygons:

https://i.imgur.com/momRRu9h.jpg

Downtown is just silly:

https://i.imgur.com/n0kM8Fdh.jpg

*Not all areas of these maps have been double checked, but errors have been very rare so far. If anything we've missed a couple spots.

Alas, if only 80% of that wasn’t employment land that legally can’t be touched.

My point continuing to be that if the City puts in policies that discourage surface parking and encourage missing middle density, then we don't need to touch it. The market will do it naturally. Storm water fees, upzoning of large swaths of the city, and reduced parking minimums as well as investments in transit to get to at least par with other similar sized cities would do a lot.

I’m all for building midrises, but that’s still not getting you Paris or Le Plateau. Especially when you account for the fact that that yellow seems to cover any lots with some parking on them. So whole hospitals and apartment buildings are coloured over in yellow, making the situation seem worse than it is.

Also, Hamilton’s current height limits that people complain about aren’t going to give you Paris anyhow. They’re going to give you Ottawa.

DRP review from Joey Coleman

Hamilton’s Design Review Panel (DPR) says Vrancor needs to redesign its proposed 30-storey development at 213 King Street West to address a potentially dangerous wind condition. As currently designed, the building is “expected to cause uncomfortable or even unsafe wind conditions” on the southeast corner of King Street West and Caroline Street South.

Overall, DRP members provided favourable comments regarding the proposal, including statements supporting a minor variance from the Downtown Secondary Plan to allow the building to feature a six-storey podium.

“I want to compliment you on the massing. There are elements of it, I think that are really, really bold and clear and powerful,” said DRP member Ted Watson, who is an architect.

“I appreciate the level of detail that you showed in your streetscape and private amenity areas,” stated DRP member Jennifer Sisson who is a landscape architect and planner.

The current proposal for the building is a 110-unit hotel in the podium and 241 rental units in the tower. Parking will be within the existing parking structure in the 20 George Street apartment building directly to the south. The two buildings will be connected on the parking levels.

The wind study for the development states it is “expected to cause uncomfortable or even unsafe wind conditions around the northwest building corner during the winter season.” The Design Review Panel discussed the wind condition problem at length.

Hoda Kameli, a DPR member who is a landscape architect, made two statements to the developer regarding this corner of the building. “I encourage you to look for that again … based on the report, it’s an uncomfortable zone for sitting. So I encourage you to look for that for the second time.”

Jana Kelemen, a DPR member who is a planner and urban designer, also stated concerns with the design of the northeast corner of the building, which creates the wind concern. “The corner massing seems a bit messy to me … I think that portion should be looked at more carefully to create a stronger corner statement. And maybe because this area is of concern regarding the wind study, there is an opportunity to redesign it with the pedestrian comfort in mind.”

The developer’s architecture firm says they will implement mitigation measures, including overhangs on the north side and adding trees and planters.

How the design of the new building will relate to the surrounding block is a concern for some members of the panel.

20 George Street, the tall building to the south, was approved as a “minor variance” with Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr lobbying for its exemption from the scrutiny of the complete zoning amendment process. The problems of creating separation between the two buildings, as a result of 20 George’s design, were discussed.

McMaster University is planning to build on the east side of this proposal. McMaster’s submitted plans to the City of Hamilton show a smaller building immediately east, with a 30-storey tower at 10 Bay South.

“My biggest concern is the overbuilding of a fairly small site in regard to the separation distances on the south and east. So I strongly encourage you to revise the design to provide reasonable separation distances to the adjacent properties” stated Kelemen.

“I think its relationship to the existing building to the south is extremely unfortunate,” said DPR member architect David Dusiau. “I think in a way the building to the south has sterilized the potential to some degree for the development in this case.”

Vrancor is now expected to revise its plans to reflect the comments of DRP and to address the wind concerns. Following this, they will need to seek a minor variance for the podium from Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment.

No timelines were discussed for these steps.

I’m surprised the DRP didn’t comment how close it is to the tower to the south. That’s a glaring issue to me.

Those comments are in the story.

Thanks, I missed there was more discussion in the article itself than just what was posted here.

Always appreciate your journalism!

No worries, for a moment, I was worried I somehow cut the whole section out.

My apologies to you both for the confusion. I edited the original post to simply include the full text of the article as I maybe should have done right off the bat.

I licence open culture CC-BY-SA, and thus do not mind a full copy and paste. I do note a best practice is to excerpt and link.
That written, with the problem of archives and websites going missing, again I do not at all mind my articles being reposted here in their entirety.
As a Southam Fellow, I do get to archive my records at UofT, thus they will be available in the future, nonetheless, who knows what will happen to websites decades in the future.

Always appreciate your journalism Joey! Thank you for the well summarized article on this proposal. I look forward to seeing what Vrancor comes back with. As long as it doesn't look like his Main/Walnut building it should be a welcome addition.

Site plan application filed:

"Mixed use 30-stotrey development including 111 hotel units, 242 residential units and 220 parking spaces"