That's a really pretty tower. I'll admit I'm not very good at being able to tell if something will age well though.

I think their advertising campaign is on point. It would be super cool to own a condo with the room name of a TV star. My condo unit is named the "Mark". Boringgg,

Not yet, officially. The city's draft tall building study notes it, but guidelines are not yet approved.

I feel it's a mug's game. The tallest we have now obscure the view of the harbour from the escarpment edge. They're not substantially taller than the escarpment, and their placement relative to the escarpment matters too -- so if we allow more buildings to that height depending on where they are situated, the bay will be obscured anyway. We'd need to institute a 20-storey or 80m height limit or something like that or base it on view-planes given the changing elevations of the lower city to ensure an uninterrupted view of the water of the harbour from the top of the escarpment.

And as for obscuring the view of the escarpment from the north side, along the harbour for example, that already happens.

So I feel this height limit idea is rather arbitrary. Developers will challenge it, council will fold if the benefits to the city are clear, or the OMB will end up deciding what is right/wrong (and that's not a good solution).

I think it would be better to examine each proposal and evaluate it based on its own merits, and respond to its height, design, impact on shadows and views and such, and especially its connection with the city at the ground level on a case by case basis.

New rendering of the gym from the website:

http://televisioncity.ca/wp-content/...4.07.01-PM.png

Say the proposal is denied at this height, what are Lamb's usual responses to being told no? is he willing to adjust the project as required or does he take his ball and go home?

That's cool - I've seen things similar to this in places like montreal.

Probably OMB.

If this project is denied because of the proposed height, then this city is a joke. The argument that buildings must not eclipse the view of a natural phenomenon is preposterous. I have an unobstructed view from the edge of the escarpment to downtown. And there are a number of buildings that already restrict my view of the Bay and Cootes, etc--Landmark, Stelco Tower, Olympia building. And so what? Real cities aim high in all regards. Proper design and beautiful architecture mitigate blocked views. Great architecture always adjusts to the natural surroundings. But this doesn't mean our buildings can't soar high.

Does that mean Montreal is a joke though?

montreal has a MOUNTAIN that they can raise their elevations to, so it's not quite the same comparison..

after all the literal translation of montreal is "royal mountain"

I think Montreal can execute 40 story towers without going above the mountain due to the difference in elevation. I know there are 50 floor developments proposed there (tour des Canadiens, L'Avenue)

Anything but a joke, but I'd have to agree with the other poster that the comparison--in this regard--isn't apt.

It's already been observed by me and others that natural elements--the bay, the escarpment from the north or south views--are already obscured to degrees.

I guess my question is: so what? Let architectural beauty work with the natural environment. And we know that height works. Look at Chicago, Hong Kong, Shanghai, NYC, you name it. . . . .

Except there isn't the same big money in Hamilton, compared to the cities you mentioned (Chicago, Hong Kong, NYC).....

Height for the sake of height is poor planning. Keep the sacred skyline in tact.

Agree! It's part of what makes Hamilton so unique.

I think this developer can still do something good with a reduced height. We'll see what happens.

Folks from Calgary or Vancouver grumble about Montreal's mountain not being a 'true mountain' about as much as they do Hamilton's.:P

lol yes, yes they do.

It always feels silly to call the escarpment a mountain - in truth we live in a crater - the escarpment is like filling a tub up full of water and then letting it drain halfway.

New rendering of a coworking space from the website. I also received this email with a neat quote from the architect:

http://televisioncity.ca/wp-content/...NGE-_LR-26.jpg

**hears thunder from the RC heavens**

**runs and hides**

^ It's ok when it's true.

Hell, RC doesn't even crack my top 5.

Loving this project more and more.
I'll certainly be sending in my feedback re: tall buildings guidelines. This 30-storey talk is bizarre. Preserving the dumb-looking Century 21 tower as our tallest forever would be awful.
If one stands at Sam Lawrence Park, you can't see much water through the current downtown core. The harbour narrows to the NW and buildings 15-20 stories block the small view that exists. East of Wellington would make sense to not go higher than 30 as the harbour widens and is actually visible from the Brow.

Other cities hold international competitions to build their new tallest. Hamilton tries to stymie investment and growth....typical

It will be interesting to see how the market reacts. The market has corrected for four months now, but condos not so much. People are trying to get into the market prior to the new mortgage rules. If they don't get a bump from that, they may be in a bit of trouble here as the housing signs are pretty grim.

One thing condos have going for them is an average price in Hamilton of $318,000. Compared to $580,000 for single homes.
I'm a broken record here, I realize, but we need more condos. Lots more.

Lol in terms of just shear $ development value (which is what the press release suggests when it says,"largest development in Hamilton History"), the RC costs more and is more expansive.

Not to mention that the actual building is more iconic.

I do like this project though. Has potential for sure.

Not quite! I actually like this development. Hope it gets approved. The more condos in Hamilton the better. That's always been my attitude on this board and in reality lol.

We do need more condos. This is true. However, the new rules being enforced will mean a decrease in large scale development. Less incentive for the builder. This goes for every Condo development. Not just this one.

It depends on each individual situation.

If someone has great credit and 20% + downpayment, good work history, they'll be approved by an 'A' Lender or one of the big banks. They usually have the cheapest interest rates and are obviously the most legit.

The issue is, most people don't have that much of a % to put down. Therefore, they look for a mortgage from 'B' and 'C' lenders, with higher interest rates and sketchier terms. This can lead to someone sticking in the rental market for a long time.

The new mortgage rules are only going to make it more difficult for someone to purchase a property.

I do anticipate there being a massive hike in sales before they come into place though.

Will probably be good for all condo projects currently selling in the city, including this one.

We're in store for some crazy times in the real estate market. Buckle up.

Hamilton is literally waiving almost all Development Charges and has exemptions on Property Taxes for the first 5 years of the new development in the core. DC exemptions are also generous for commercial and industrial parks. To say they are trying to stymie investment and growth is a ridiculous statement.

Yeah, I agree with this statement here.

Creating some incentives for development is fantastic and should be praised.
But that doesn't mean we give city hall a free pass on adding yet more red tape when we already have a ton of red tape.
I'm friends with several developers and architects and all of them would agree with the above initiatives to encourage development being a good thing, but all of them have a laundry list of unbelievable red tape and obstacles that get thrown at them every single day when trying to develop in this city.

As one smartly pointed out to me recently: Hamilton used to be one of the biggest cities in the country, and is perhaps on it's way to becoming one again. City Hall needs to start thinking like a big city, and not some little town trying to preserve fake charm by coming up with things like a 30-storey height limit for no reason, or charging a developer money to replace a couple parking metres etc....

I could go on with their stories and frustrations with city hall, but we've all heard it for our entire lives. If we want more people to move here, and be able to afford to move here we need to allow tall developments that can spread the cost of development over more units and thereby offer more entry level units. Big cities understand this.

I'm happy to praise city hall for their efforts to lure development. But I would feel irresponsible to not call them out on their constant roadblocks and obstacles to development that still exist too.

Guaranteed there are more red tape in other cities in the GTA. For one, Hamilton does not require permits for hoisting over the right-of-way, piling, tiebacks, or shoring.

Toronto charges something like $40 a day to have a crane in the air. We charge $0. Mind you, I feel Hamilton should adopt similar permits as Toronto in order to speed up the builds.

Sales for this apparently launched today. Wonder how its doing.

If not for amalgamation, Hamilton would be trailing Markham. As it stands, it could be bumped from its berth in the Top 10 by Quebec City. City Hall needs to get introspective.

In hamiltons defense a lot of hamilton is taken up by the area up on the escarpment, which isn't really seen as part of the city, but more the suburban sprawl, thus without amalgamation they wouldn't have been able to expand that under the escarpment footprint.

Whereas places like toronto have more available land under the escarpment, and thus can become larger.

I always find the history of canadian censuses and Hamilton's stature among them quite interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ties_by_census

It definitely confirms why we have such a good housing stock, but its crazy to think that in 1961 Hamilton was still the fifth biggest city in Canada.

I don't think Hamilton has much to worry about in terms of future population growth prospects, but i am sure southern ontario is going to get quite competitive for new comers/jobs.

3 to 4 decades of industrial decline for certain have played a role in the slowing growth of Greater Hamilton. I am sure if you looked at the largest 20 companies employing in the City in 1961, probably 15 don't exist today, while the remaining 5 are shadows of themselves. We have turned the corner, and with the help of big brother to the east, and it's astronomical housing prices, it won't be long until Québec City and Winnipeg are in the rear view mirror as far as CMA pop standings are concerned.

If you compare Hamilton to Toronto the population ratio hasn't actually shifted too much, it's more that Calgary, Vancouver, and Edmonton just all grew a lot, which isn't really Hamilton's fault for falling behind them.

Based on Joey Coleman's tweet we have a new tallest proposed building.

https://twitter.com/JoeyColeman/stat...18093051981825

We now have a height on the proposed Television City 131.5m - taller than Landmark Place (Century 21), tallest in #HamOnt
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DON4HU9UEAAvBO3.jpg

Who shrunk the escarpment?


.....nevermind. it just look weird because of the angle.

Wow, what a change all that will make. It's about time. Doesn't include William Thomas either... and imagine that image with the 40-storey proposal on Rebecca and the Tivoli condo (if that's still a going concern).

And that profile doesn't account for topography -- Television City will appear to be quite a lot taller than Landmark Place (and 20/22 George will stand out somewhat more as well, though not to the same degree).

That building peeking from behind 100 King W/Stelco Tower must be Platinum Condos?

I'm fine with that height. Close to the LRT line.

look at our tiny little city.. where 6 blocks is considered the core lol..

I still think we need some sorta central spire to allow us to build higher in comparison to it.

Hamilton....you kill me sometimes. Lol
Ambitious??

Project info including studies, plans and reports available here: http://televisioncity.ca/project-information/

Wow....this project just gets better and better with the more details that come out.
Truly a big-city, big-league project. If the city was going to choose any project to start acting like NIMBYs over I'd have preferred it to be the Vrancor 28 and 33 storey buildings just north of here. Granted, the new Vranich is looking like it will be way better than the 28 storey build on the old Fed Building site. That beige slab needed more scrutinizing.

TV City is phenomenal for Hamilton. Great amenities, narrow design, great architecture, public space etc......

The public plaza design looks wicked, as does the architectural treatment on the towers....like a modern take on the former World Trade Centre NYC design.
The street level retail and podium looks fantastic on these plans. I used to live in one of those Hunter St towers...would have killed for this across the street. The only retail options were a variety store on the corner.

for anyone here not wanting to go through all of this, just check out the submission to the Design Review Panel.
Amazing renderings near the end.
They did a great job showing the height in context of the skyline and other buildings currently approved or under construction.
And those HQ renderings.....wow

The TV City team has produced this image which has been going around and while it's mostly helpful, I'm thinking that the TV City team is intentionally stretching the truth to minimize height fears. I'm all for this project but but I have an issue with stretching the truth even if its just a small stretch. The problem with this image is that it displays all the buildings as being from the same base elevation which is inaccurate- downtown Hamilton is not flat and the TV City team knows that their building is at the highest of elevations. The image makes it out to appear that TV City and Landmark Place share an elevation above the escarpment (4m/13ft difference in height/ elevation). In reality, Landmark place rises from a site thats 91m above sea level while the TV City site is 110m above sea level. For whatever its worth (I know there are those reading this for whom its worth nothing and others for whom it's a lot...), TV City's building will rise 23m/75ft higher than Landmark place. TV City may be the equivalent of one story taller from their respective bases but its the equivalent of 7 stories taller relative to any fixed point like the escarpment.

Sure.. and this has been noted earlier here. But, I'm 99% sure this isn't escaping anyone's attention in Durand or at City Hall, the 'ethics' of trying to pull a fast one on NIMBYs aside. :P This is the precedent-setting challenge to an arbitrary convention that's come due and everyone knows it.

The above image is showing how tall the building is in relation to our existing skyline.
A small hill here or there is irrelevant to how building height is calculated.
Ground floor to rooftop is where we've gotten all our heights throughout history.

That same logic could be applied to the Olympia Tower vs. Century 21 tower.

It's really just a straw-grasping attempt by Durand to oppose this project. This isn't some San Francisco mega-hill...it's a small hump through certain areas of the core.

Would be great to finally get a new tallest, even if it is only by 4 metres.

It's not Durand that expressed this concern. It was the Design Review Panel.

Looks good to me, especially the ground level retail. If the design review panel rejects this, it will be pretty sad.