From the story:

"Ward 2 councillor Jason Farr says without a rezoning application, it's still early days in the plan, despite Lamb's "very good job of promoting and marketing" with "a lot of flash, pizzazz and media attention."

It's why Farr is reserving his opinion until the proposal goes through the planning process.

But he points out the city policy doesn't allow lower city high-rises to be built higher than the top of the escarpment; Lamb is starting off with a higher ground elevation than most."

Seems the part I've bolded is not official policy yet, based on what I can find (if anyone else knows better, please point the way). This is from the Downtown Hamilton Tall Buildings Study (May 2017 draft), regarding objectives for the "Tall Building Guidelines" on p.48:

Based on the consultative process, to confirm that there is strong identification with the Niagara Escarpment as a primary topographical and natural asset; therefore, to establish that new tall building’s should be no greater in height than the Escarpment

I don't think anyone wants to see a wall of 50-60-70 storey towers interrupting the view from Sam Lawrence park to the harbour and vice versa, but certainly there should be room for variances on a case by case basis where taller towers may be allowed. A no-taller-than-escarpment policy might even result in the same kind of wall effect eventually anyway, from certain popular angles. Isn't an aesthetically pleasing skyline worth considering in all this as well?

Well, that's a really boring design... I was hoping for something more embracing of it's height.

A 40 story minimalist box works in Toronto in a see of 30-60 floor condos, but in Hamilton? It needs to be more of a landmark design. If he wants that design the drop 10 floors off it.

I actually like this design. I'll share a few of my observations/thoughts. Obviously architectural taste is subjective, so to each their own.

- I love the public park/seating in place of the current parking lot in front of the heritage mansion.
- I like the cafe patio space along Caroline where the mansion connects with the tower.
- Still on Caroline (whose current street wall is pathetic with the space-ship) I like the double height glass entry with street entrance to the lobby from Caroline.
- I like how the tower is the same width as the mansion
- glad he's keeping/restoring the mansion
- obviously I'm thrilled that tower #2 is replacing the giant parking lot on Hunter.
- equally obvious is that tower #1 replaced the spaceship.

Now onto design elements:
- I like how there are balconies on the east side, and he's using the very nice glass like we see in TO. Also, the angling of balconies is a great, yet subtle feature. Not having balconies on all 4-sides creates a couple unique looks instead of being the identical look from all directions.
- the north face of the tower I LOVE. It has these vertical steel/glass lines that run up the entire face of the building, and then protrude above the roofline to add a nice architectural roof-line with these steel rods/spires all shooting into the sky.
- also, the rendering seems to indicate that these vertical spires aren't the same thickness all the way up, but there are 3 different sections where they look to get narrower and then thicker to create a sense of 3 distinct sections to the building. The north face of the tower really reminds of a modern version of the original World Trade Centre in NYC.
- I presume the rooftop white box will be lit up at night.
- that north face of the tower almost looks more like a new Class A office tower in a major world city like NY or TO.
- I love the light colours...steely light grey and light blue tint.

Personally I would be thrilled for this to be our new tallest. There is nothing in Hamilton even remotely close to this level of design, architecture or massing. Heck, many of the new builds in TO look way cheaper than this. I expected that when someone finally proposed a new tallest in Hamilton it would look more like the generic stuff in Toronto west of the CN Tower.
He really is presenting a landmark design worthy of being a new tallest.

I used my iPad to look at the images and they look much better than in the Spec.

I'm with you LRTfan. It's difficult to get a true idea of the vision for this from the limited images shared through the Spec, but it looks promising.

It's not a bad design. It just doesn't look like a landmark.

Make it 20 and 30 floors and I'd love it as infill (it's very clean, likely to be high quality material, etc.). Or even just shorter than Landmark Place. But as a new tallest? It doesn't have enough 'verticality' to the design. No Spire or setback or anything to add oomph to the height. Even a slightly off kilter top like the (almost certainly) cancelled Hammer hotel design would be nice. Landmark Place is even nice enough to change up the design near the top to do something.

I bet the developer, planning department and DNA settle on a 20 and 30 story development. .

If I'm Lamb, I don't settle for anything less than 33 and 28. Those are the heights being built 1 block away.
Then when residents complain that the site looks like a long wall of buildings instead of one taller, one shorter, everyone can blame the DNA NIMBY's.

I think it'll ultimately come down to the height not based on how many floors. Landmark is 127m.

They'll probably factor in the proposed location is already at an elevated spot and agree to let it be the new tallest.

DRESCHEL: Toronto condo king embraces Hamilton

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story...aces-hamilton/

Toronto-based condo developer Brad Lamb is a big man with a big bald head and an open and easy if sometimes showy manner.

That makes him easily recognizable, which is good because Hamiltonians would be wise to keep an eye on him.

Lamb arguably is the flashy forerunner of a looming development boom driven by outside investors who're eying Hamilton as fertile ground for new projects and profits.

The ambitious 55-year-old condo king — he's spearheading 25 projects across the country worth billions of dollars — has splashy plans aplenty for this city.

With varied floor-to-floor heights, the number of storeys doesn't mean much in this context, it seems.

Is it *tallest* building he's vying for here, or *highest building* (above lake level?)?

Height is usually measured from the ground at the base of the tower, but since there's the sandbar isn't it really the height at the top that matters, at least as far as escarpment views go?

As Lamb openly says, the goal is the most profit, so from that perspective the only thing that matters is # of high value (9'+) tiers of living space.


So,
- the developer wants the maximum number of floors to clear the most profit (as does the city since it makes for the highest assessment value),

- the DNA wants the lowest elevation at the top of the building, the shortest building being the best, (and perhaps the lowest density of occupancy is a goal for them too),

- and the Official Plan wants nothing higher in elevation than the escarpment, visually (from where).


It's a 3-way race!

Why should he settle on anything less than what he wants to build. Trying to get developers to downsize proposed developments has been a disaster in this city historically. The reason we have so many vacant lots in the downtown is due to the city meddling in proposals trying to get these builders to do one thing or another. The result has been that these developers have just walked away from the city. Most of them weren't looking to do anything other than make a profit which drives the business.

This proposal is not out of line with what is being done in other cities and should be welcomed here. The argument that I heard that it was not acceptable because it is higher than the escarpment is just an excuse to say no. The escarpment is hundreds of km's long and 25 km's long in this city. A building or even a few buildings higher than the escarpment is not going to destroy the view.

but then where do you draw the line? If you let one be taller than people will argue that that building was allowed so theirs should be too.

I do agree with one thing though, hamilton needs a landmark that it is known for. Toronto has the CN tower, what should hamilton's be? Something that people come to see - maybe we need our own cn tower-esque building, if one is going to allow for a building to be higher than the escarpment...

I can't quite wrap my head around this idea that we need to use the height of Century 21 to gauge how tall to allow this project to go.
When did that crappy tower become the Pyramids or Washington Monument?? It's ugly, and embarrassing to have it as our tallest in 2017.
Most cities would be rejoicing to finally see modern new proposals coming to add housing, tax revenue and re-shape a boring skyline. Hamilton's 40 years of urban stagnation seems to have led some people to believe we should never really get too ambitious anymore.

If that's what the folks at city hall believe, then please stop having in guys from Brooklyn or hosting a Hamilton Consulate in Toronto. Let's not pretend we want to be a real player, but then act like a hick town when their investors finally come.

Also, there are already 4 buildings downtown whose roofline is higher than the escarpment, and 4 more have been approved/under construction. So that line trotted out by the DNA is irrelevant.

Mississauga is about to land a 65-storey tower, and Vaughan is getting it's first 55. We used to be so ambitious. Crazy to see how far we've sunk in aspiration.
By the way, here is a recently approved tower in Brooklyn. Over 1,000 feet. Let's can the 'Hamilton is Brooklyn' stuff until we're willing to be bold and ambitious.

http://jdsdevelopment.com/9-dekalb/

Here is the skyscraperpage link for that development: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...212048&page=21

And wow look at that beautiful historic building.. wish we still had stuff like that..

I agree.. I mean look at dubai - why can't we be innovative and make giant jaw dropping examples of architecture that are body modern but also eye catching? Make hamilton look like a bed of crystals of all varying heights..

I mean look at what is being done elsewhere, esp. in the states: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=323

make our city look proper futuristic, instead of just following the boring modern styles that are being done everywhere.. I mean, are we to forever be in new york and torontos shadow? Or will we take up the reins to be truly creative? Hopefully the population density eventually filters into the core and businesses and even taller buildings can thus be built to accommodate them... I mean, if we want to be taken seriously as a city, we have to start building like one. You go to the states and mention toronto and montreal and everyone can relate - you mention hamilton and nobody knows what you're talking about..

Some examples of great giant tall buildings below that stand out as modern pinnacles of creativity:

http://blog.yellowpages-uae.com/wp-c...s-1024x576.jpg

I'd also love to see some round buildings..

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/incom...tecture-5.jpeg
http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/04/19/30/64_big.jpg
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp...ng-dubai-6.jpg
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...=960&strip=all
http://www.80flatbush.com/images/Aer...ush-Avenue.jpg

Ironically, I went into architecture after seeing architecture like this, and thinking to myself "wow wouldnt it be cool to be able to design that" - only to realize that nobody is designing that here, and there are all these restrictions on what can be built.. and I just got discouraged and chose a different profession - cable - so I have the architectural background and knowledge, but am saddened that the craftsmanship and innovation just doesn't appear to be here. Not yet anyways.. maybe one day in the future..

anyways design rant over.. hopefully this project comes out better than expected and hamiltons future projects meet expectations..

but if we are not careful we could end up looking like this:

http://content.luxology.com/gallery/...d6eaa46c52.jpg

This^

I also don't think it's fair for those Spec articles to compare this to City Place alongside the Gardiner. Those are probably the worst examples of glass condos in Toronto. There are lots of good ones, they're just further into the city.

This is VERY strong work from Aa. It's also important to remember that it'll be hard to judge until we have some sort of technical elevation from the application file which outlines materials specifically.


I feel this proposal should go ahead at its current height, however I will need to see more detailed elevations before I pass judgement. Right now this is the city's strongest high rise proposal in regards to design. It deserves to be Hamilton's tallest because it is fresh, clean and distinctively new. I'm happy this isn't pulling some victorian heritage pastiche bullshit buildings because it is not an old building; It's unabashedly modern, and it's not trying to be anything else. I appreciate the subtle references to the numerous mid century apartments in the area, and the preservation of the old house & inclusion of green space is fantastic and much needed.

My guess is the white segments are going to be precast concrete. This building is very much in line with several of Aa's recent designs in Toronto. They're very into strong, linear buildings with lots of grids, fins and tall narrow window openings right now. For example, here are some renders of Wellington House & Form, both by Architects Alliance (It's worth noting that this is the firm who is designing the Chateau Laurier expansion in Ottawa that people are avidly against)

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...504-78116.jpeg
http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...505-78114.jpeg
http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...505-78115.jpeg
http://mycondopro.ca/mycondopro-cont...orm-condos.jpg
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachm...280-jpg.64932/
http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...414-68167.jpeg

The George Brown residence in the Pan-Am village has columns similar to the ones proposed in TVCITY.

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/up...village-fb.jpg

eh I dunno man, buildings downtown with concrete "fins" on them like that don't tend to age well, and there are a few downtown.. it all just ends up looking brown in the end..

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.25478...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.25451...7i13312!8i6656

I dunno man, those buildings are 45+ years old with bad maintenance. There's no point in hating on modern design and materials if it's executed well, which here it looks like it is.

Name me one concrete sidewalk slab that hasn't turned brown with age, or won't turn brown with age. It's not about when it was made, it's the nature of concrete - it goes brown eventually. Looks nice and white when it's first made and then browns with age.

Concrete discolors mostly either from sun bleaching or from wear. Concrete is made from a combination of lime cement, sand, and gravel or stone. Generally when finishing the concrete with a float, the surface is mostly a cement cream. The cement is very white in color. When this starts to wear down, it will show the sand and stone which is usually more of a yellowish or brown color depending on the local materials used.

Personally I would like to see the fins that jut out be glass as well, supported by jutting out spandrel and mullions - then it will be white forever... or at least if the glass yellows you can replace it..

Ironically.. no matter how you look at it, we are still building our buildings out of stone, as sand is ground down stone and silicate and shell particles, and glass is just melted sand hehe..

I can't name any but it's because I'm not bothered by them nor do I find them ugly.

I Like the design, especially the vertical lines that make it look taller. I hope the top is some sort of crown (hard to tell in the small pictures).
If this building is going to be the new tallest for Hamilton, the top needs to be more than a flat top. It looks like something is missing.