SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Downtown & City of Hamilton (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=283)
-   -   213 King St W | 95 m | 30 fl | Under Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=238499)

TheHonestMaple Oct 28, 2022 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere (Post 9774880)
Probably just 1 level down as parking for this is going to be in the Marquee’s podium.

Yep, looks like one floor below grade only. This will be really quick.

Hawrylyshyn Oct 28, 2022 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple (Post 9774993)
Are you sure about that? I thought it has its own parking podium?

According to this, yup!

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont (Post 9341487)
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.


Wigs Oct 28, 2022 7:54 PM

The other day I was going to ask what's going in the lot between Mac Graduate Rez and Marquee so I'm glad I ventured into this thread lol
I haven't been to Hamilton since the pandemic hit unfortunately so I'm long overdue. (Before that I was visiting ~6-10 times a year 2015-2019)

What is the current rendering for this project?

SteelTown Oct 28, 2022 7:56 PM

The latest rendering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont (Post 9650214)


Chronamut Oct 28, 2022 9:37 PM

Yawn.. boring..

TheHonestMaple Oct 28, 2022 10:06 PM

I actually like it quite a bit. Brings Hamilton into the 21st century...

StEC Oct 28, 2022 10:19 PM

Wait what happened to curves and pointed tower top? This is far more boring than what I remember this to look like.

Innsertnamehere Oct 28, 2022 10:40 PM

I believe that rendering was still before it was converted to all residential, so the podium likely looks slightly different now.

The curvy massing image is from a while ago that was made for when the previous owner was trying to sell the site I believe to show it’s development potential. The above rendering has been around for a while and is what is actually getting
Built.

Chronamut Oct 29, 2022 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple (Post 9775406)
I actually like it quite a bit. Brings Hamilton into the 21st century...

Dude it looks like literally every other design out there- boxy jutouts, no craftsmanship, boring.

If this is what the 21st century has to offer it's basically saying we've lost a lot of our potential.

ScreamingViking Oct 31, 2022 12:53 AM

Floors 15 to 29 (and 9-14 of the central section) look like they came out of the late-1960s architectural style handbook.

I love the density. The design... a big fat MEH :shrug:

Chronamut Oct 31, 2022 2:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking (Post 9776583)
Floors 15 to 29 (and 9-14 of the central section) look like they came out of the late-1960s architectural style handbook.

I love the density. The design... a big fat MEH :shrug:

THANK you lol.

Crapht Oct 31, 2022 3:06 AM

It’s gross. I’d be fine with just building the podium. Not everything should be a 30 storey tower. Ugh.

mikevbar1 Oct 31, 2022 5:05 AM

Would be glad if this one fought at the OLT to go taller. Would’ve been unique and this one hasn’t been in a rush. Would save it from its own monotony.

Chronamut Nov 1, 2022 5:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikevbar1 (Post 9776738)
Would be glad if this one fought at the OLT to go taller. Would’ve been unique and this one hasn’t been in a rush. Would save it from its own monotony.

Making something gross taller doesn't make it better.

mikevbar1 Nov 1, 2022 7:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut (Post 9777731)
Making something gross taller doesn't make it better.

Yeah, but it might incentivize the developer to have done something better, ie upscale the project/materials. Some height variety on its own would be better than what’ll be a flat 30 storey block of buildings, though.

Chronamut Nov 1, 2022 8:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikevbar1 (Post 9777742)
Yeah, but it might incentivize the developer to have done something better, ie upscale the project/materials. Some height variety on its own would be better than what’ll be a flat 30 storey block of buildings, though.

Honestly? I don't think any of these developers know how to do anything that isn't 90 degree angles lol.. all any of these designs are are siding cladded on top of concrete. It's not rocket science and you can basically template it in an autocad program. Architecture has never been so lazily designed before in history. I know because I used the very same software when I was in school for architecture.

I miss the art deco era for skyscrapers. I miss the look that an architect actually tried to make something unique and stamp his own personal style on it vs making ikea-cookie cutter bland designs. Let's not insult design aesthetic here - I also hate the excuse that "we should be happy we're getting anything" argument. No we shouldn't. We need to expect more. Don't kid yourself - these designs have nothing to do with design modern aesthetic - they are just designed to be made as cheaply as possible. It's like when people have exposed ceilings or exposed concrete walls - its disguised as modern chic but in reality it's making it so they don't have to add additional finishes - cheaply made while being marketed as "trendy" - which has to be the worst deception of all. And the worst part is you pay through the nose and you're not even getting a fully finished look or something that looks like effort was put into it - looks cheap, was made cheap, was finished cheap and priced expensive.

Just a couple art deco examples below. Our pigott building/sunlife building would also be art deco, at least the interior, some nice design finishes preserved inside. Kresgys was unfortunately a bad example of preserved art deco - mainly because the fountain/eagle wings motifs were stripped off it long ago. Our city appears to be obsessed with making everything bland and stripping off all examples of craftsmanship - thank god for core urban I guess..

https://www.invitinghome.com/wp-cont...1-1347x800.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/08/8a/2d/0...rs-s-decor.jpg

In addition I really hate the direction finishes go these days, where it just feels like they're crammed in as an afterthought thus making them look extremely fake, vs making them look like a logical part of the design of the building. Anyone can design a building these days, but not everyone SHOULD.

This is the current design palette for buildings these days
1) curtain wall
2) rectangular jutout picture frame like elements
3) unevenly placed and sized windows placed asymmetrically
4) extemely plain cornices if any - otherwise plain siding
5) any concrete areas capped with siding, usually black, or colours like white and orange
6) randomly placed finishes like faux uneven stone or wood siding
7) windows that lack lintels or pediments leading to a brutalist look
8) exposed concrete wherever it can be gotten away with

The design above has at least half of these checked off - this isn't groundbreaking or innovative architecture. The only thing I can see of remote interest on it is the curve in the gradient balconies like on the one next to it, but in this case it doesn't lend itself to accentuate anything - like the other one accentuated the curve of the design. I am just disappointed in this one on many levels. The only thing they seem to be going for is being "big" or "bulky" looking - at least the mcmaster student building beside it has some innovative design to it.

I'll refer to my fave saying - class over glass. Remember people don't come to hamilton to film the glass skyscrapers when they film movies here.

Hawrylyshyn Nov 1, 2022 11:51 AM

Building like that is going to be more expensive to the developer, increasing the price of the units. That is not at all what is needed right now -- we need more reasonably priced, affordable housing. Function > looks to fill your vanity at this point in time.

King&James Nov 1, 2022 1:56 PM

Better design, higher quality in the context of the building's life is a nominal cost. In some cases, it may be more economical. These boxes will long be standing past our expiry dates.

lachlanholmes Nov 1, 2022 3:35 PM

Shoring machine looked to be working on this site at the southwest corner, next to the Marquee and Caroline.

I would have no issue with much more height here, but let’s be real — the architecture here is bottom-of-the-barrel, and adding height will not improve it. You need a developer who cares about the appearance of their projects, and/or sensible guidance and policy to support good design. We have neither.

I also reject, to a certain degree at least, the notion that you can have good design or more (reasonably priced) housing, but not both. It’s not an either/or choice. You have to be mindful of not adding undue cost, absolutely, but you may also be surprised just how much small and relatively inexpensive changes can do to improve a project. Again, though, you need a developer that has at least some level of caring for aesthetics, and you need an architect who has experience making the tight budgets of multi-res projects into good buildings.

Chronamut Nov 1, 2022 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn (Post 9777789)
Building like that is going to be more expensive to the developer, increasing the price of the units. That is not at all what is needed right now -- we need more reasonably priced, affordable housing. Function > looks to fill your vanity at this point in time.

I can guarantee you this building is not going to be affordably priced, given its location. Might as well cater to "vanity" as a result. Hell even the building RIGHT beside it has somewhat better design. I am not asking for much. Even the building across the street that just collapsed will be designed nicer. Nothing ever built in the core will ever be "affordable". That's one of the costs of living in the core. It's supposed to be that those who live in the core work in the core- at banks and lawyers offices architectural firms and other big expensive companies or commute to toronto and thus can afford to live in the core.

and well said lachlanholmes.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.