213 King St W | 95 m | 30 fl | Under Construction
 

https://i.imgur.com/VrOKGIC.jpg
source

Full Size:


Site:
https://i.imgur.com/SUtHzEI.jpg
Google Street View | King St. W. & Caroline St. S.

tell us more !

1) Zero chance this happens

2) Makes 20/22 look uninspiring in comparison

WOW - you never know. Prime spot for height

YESSSSS! Is this fantasy of legit? Let's get the shovels in the ground lol. I just say tweak the podium somewhat to be more inviting and everything else is great! :yes:

Ooo, that is a beauty, I hope its for real!

This looks amazing but with the height restrictions, why bother proposing 38 fl?

When you're as cuddled up with folks at City Hall as Vranich is, why not right? If anyone can get that height, he can. All the best to him!

I hope Darko has the pull to get this one through.

The city could.... Ya know, use his height push as a benefit. But our city is bad at doing business. Push for public parking, virtua car, cycle parking, and affordable housing units.

But no, let's just deny it, and get nothing out of it.

If there's ever a site that that could handle a 35+ hi rise, it is here. Here's no single residential houses in the area, right next to the future B-Line LRT and all mostly retail/commercial buildings.

So how much is the wager this is denied outright? I'd put $100 on it being denied.

Why not be a little optimistic instead of assuming it'll be shot down?

Didn't ol' Darko say he'd build as tall on that corner as the city will let him? Maybe he's just trying to find out.

I don't care for the glass colour (I'd prefer it match 20/22 George) but the overall shape is promising and I like that the balconies are inset or nearly flush with the corner. And the pointy roof is welcome too.

I wonder if the tower will be mixed use, given the lack of balconies for the lower half?

Wonder what the zoning already allows on the site - guess no such luck it has Stoney Creek Frances Street type! Sur hope Mac gets in gear on the residential tower just east and adjacent.

I agree with you on the glass colour... looks very similar to the Emerald Park Condos in North York which to my eye didn't turn out great due to colour. Certainly unique though..

I like the overall design though.

Downtown Prime Retail Zone D2 - so the first floor is required to be used as retail. I don't know much about it beyond that.

That building would be all killer and not just filler!

Every Vrancor proposal I've seen always throughout the years has green glass initially, but ultimately it changes.

fantastic design....would be awesome to get something other than a flat roof skyline.
2 years ago this would have no problem passing city hall...in fact, it would have been praised.
Sadly, the NIMBYs are in control now....

This is a good point. I get that building a skyscraper right beside some single family homes is problematic, but here there's no reason to not go tall.

Thorne will make it 6 floors with 2 parking per unit.

It's hard for me to not be a little resentful of Lamb for coming in and inducing an immune response in the DNA over what is still IMO an inappropriate place for the most radical new design and density in generations. He probably got CHCH for a song and liked that the neighborhood was turnkey compared to the northern core in terms of redevelopment. I'm not going to argue with the business case there but if he really sees potential in this city it would have been nice if he just spent 20 million on a surface parking lot or even used that carwash he got on Main and avoid all this NIMBY BS for himself and everyone else.

Especially if it's all for nothing and he ends up settling for the new height limit, he has cost us developments like this one on the LRT route where it makes sense, at least until there's more out of town interest once it gets under construction.

there was a time when this would've been on the cover of the Spec. LRTfan is right NIMBYs are in control now.

https://i.imgur.com/VrOKGIC.jpg
source

I wouldn't mind the colour if say this block had a bunch of these types of towers all different class colours - then it'd look kinda innovative.

I am liking the roof, but this feels more like a fantasy design. We'll see what ACTUALLY gets built here.

I was wondering why 20/22 George has the big blank wall. Now it makes complete sense.

Go Vrancor Go!

To the victors go the spoils. Wish he could keep on building, no real competition, a lot of posers in the Hammer.

I can't imagine how certain people in Hamilton believe that every other huge successful progressive and prosperous city in the world is wrong but they are right .... Block development because it blocks the views and creates traffic .... And yet ...let's keep surface parking lots and vacant buildings because they are just the way things go around here and change is scary

Surface parking lots are slowly becoming a thing of the past for Hamilton. The city has sold almost half a dozen lots in the downtown core and is making a conscious effort for garages(wheater publicly or privately owned). More city owned lots are to be deemed surplus in the future.

I wouldn't mind the height limit as much if they had a height minimum as well. Forcing g development to conform to 4-20 storeys and a more European feel with designs that actually look good like the ones proposed in the Burlington thread with some colour and cool designs. But Hamilton would rather push for more suburbia in Elfrida.

Yeah it was always meant to be "plugged into" - although the side on the south east of the building is still going to show as bare concrete no matter what, unless they demolish that newly renovated building next door to it - which is rather unsettling, almost like they planned for that in future..

Respectfully I disagree fully on this.
Hamilton's lower city has shrunk for 45 straight years....that is not Brad Lamb's fault, the DNA's fault or any other scapegoat group.... fault lies 110% with City Hall.
We've had an anti-business, NDP-type crowd running this city forever and the results are plain as day to see.
Every city on earth has small groups of whiny babies. Hamilton is one of the only ones who actually lets them run the show.
There is zero leadership or vision at city hall.
And until Hamiltonians stop pretending to be offended everytime someone points it out, it'll never change.

Don't blame the NDP. They have never had more than a quarter of members of council. On the other hand in Toronto they have dominated city council and the city has thrived.

I agree with this completely. City Hall has no vision for a better Hamilton. They think making Hamilton better means gentrification and pushing out all of the poor people to make way for nice new shiny wealthy people.

That's not what getting better means. It means both improving areas, which is love it or hate it, gentrification, AND doing something for the lower income people in this city. Hamilton would rather keep the city shitty, so they don't have to deal with underlying issues like homelessness, drug addiction, mental health and other ills of society that we refuse to acknowledge. Yet Everytime Malleum fixes something up, they praise it as bringing new life, while completely contradicting everything they said they stand for. Mealleum can fix things, but city hall also needs to realize that things don't get nicer without getting more expensive.

Instead of approving things, they deny everything and are weirdly proud of it. The city has denied more condos downtown than they've approved in like 20 years. Hamilton's downtown desperately needs educated people to bring jobs, and continue the upward swing, but the city would rather deny it, than deal with the reality that they would need to actually improve housing for lower income individuals and transit, and bicycle lanes.

Look at Cannon. The most used cycle track in the city is going to be closed from May - August for Cannon repaving to allow for cars to continue using it. Love it or hate it, the Cannon cycle track has been a complete success, and yet for the peak period they're just saying, "find another place to cycle". The cycle lanes is a vanity project for them, to put on econ dev ads rather than an actual piece of infrastructure.

City Hall doesn't want change, it means having g to put in effort.

EcDev is a disaster. I would like to call out the marketing dude. Nothing but fancy "unstoppable" ads, when it reality they stop everything.

If it's going to become nothing more than an alleyway (if not very closely abutting the proposed new podium; perhaps even attached) why does it matter if it's a concrete wall?

I use the Cannon cycle track often. It's in horrible shape. It's getting an upgrade. How else would it be improved without closing it? Construction means sacrifice.

I think he means the part thats visible from Bay st above and behind the Textile building. :shrug:

It's still an alleyway. And sure to be blocked in by something if not the Mac grad residence proposal, plus whatever the remaining parking lot on the NW corner of Bay/George becomes.

Not to derail the thread, but Cannon will still be open, but only to cars. 2 lanes on the North side while they pave the south side, then the opposite. Westbound lanes are being reduced by 3 when they add LRT, but they can't even reduce it by 2 while Cannon gets repaved. It shows Hamilton isn't serious about cycling infrastructure that they don't even have an official detour route planned.

Oh I understand. I'm not offended by a bit of exposed concrete.

Wondering if anyone knows who owns the last corner on the block (south east) at George and Bay?

I'm not either - what I am offended by is that it hints that the textile building is being planned to be demolished - so that something can abut to THIS side of the concrete wall as well - and to newly renovate a building to the extent they did and then just plan to eventually buy it up and demolish it.. well that doesn't sit right with me.

Of course I could be wrong, and if so well that wall will just become a heavily graffiittied wall as it's perfect for taggers. Maybe they'll put a nice mural there or something.

All I can find is that is a City lot rented from a private owner, though this lease looks out of date: http://www2.hamilton.ca/Hamilton.Por...03/PD04196.pdf

I can't find out if McMaster actually owns the northerly lot at SW of King and Bay. No development application I can find. I wonder if both lots are privately owned and Mac is developing it as a tenant? According to that report, Leggat Investments owned 191 King and Oakland "6" Limited owned 22 Bay S. Maybe the same Leggat as behind the car dealerships?

Werent the lots owned by HMP(so the Leggat connection makes sense) Thought Mac had bought them but cant find documentation.

Dreaming optimistically that this happens. Tried to get a picture for how this area would be with Macs tower completed.

https://i.imgur.com/sScJ69J.jpg

Alternatively, if City Hall enforces a 30-storey limit, probably something like this?

https://i.imgur.com/LAkR9Fu.jpg

Blue gold and greeen.. blue gold and greee ee ee eeeen..

it's nice to see different colours of glass though - and what a difference to the cityscape it shows.. quite the built up little block.. that convenience store looks so dinky now in comparison..

Very much looking forward to this coming to fruition! Also hope to hell the 30 story limit is not enforced here because the corner tower would add some much needed visual interest instead of a flat table top skyline!

And that lot with the Busybee corner store and the Tim Hortons really needs to be redeveloped! Anyone know if that may happen one day?

It seems like there have been repeated attempts to get things erected at that location.

lol. thats a good one:cheers:

What ever happened to that fixture surplus store across the street(NE King and Caroline). There were plans to build a 20 story tower there? I'm guessing that died.