|
80 John St N | 97m | 2 x 30 fl |Proposed
There is a proposed development going to DRP on December 10 at this address. This is behind the development that is adjacent to the new https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=229309 Rebecca/John park. This lot is currently a parking lot kitty corner to the https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=239353
https://i.imgur.com/nMj9lXXl.jpg Google Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/u88Jca9kNjpFr4vV6 I will update once I see something. |
Not Lot#42! That's one of my favourites. You could literally build a small village across the Lots of Wilson.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm quite excited by 80 John St, 71 Rebecca and John and Wilson filling in. It will create an entire community there and streetscape of commercial and residential where there is currently nothing. I don't have faith the design will look great though, as the developer has a bunch of plain condos in Sauga. |
Quote:
|
I hope whoever moves in demands a better park than the one they just built.
|
https://i.imgur.com/3cnCeuH.png
From NRU today. 2 x30s, 9s podium. 619 units, 1,763 square metres of retail. Rental building. Architect is mcCallumSather. |
I have the entire presentation coming my way Friday from DRP as well.
For those interested that is 19,000sqft of retail. Which is great. I'd still like to see office space built in these types of towers in the floor above retail so night life can continue to expand, but I am glad to see much needed wider sidewalks. Hopefully the building has lower parking requirements and public parking below. Also for anyone confused the view of the above sketch is from Wilson street looking east, so the Rebecca Street development would be to the right of this building. I'm surprised this sketch doesn't show that building and the one kitty corner, however maybe the more official massing or renders will have this. I've got to say, I'm quite pleased that this entire area of parking has proposed development now, especially rentals. With the 71 Rebecca St proposal, there will be nearly 30,000sqft proposed commercial for this block, and over 1000 new units translating to likely 1500 people living on a previous parking lot, and 2 blocks from James. |
Of the three major proposals at this intersection, dare I say this group seems to have the most promising chance of pulling through, or at least doing so fastest? I don't have much faith in Jvnd kitty corner and if 80 John is goin to DRP this week, I don't get the sense that Rosehaven's work nextdoor is closer to development than this is.
|
I'm fairly confident Rosehaven will be under construction in a year or two. Kaneff seems to move fairly quickly too however judging by their Mississauga projects. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see this whole block go up at once.
|
tremendous news and great location for all these new developments. having rentals included is awesome since it will minimize ownership requirements for people earlier in their careers/savings while providing an ideal locale for proximity to multiple destinations and nightlife.
|
Looks promising!
I'm SO FREAKIN' GLAD those parking lot wastelands are likely going to finally see some construction lovin'... despite all of what's gone up west of Bay St., and the Connaught redevelopment, I think all this will be the biggest change in the downtown core. :cheers: |
Fantastic news, like what I'm seeing so far!
|
Lemme just clarify something, 'cause I'm having a hard time sorting this out - this is the corner of Wilson and John, is that correct?
|
Quote:
|
Oh Nice. Cant wait to see more. This is just what Hamilton needs. I wish there would be some 3 bedroom rentals downtown as well.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And yet the biggest parking lot is still left.. I wonder what their plans for it are.. now that this one faces it.. I'd love to see something super cool go there, like a fancy opera house or something.
Still, it's good to see this proposed lot being redeveloped though :) |
I like this proposal, especially since it's taking away a large surface parking lot.
However, what is this the 3rd or 4th proposed twin tower building? It seems like we're getting a few 2 x 30 fl buildings—stupid height limits. |
Quote:
How surreal will it be in a few years to be actually spending time which for most our lives has been an asphalt ocean? |
The amount of twin towers that are being proposed is ridiculous... We will eventually create a table top skyline which couldn't be less inspired
|
I will continue to argue that the city doesn't matter much from far away. If phone backgrounds matter that much to you guys, you can learn to draw.
There is a certain level of demand, and if we allowed 60 storey towers, there would be half the development which would mean less parking filled in, and many more people over a single point in the city. These towers and others do after job of getting density without completely blocking all light from the surface of the earth, and get more people downtown without overriding roads and transit more than they already will. What we need is to fill in more of the city with a mix of this density and medium density, and to infill older neighbourhoods with middling density and gentle density such as duplexes and triplexes, with parking lot plazas having density to create a meeting place, the "third place". I will pull better quality renders from the PDF presentation I receive from clerks tomorrow. |
Oddly enough, it seems the height limit is mostly going to benefit the streetscape, and not for the reason of making it easier to see the mountain. You surely know by now how I feel about those wretched car lots. Frankly I'm more concerned about a podium over a tower. But alas, there's no Podium-of-a-skyscraperpage forum, yet. :haha:
|
Quote:
In my mind, it's no question at all - it holds a lot of value! Especially in a city with the topography of Hamilton, particularly with the escarpment being such an important place to look over the city. What does completely giving up on the skyline gain us, anyways? I used to see development with a view similar to yours - a very rosy view just happy to see parking lots disappear, money get invested, and new supply being built. I simply can't view development the same way anymore. So many of the proposals we have seen in the downtown, while being numerous, and while representing major investments, are generally terrible architecture, terrible urban planning, and terrible city building. Yet, so many of these above typified proposals comply with the City's policies, plans, and goals! Frankly, I think there's enough demand to justify taller buildings and still fill in a good chunk of empty space. Before the DTSP, developers were proposing multiple towers above 30 storeys - the market demand is there. And honestly, there isn't truth in a simple correlation between height and shadow - the casting of shadows is affected by so, so many more intricacies than simple height, and with a little bit of thought in design, the shadow impact of one sixty storey building can end up being much less than the shadow impact of two thirty storey towers. Truth be told, there are issues with redeveloping large sites in short periods of time. Design suffers, streetscape suffers, potential is wasted, etc. I am happy to see parking lots disappear, but I do not believe it is a wholly positive thing that we get rid of them as soon as possible. I especially believe this when the policies that are guiding the redevelopment of these parking lots are worsening the negative effects. While we as a city cannot change the economic principles that invariably result in parking lots being redeveloped before other parcels, we have a duty to push for the best possible redevelopment schemes on these sites. As it is a lot more difficult to knock down a 30 storey tower than it is to rip up a parking lot, it's reasonable to expect the buildings built today will stand for another hundred years, and recognize that because of this we're only going to get one chance to build out these sites properly and that therefore we have to seize that opportunity now. We are not doing that. The height limit is not doing that. Many plans and policies are not doing that. We are wasting the potential of these sites. |
Again. I'm not going to get into this again. I'll say my piece and back on topic. People here seem to be height zealots with little to no concern for factors beside height. Everyone here can pretend they do care, but there many thread here where people go "ugly as hell, but at least it's tall". It's silly and a useless conversation.
Many here are simply enthusiasts and have very little interaction with the urban planning community. Suburban sprawl is bad, but the polar opposite is simply not the answer. I suspect you will recognize this as well eventually. It took me years to get off the tall density is best density train of thought. I used to go out and fight for height at all costs too. As I delved deeper into urban planning and began studying urban planning and speaking with professionals in this field, and not the wealthy developers who care not for the blank community shown in their renders. Majority of big developments come from massive corporations that have no interest in developing a community, nor quality design, buildings, or ones that stand the test of time. They are the Walmart of housing. A brand that takes good things, and super sizes it, and ruins everything about it. We need housing, but there are so many other answers other than height alone. Proper zoning could meet our intensification needs while maintaining an enjoyable to live around heights. I care far more about community and living here, because I live here. Do design and architecture matter? Sure, but what the city looks like from afar, this "table top" viewpoint presented here does not matter at all. Nobody that matters looks at a city and chooses it because of architecture or design. They choose because of strong economic factors, infrastructure, transit, quality of life et cetera. Nobody who doesn't matter chooses a city for these reasons either. Families will not look at the skyline of Hamilton and think, "hey I bet this is a good city because of a variety of building heights". They care about schools, and community centres, and road safety, and traffic. It is a small minority on here that continue to repeat over and over again this hatred of 30 storey limit. If they had made the limit 50 storeys, I'm sure we'd still hear complaints. It's just truly annoying, and accomplishes nothing. Hamilton is thriving, growing, and getting more development proposals per year than it did in 40 years. And everyone here still thinks the city is struggling because of a few storeys. It's nonsense and it's not what I come here to read about repeatedly. If we want to talk design, talk design, if we want to talk about the floor plans, feel free. If we want to repeat for the actual 50th time some groaning about how the height limit should have been some other arbitrary number, then please, please let's move on to something more useful. There. You all know my opinion on this. Now please, back to the building. If you have problems with the height, maybe talk about that in the policy section of the forum. |
Quote:
So, yes we have a height limit... Does that mean that we now have to live with an abundance of lackluster design & architecture? |
Quote:
This block sucks though because it would have been a good opportunity to terrace the heights of each building to provide more interest from different vantage points around the area. Instead what we're getting is a slabby and monolithic block with hundreds of spots of above ground parking, units that will receive less than ideal light and have less than ideal views because they're aiming for the maximum of what the zoning has allowed. The problem with the height limit isn't the limit itself but how much negotiating power the city gives up in exchange for a piece of policy designed to appease people who bought houses in the core. I wonder what the floor plate sizes are here... Toronto recommends 750 square metres, but I am not sure if Hamilton has a similar policy in place, but these look THICC. Anyways, until Hamilton's identity moves beyond "not being Toronto" it's going to sit in exactly the same place its been for the last 30 years. Yeah, there are a ton of development proposals, but they're of terrible quality and in many case worse architecturally than the most generic Toronto condo towers. I can say with confidence that these prefab concrete structures do not get built in the GTA, except maybe in industrial areas as warehouses. |
Quote:
Hamilton's stuff is cheaper because the city is cheaper. The budget simply isn't there to build high end stuff like Toronto because condos here sell for literally half of what they do in Toronto. Condos in Hamilton are selling in the $700/sf range right now, compared to $1,400/sf+ in Toronto for the higher profile projects. That extra money gives you a lot more to do interesting stuff. Toronto's condos were shite too at the start of the boom there, Hamiltons will get better over time as well. The better comparison for Hamilton is more so Kitchener or London. The designs coming out here are dare I say better than most stuff going up in KWC, though they do have a handful of nice high end projects going up in their downtown right now. The problem too is that the only developer actually building right now is Vrancor and Coletara who only put up absolute crap. Once the Rosehaven building comes together it'll look a lot better and Lamb only does absolutely sublime work so Television City should look incredible. It'll come with time. Even the Liuna building should be half decent, though they picked one of the worst architects in Toronto to design it. |
I fully suspect a number of these developments would normally be taller with less towers if it weren't for the height limit. However, I don't think this is all that bad, since the tradeoff is a greater skyline bulk and a greater amount of transformation at ground level due to more towers being built. It's spreading the density out more instead of allowing it to be concentrated into taller towers.
Hamilton still does have a ton of parking lots available though despite all of these developments. There's still plenty of time and room for tall buildings. It won't be like this forever. |
David, I respect your opinions most of the time, but here you are wrong.
The reason a height limit, a good policy in my mind and the mind of most good planners was passed is because it is popular. The reason rezoning all single family home areas to multi-unit dwelling by default has not occurred is because it is wildly unpopular. Toronto could allow unlimited heights, and it would not become affordable. It is also a common misconception that each floor reduces the cost of a building. I have seen various studies where going taller actually increased the cost of construction and made units more expensive. The goal isn't affordability though, it's profit. So if the units can be sold, as long as the margins are good, it will be proposed. |
Hey that's cool. It just sounds like you're trying to justify this to yourself more than anyone. I was like that too for a long time, but eventually I realized that Hamilton at its core is not a real city but an isolationist suburban region with a massive case of self loathing (your comment about allowing gentle density within residential neighbourhoods not being "popular" reinforces this - people in Hamilton want to live in houses, and they don't want apartments anywhere near them)
Nobody here is claiming that Toronto allowing unlimited heights would increase affordability, but it does reveal how ignorant you are regarding development in Toronto, specifically outside of the downtown core, but I guess it's hard to expect more when most Hamiltonians relationship with Toronto extends from the Union bus terminal to the rom and back. |
Your thoughts that my opinions are Hamilton specific are ironic in that you've surrounded yourself with Toronto centric planning principles. The reality is that these are sound planning principles utilized in various places around the world. Just because you heard bad planning policy and think it's right, doesn't make you right.
I'm interested in having a conversation about zoning and encouraging density both in and outside the core, but firstly this should occur in the policy section of the forum, and not here. And secondly, it should be just that a conversation. The side of height has little interest in listening to opinions that aren't height, height, height. The reality is that condo and rental building construction are incredibly complex economic decisions made largely by massive housing corporations , in addition to having both psychological and physiological effects on human mood, and transportation infrastructure planning is lost on many members here who lament on a table top look to the city. Again, this is not an important issue, and is not in my opinion holding back Hamilton in any meaningful way. If you think the 30 storey limit is making Hamilton look like ------- instead of /\/\/\/\ then sure, but that's not a compelling discussion, and shouldn't be constantly repeated, on literally every single thread with a good or bad proposal. |
Beatles Abbey Road reference noted
|
Getting back to this development, looks like it will top out at 101 metres or so with the mechanical penthouse, maybe a little more than that. It's 97m to the top of the 30th floor in the drawings, not including the mech level.
|
Since my pictures are the exact same when posted here in terms of quality, I will just share the Imgur link to the higher quality pictures: http://imgur.com/gallery/V6EnLc0
https://i.imgur.com/8eji9S4h.jpg |
Really loving this project. Decent design, PERFECT density for the area, and is in the perfect location- I can't fathom anyone in the area arguing against this, considering no one really lives in the direct vicinity. I must admit, the height limit is helping Hamilton have a more fleshed out streetscape, even if it means we have to sacrifice height. IF this momentum keeps up and starts gaining, we could eventually see taller projects proposed in the same frequency as these barely-below-the-limit 30fl buildings. In the meantime, I greatly appreciate what something like this will do for the city and the region it's being built in. That ocean of parking is perfect for a new neighbourhood and I hope the city works with developers to make it a model for sustainable development going forward. While that might be unlikely for now, Hamilton's zoning is actually fostering growth better than I, SSP, or likely even the city itself planned/expected. I guess there are worse things than a flat skyline anyway. Just hope the city can capitalize on this rather than enforce stricter zoning regulations. Who knows though.
PS: Also... this thing has pretty good-looking street-level integration. Especially considering a lot of projects around the city... well.... dont. |
Quote:
I really like the colour and look of this building in Ottawa and hopefully we get some unique cool designs like this in the future: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wKN8ApoxUGXGsXV8A Especially out by Ottawa street. |
The twin towers all at 30 stories needs to stop! Have one at 25 & the other at 35 or some other varied number but none of this same height bullshit it's actually ruining the skyline. It needs to be varied somewhat.
This arbitrary height limit is the dumbest most frustrating thing about this city. Well I take that back, most of the current old guard city council is then the height limit. Now I love this building design though and the wood (or fake wood?) and the podium, density & mixed use... just mix up the heights a bit and it will be a solid winner! |
Quote:
that being said as always I wish they would go for a bit more inspiring designs with these, but this is tucked away so whatever. Also as for height - its my belief that a cities middle should be the highest and kinda peter away at the sides - so I'd be up for slightly taller in the core, esp say the eatons center redevelopment, but not everywhere - then it just looks like you stuck a buncha pencils in a glass and you get the views like in hong kong.. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D-6V7E2JC8g/maxresdefault.jpg does light even PENETRATE into the street level at this point? Personally I don't really care about how tall they are. I only care about how interesting they LOOK. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...rb4YQ&usqp=CAU cool https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/wp...ral-london.jpg awesome https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bb/e2...8345179848.jpg amazing https://i.pinimg.com/474x/b5/e1/c7/b...d3dc21a5b1.jpg inspiring I mean seriously, our architecture is boring compared to almost everywhere else. We're stuck with precast crap with random windows and box like jutouts and picture frame elements - THAT is OUR "innovation". Pathetic. We are also obsessed with box design - george st's one was suddenly beautiful compared to everything else because a) it's bright b) it's a BOX THAT BULGES - OMG and c) it has enough subtle elements to the tower (not the podium - yawn) to actually make it look visually interesting from a distance - like that balcony white curve design.. Let's stop bitching about height and get back to commenting on whether the design is crappy or not lol. At least that's something we can ALL find common ground on. This design for this proposal is very ho-hum. But as I said, it's nowhere noteworthy so whatever. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It wasn't until I worked for the government and got to travel literally all over the province that I realized just how far behind Hamilton is compared to where it thinks it is. For some reason Hamilton thinks it's the only downtown that's working on improving itself, but cities like London, Waterloo and Kingston have all done more, spent more $ to bring their own respective visions to life. Hamilton, meanwhile, wants to stand on a table and call itself tall without actually doing anything. |
Quote:
Just enjoy living in toronto - clearly that's a real city to you. And no I have no toronto envy whatsoever.. and no im not overcompensating or anything.. nor do i resent Toronto's development in the slightest.. people are free to think what they want, I just think it should kinda be more centered around ones own city though. Personally I don't care if hamilton is tall or not - I just care if it functions well as a city and has buildings that look nice - some with fusions of heritage and others that have more well thought out modern developments. |
I don’t loathe Hamilton. I think it has a lot of potential and could become a really spectacular place if it stops getting in its own way and learns to work as part of a larger network or regions within the gta instead of acting like it can do everything on its own and turning its back on literally every other Ontario municipality, existing like it’s an island nation hundreds of miles away from everything else.
Hamiltons situation is not unique. Every downtown in Ontario, and to a larger extent, in North America has seen the urban renewal and loss of industry that Hamilton has. It could learn a lot from these places and how they’ve bounced back, but it would rather squander its potential through poor policy decisions and bad government. I want Hamilton to succeed but the reality is (as someone mentioned in one of the other threads) Hamilton’s success is directly tied to and correlates with the success of Toronto, and it’s surrounding cities. It needs to stop acting like it isn’t 45 minutes down the road from Toronto and learn to play the cards it’s been dealt to it’s advantage. |
Quote:
And you can't blame hamiltons animosity towards Toronto - for decades torontonians sneered at hamilton as the "dirty" city until they learned of the lower prices here. I don't think hamilton thinks it is unique - we know there are rustbelt cities all over that are doing what we do - I think hamilton just wants to do it its own way, even if it trips and stumbles along the way. It wants to say that whatever it achieved it did it on its own, and I don't think that's a terrible goal to have. Yes if we considered ourself a part of the GTA things might be easier, but the point is that Hamilton doesn't want to be. It wants to be its own thing. We shall see how time shines light on that. We haven't turned a blind eye entirely to toronto - we still open our doors for torontonians to live here - and we still welcome toronto developers to build here and open up businesses here. |
Ah Hamilton, would meet it's potential if only there were 90 storey towers.
Skyscrapilton. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev