1284 Main St E (Former Delta Secondary School) | 44m | 3x14fl | Proposed
 

DRP is today, will share information when done. Looks to be 44m tall. I couldn't fit all the building heights but there are three 14fl buildings, 2 lengths of 4 storey townhomes and two 2fl townhome rows. These are screenshots from the DRP meeting, hence the lower quality. Looks like 975 units. 1137 units of car parking. 490 units of bicycle parking.

https://i.imgur.com/Huj7NFAh.png

https://i.imgur.com/Y1Vupm4h.png

https://i.imgur.com/tWpIZMVh.png

https://i.imgur.com/dmjeT6ih.png

https://i.imgur.com/FBNuSZph.png

https://i.imgur.com/tv81Ktkh.png

https://i.imgur.com/dmjeT6ih.png

https://i.imgur.com/qBMjLWgh.png

https://i.imgur.com/Cv0PwFJh.png

https://i.imgur.com/hjbVzmfh.png

a LOT of parking. At least bring it down to 1:1 in a location like this..

I like it, a lot.

There goes the neighbourhood!

Expect this one to get fought tooth and nail. Because nobody likes change. :rolleyes:

Personally I think it's quite appropriate. I can see it getting lopped down to 10 floors, but this is a decent plan for a massive and unused space.

Oh man, can you imagine the push back on this in the Delta?

Either way that's a beautiful school and glad it won't go to waste. I'm sure the businesses around there would love all those residents, especially End Zones, right across the street. Talk about convenience for a pint (It's not The Brain Bar or anything, but hey).

Car parking seems over the top for a pretty transit/walkable/future LRT focused area.

Don't forget it's right on the LRT too! Can't imagine any opposition to this being successful, this is exactly what the city and province want for east hamilton.

I like the density - but those white ribbed parts on the top feel very bulky - almost like theyre gonna topple over - woulda preferred more of a seamless curtain wall look like some of core urbans stuff, but glad to see it having a new purpose at least.

I actually like this one

Great plan and density, awesome that the existing structure is maintained

Where's the parking some of you are talking about? Am I blind?

I think this looks great.

Must be underground. The site plan looks like it shows a couple of ramps, with vehicle access from the street at the back (Maple)

I like that they're preserving the open space around the northern perimeter too.

Yes it's all underground. The DRP site has been updated to include the PDF documents. I will spend some time after dinner cropping a few screens to share.

Definitely good for neighbouring businesses. I'll admit if I lived there I would want a parking spot.

And that's fine. But not everyone might, and when you force a parking spot on people, they usually will buy a car or you'll encourage car ownership in the building. Only enough parking to sell or rent out units should be built. Legally requiring parking is insane policy, and bad policy, and getting rid of it, cause mayhem exactly nowhere.

Me too, though I'd drive much less if I lived here.

162 extra spaces compared to the unit count is excessive IMO. This is right on the city's busiest bus corridor, with future access to higher order transit at stations just a few hundred metres away both east and west.

As long as the parking is underground, I don't mind.

There are plenty of people who want to move someplace where they don't have to depend on a car for most of the things they have to do, but still want to have a car for the times they need it. They'll need somewhere safe to park it and underground is perfect for them. For those who don't have a car, they can rent out to those who need more than one space. My mom rents out her space for $250 a month in her east end condo.

The issue again is the REQUIREMENT. If you don't have a car you are required to purchase one, whether it's included in the price or not, the cost of the spot is included in your price. This encourages people who already own cars to live here, and encourages people without cars to buy one. This is both problematic from a economic standpoint, a sensibility standpoint, a sustainability standpoint, a climate emergency standpoint, a traffic standpoint, and defeats a large purpose of te the LRT and the states goals of the city to reduce car usage. It also causes many developments to not pencil out, slowing development and slowing the construction of homes for people who desperately need them.

The cost of building an underground spot can cost $80,000-$120,000. $250/month doesn't cover that cost, it also puts housing out of reach for some since it increases cost and therefore down payment, and it makes more housing unprofitable to build. The parking here will likely cost $90,000,000-$136,000,000 to build.

This is Canada. You need a car to get around. This isn't a dense European city. Perhaps far into the future our cities will evolve into something that you don't need a car for. But for now it's an absolute must. Good luck selling condos without a parking spot. There's a reason they include them, they're not just some novelty.

They include because they're mandatory. Television City is another example of where they can't even sell the parking stalls. The modeshare of this area is already sub-85% automobiles which will only decrease with increases in transit service and cycling infrastructure.

I can't believe y'all want more condo buildings in this city but aren't supportive of one of the most restrictive zoning by-laws that slow, or stop in their tracks new developments..

There have been numerous developments with reduced parking asks. This and the BrockU likely don't want to fight the city on that particular part because they think they can sell of the parking stalls, but I'm sure they'd love to include less.

I'll remind everyone one of the first cities in Canada to remove parking minimums was Edmonton. There's literally a Cards Against Humanity card about an Icy Edmonton Hooker. The weather here really isn't that bad. I walked to work this morning and it was 5°C

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...prices/618910/

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...n-more-housing

Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability: https://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf

https://www.insauga.com/removing-par...e-cost-report/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...h%20to%20offer.

In the central city a car is an amenity, not a necessity.

Parking spots for every unit? Ok I can accept that. Up to 17% more? Why.

lol just wait until there is another polar vortex winter here..

https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU

• Video Link

Hamilton has some of the lowest average snowfall amounts in Eastern Canada lol. There are *maybe* 10 days a year at most where cycling would be challenging.

I don't own a car, and I own a house in the Lower City. I've never owned a car and have lived in Toronto, Calgary, Toronto (again) and Hamilton. It's not that hard to live life without one. It's not a necessity. Water, shelter and food however are necessities.

Also financially I don't support the cost versus depreciation versus relative investment opportunities/cash flow versus environmental impact. One day when EV's are efficient and there's infrastructure to support EV usage more broadly, I will buy one.

If I was to teach a course to young people on financially literacy, there would be a course unit on why this in important if you'd like to own a condo/house and stop complaining about past generations. That roughly (and terribly understated) $600/month between insurance, upkeep and gas over 'x' years could easily be invested and reduce home ownership hurdles by 7-8 years. It's simple math via compounding.

What about people who want to own a car, and want to live in the city? I make a lot of money and I like to own a sports car, but also like that urban life. Why can't I have both? Some bureaucrat at city hall is going to make that harder for me to achieve by limiting parking spaces at condos for no real good reason? Silly.

lol I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying the city shouldn't *mandate* a certian amount of parking. If a developer thinks they can sell the parking spots, they can still build them.

Gotcha. That I have no issue with. Let the market decide.

It's not the issue of snow - it's the issue of freezing rain leaving bumpy or jagged icy conditions - canada is prone to drops in temperature turning areas into deathtraps - look at all the falling trees we've had in various years due to them becoming too heavy with rain that has frozen onto them - pretty but deadly - for me I used to have to walk a city block to the bus every day and I had to basically walk like a duck just to not kill myself on the icy deathtrap that freezing rain would cause - I can only imagine what biking on that would be like.

I am glad that video at least explained the ice. One thing it didn't touch on though is the fact that oslo is full of people who are WHITE - aka people who grew up there and have become genetically conditioned to the snow and cold. My genetics are from italy and the equator - when my adopted parents - who are both white were comfortable outside, I was freezing. So their argument that people don't bike because it's cold is bullshit - many of us DON'T for that reason. I basically hibernate as much as I can until the weather warms up to something my genetics doesn't consider apocalyptic lol.

also i destroyed my elbow as a kid to the point they had to put pins in it riding a bike - I can't ride a bike even if I wanted to - or another break will cause my elbow to fuse together - doctors orders - sooo bike riding isn't for everyone I am afraid.

Oulu Finland is probably a climate model for good winter biking, by getting relatively little winter precipitation and basically always being below freezing, so there’s no freeze-thaw icing issues.

Plus they have a massive amount of separated cycling paths where wiping out has some risk, but nothing next to falling onto a road with active car traffic.

I think it's a decent looking development, but it should have incorporated some ground floor retail.

This is what I was saying, though there should be limitations on parking adjacent to rapid transit. Most cities do this. Once LRT is complete, I do believe zoning around the station up to 1000m should put stricter limits on parking maximums. Otherwise, we shouldn't be limiting parking no, just not mandating it.

Honestly, maximums bother me just as much as minimums. If someone wants to pay to have 3 parking spaces, let them. It won't be cheap, and as a result it won't happen a whole lot. Toronto basically only sees it be an issue with it's most high-end luxury buildings where owners all have multiple sports cars, etc. they want to park. It's just not really a real problem which needs to see staff time wasted on.

I wonder how many people rent storage for their "excess" or collector cars?

You'd think it would be far cheaper than buying additional parking spaces in a condo building. There's probably a human need to have stuff "under the same roof" but practically speaking, if one needs to have more than one personal vehicle, there are options. Even if they only have one, there are often options for long-term parking that are not far away from home.

When I lived in an apartment building in Burlington, there was a couple that were paying for multiple spaces. It wasn't a big building, 11 storeys, maybe 100 units altogether. Some parking was in a single level underground, and some spaces were outside. Anyway, they had TWO "classic" cars parked underground, covered with fabric tarps, as well as their daily use vehicle. I found that funny. Parking was only about $80 a month, and they were there before I moved in so likely paid less. But still.

So shit, this will all be underground parking for that many spaces? That is something for sure, and the price of it, even more something that people buying into won't appreciate as something true at all.
I definitely love this development however. Been a while waiting for what was to become of this. Well worth the wait. :)

Some people will pay decent coin just for extra parking.

All units in my mom's new condo come with an underground parking space (2 levels) and the parking outside is only for visitors.
She didn't need the parking space so she's renting it out to a guy for $250/month. She's not sure if this is for his second personal car or for his wife's car. If it's for a 2-car couple, then renting out a condo space is the obvious choice as they each need easy access to their own cars. If it's for his second personal car, then I have to believe there's a cheaper alternative. But as you say, some may just want to be close to their cars to feel more secure.

https://1284main.ca/

https://1284main.ca/wp-content/uploa...11/Slide-1.jpg

It will be cool when they sodablast powerwash it like the other school and it reverts back to the pre-coal original brick colour. This school always felt very substantial - maybe because it's built up elevation wise.

Personally I don't feel the modern addition plays well with the heritage though - feels too blocky and unwieldy.

Again, I might be too easy to please - but I think this is great.

Loved that they're saving the existing building (which is great) and don't mind that the new addition isn't closer aligned in aesthetic with the old building.

This area doesn't do much for me, and I would love to see more stuff like this downtown - but this will be a great addition.

From Main the school will dominate, even with 14-storey towers behind it. I like that the greenspace will be kept, but in this case you can't really preserve the school building without keeping the lawns. I'd love to see it be more "park"-like with some benches and planters... Gage Park is not far west and Montgomery about the same distance to the east, but the lower city in general lacks open spaces such as this.

Pretty crazy to see something like this and then theres that school thats maybe half the size of this that Harry has been sitting on for a decade on Barton. Anyway I still wish this had been an affordable housing project but this should turn out pretty nice regardless. Huge intensification.

New Horizons actually does a lot of affordable units (860 Queenston has a bunch) so we may see some integrated into the project - we'll have to see.

Did anyone go to the town hall for this project last week?

Pushback against pitch for 14-storey condo towers on Delta school site

Neighbouring residents air concerns about height and traffic during developer’s open house

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...nium-plan.html

A plan for 14-storey condo towers and nearly 1,000 units at the site of a now-shuttered east Hamilton school is shaping up to be a tough sell for residents of its low-rise neighbourhood.

But New Horizon Development Group says it’s still early days as it considers the community’s take on its pitch for the former Delta Secondary School.

“The earlier that we get that feedback, the more of a chance that we can act on it,” managing director Jason Garland said during an open house this week.

The plan is to create 87 units by retrofitting the classrooms of the nearly century-old school that fronts Main Street East and backs onto Maple Avenue, between Wexford Avenue South and Graham Avenue South.

The rest of the 975 units are to be in new buildings, including three- and four-storey townhomes along the perimeter of the sprawling site and three 14-storey towers framing a courtyard.

Parkettes and walkways are part of the design. With a parking ratio of 1.15 per unit, more than 1,000 spots are to be underground.

The spectre of that many more cars motoring down neighbourhood roads and taking up on-street parking raised a few eyebrows during the open house, where more than 400 attendees signed in.

Local resident Ryan Sim, who predicted “parking roulette” would ensue, also worried future tower dwellers could gaze into the two-and-a-half-storey home he shares with his wife and child.

“You know, I have nice, big windows, but I guess I’ll have to get blinds.”

And when construction gets underway, Main will also likely be torn up for Hamilton’s future LRT line, Sims added.

“So we’re going to be living in a traffic hellhole for 10 years.”

Likewise, longtime Delta East resident Pat Gubbins suggested a more modest seven storeys would be a better fit for the low-slung area. “I think 14 is far too big.”

But that density is essential to build enough homes to accommodate a forecast population boom and not pave over farmland, Karl Andrus said.

“There’s always neighbourhood pushback against these sorts of projects, but we need density if we’re not going to build beyond our urban boundary,” said Andrus, who leads the Hamilton Community Benefits Network.

In November, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark imposed an urban expansion into farmland for residential development with the city’s population expected to grow by 236,000 over the next 30 years.

But city planners have insisted Hamilton can meet growth targets by increasing density through such housing types as apartment buildings, fourplex conversions, townhouses and secondary suites in the built-up area.

Nonetheless, the Delta proposal represents a “big change” for the neighbourhood, city planning director Steve Robichaud said.

Generally, he said, the public raises the same concerns as city planners: traffic, overlook, shadows, tree removal, capacity of the school system.

“So we do want to listen to the community and hear what their concerns are. I’ve often said density without design equals disaster.”

But even with the minister’s expansion, the city still must plan for 70 to 80 per cent of its growth within the existing urban area, Robichaud noted.

“There was strong support amongst the community in general for intensification and redevelopment, but it’s now just seeing on a project-by-project basis how are they achieving the various goals and objectives.”

So far, her office has fielded plenty of feedback on the Delta project, new Ward 4 councillor Tammy Hwang says.

“People understand that there needs to be density and there needs to be development.”

But their concern is how much New Horizon and project partner Losani Homes have proposed, Hwang said.

“We’re looking at three condo towers being 14 storeys and so that is really causing a lot of concern for our neighbours.”

As it stands, the official plan only allows up to 12 storeys in the area, which means the extra height requires a council-approved amendment. The project also needs a zoning change.

No date has been set yet for those considerations. A statutory round of public consultation is also on the horizon.

In 2021, Indwell had made a bid to purchase the Delta site from the public board with plans to create affordable rental and ownership units.

The non-profit, which specializes in affordable, supportive housing, also wanted to keep the school’s amenities, including its gym and auditorium, available to the community.

But the developers came up on top, purchasing the property for $15.1 million.

Andrus contends council should do some “horse trading” to secure some community benefits, nonetheless.

A “missed opportunity” for the Delta project was inclusionary zoning — a provincially legislated tool that obliges a certain percentage of affordable units in developments — with no bylaw yet in place, he said.

“I think this is an excellent opportunity for the City of Hamilton to be extractive in its demands with the developer.”

Community benefits are a consideration, “if we can achieve a certain density,” said Garland, also pointing to the project’s “viability” is a factor.

“It’s that balance and trying to find that sweet spot,” he said, “and the only way we can sort of gauge what’s important for everyone is to hear from them.’

I think this development is perfect for the area. The towers are really not very tall at only 14 floors, and they are set way back from the surrounding roads. Any pushback on this is pure NIMBYism. Between this development and the new LRT, this stretch of main will become quite vibrant and probably develop into it's own little urban 'downtown'. Disappointing to see Tammy Hwang side with a handful of complainers when she knows full well the ward needs that tax revenue.

Not to mention housing. Housing advocates are always housing advocates until politics.

This is reasonable for the area, especially considering the LRT. I would like to see fewer parking spaces though, and that would actually solve the concerns around traffic. Everyone thinks there will be residents of these parking on the streets, but with 975 units there's just not 975 parking spots in the area, and it could also just be solved with permit parking.

His life must be JUST THAT INTERESTING. :rolleyes:

This development would probably bring in around 6-7 million dollars in (direct) tax revenue each year. I don't even know how you would calculate all the other additional benefits it would provide for surrounding businesses. It's a no brainer that the city should seriously be doing everything they can to get shovels in the ground. Bets this goes to the OLT?