Out of Town Developers
 

First of all I'd like to add my name to the list of people on this forum who wish Harry Stinson success. I think this city needs to have outsiders come in and hopefully shake up complacency among the local developers who for the most part, can't see past building more houses, strip plazas, or drab squat buildings in general. This leads me to another idea I had for a thread. Would we like to see other outsiders develop here and make their mark on our cityscape? If so, who?
Well now that we've talked about the condo king, I wish we had someone among the likes of Rudy Reimer of Burlington who could develop an abundance of commercial office complexes in this city. Some people have called him the Donald Trump of Burlington. I don't know if it's because he's the dominant builder, or because people may think he has a big ego, (although I'd rather developers show some ego, or pride in their projects.) For anyone that's not familiar with him, his complexes pretty much dominate the QEW Burlington. Even a lot of the older office buildings were his. Now granted, they are suburban, campus style, sterile and all similar looking buildings. Having said that however, they are first class office space, are beautiful inside, and have attracted a lot of top companies to lease space in Burlington. He gets his projects done and he gets them leased. I would like to see projects like this on Hamilton's suburban areas, the mountain, or wherever, as opposed to what keeps getting built now. For that matter, the QEW-Burloak type complexes might not look out of place in our downtown. (Well I guess whoever is developing the Hamilton Business Centre on the QEW, that's a start.)
Just think think if we had top companies bringing quality jobs to this city even if they happen to be suburban locations, and therefore might be incentives for better local transit. (But right now we have mountain residents clogging the Linc/403 every morning to get to work.) I once read a comment in The Spectator many years ago. It was something about Hamilton becoming a bedroom community to Burlington. I didn't get it, I do now.
This city has a lack of first class, grade A office space. I read the only two buildings downtown that are, would be Commerce Place and the Federal Government Building. Even Standard Life Bldg. is out of date, and hopefully something gets done with Stelco Tower. Our office vacancy rate is high, but a realtor did say there is a lot of crap out there. So I'm wondering if it's a case of "Build it and they will come."
A lot has been said about the good paying industrial jobs that have left Hamilton due to the economy or changing demographics, etc. Not a lot has been said about the Hamilton success stories that have thrived and left the city simply because they needed bigger and better premises and couldn't find it here. A couple that come to mind; Wescam, their cameras cover the major sporting events, space shuttle flights, and even if I'm correct, the OJ Simpson freeway chase. They outgrew their Flamborough headquarters and bought the GAN Insurance building on North Service Road Burlington. Also, AIC Investments, one of Canada's most successful investment companies with their own mutual funds. They originally were in a couple of historic houses southwest/downtown, but that company grew substantially and are now in a sprawling complex, (the former Stelco Research Centre at N. Service and Kern's Rd, Burlington.)
I remember hearing a comment from the former CEO of Lakeport Breweries.
She said that not one city politician had been in touch with her, maybe take a tour of the plant, or just see how things were going.
A lot has also been thought out about how to attract new business to Hamilton. Fine, but the city should work more on keeping what we have here.
I'm not thinking one Reimer type is going to be the saviour any more than Stinson can save downtown himself, but as I said I would like to see complacency shaken up among the development industry whether it's by outsiders, or our council or whatever it takes.
I'm not advocating we pave over much of the valuable farmland either. In fact agriculture is now one of the biggest contributors to Hamilton's economy since amalgamation. I just like many of you on this forum, want to see better land use here. Not only improvement in developed areas, but rural as well. As I drive up Upper James for example near the airport, I don't see many farms but I see go-cart race tracks and more golf courses than we need, and long to see prime developments.
Anyway, I've rambled enough, would love to hear your opinions.

Bottom line is that if there is money to be made, people will line up to make it.

What was needed was someone to take the chance. Stinson may be that guy, who knows? In many ways his plans are a litmus test for the city. If he restores the Connaught, it will be great for the city but won't necessarily attract out-of-town developers. If he builds a 'wow' tower, and makes money, you'll definately see more developers snatching up the very affordable downtown real estate.

^ It's because of his ego. Reimer builds rubbishy suburban office towers in a horribly outdated aesthetic (covered in that horrible reflective glass, which we don't need more of downtown). I don't think he has much interest in an urban market like Hamilton (at least downtown). The sorts of developers we need to attract are the ones used to dealing with a high density market and the unique problems it creates. Such developers are likely to come from Toronto, or possibly even Ottawa or Montreal.

The companies which decamp from Hamilton to the suburbs do it for the same reason that companies leaving Toronto for Mississauga or New York for New Jersey or White Plains do it: cost. Lots are smaller in Hamilton. To accomodate these large organizations they would actually need to build new office towers or retrofit older ones like Stelco Tower. This certainly could be done but it is much more expensive, in the short term, than building a huge concrete and glass bunker in the suburbs. These companies have greatly encouraged sprawl and the practice should be penalized.

I think Hamilton desperately needs to preserve the large amount of agricultural land still present on its fringes.

^Absolutely, let's keep our prime agricultural land for farming. I'm referring only to the land that is destined and zoned for development, be it around the airport or wherever. I just hope it is put to the best use possible. For example I wondered why more houses were allowed to be built so close to the airport?
Right now the area there and around the new highway 6, and Glanbrook Business Park and a few other areas is a blank canvas for the most part. Let's strive for the best development possible, whatever cities or developers we market ourselves to. And that probably needs to be done more aggressively.

as a Hamilton native I'm sure you know which developers we'll be 'marketing ourselves to'.
the same batch of losers we've let ruin this town over the past 30 years. Out of town developers don't have any pull with the media or local elections. We'll get horrendous development out there and all through our suburbs as long as councillors are only interested in keeping their jobs and fattening their campaign chest through the donations of all these pea-brains.

^Yep, I know just what you mean. That's why I long for a shakeup in the way things have been for so long. I remember a thread with peoples' wish list for Hamilton, that would be mine. Maybe it's a pipe dream, maybe miracles can happen here.

My personal view is that the developers in Hamilton are amongst the most blameworthy regarding the pathetic state of the downtown. I wish more publicity could be focused on their selfishness and stupidity. The city is surely to blame for poor planning, lack of foresight, outmoded ideas, etc. but a city's state of development must always be attributable to some extent to - the developers.

The truth is that the only "development" these slimebags are interested in is huge suburban residential tracts on shovel-ready land. For the most part, they have no interest in "developing" the core or any other part of the lower city because of the obstacles (sometimes slight, sometimes serious) associated with developing an already densely occupied area. Usually they are involved in the lower city only in the capacity of property speculators. When they do actually build something in the downtown, their efforts are amateurish and distasteful (note the crowning glory of bad taste in Hamilton, the Chateau Royale; note also, to a lesser but still considerable degree of embarrassment, the Terraces on King and Cityview Terraces). The city deserves better, far better - and has shown that it can support serious efforts at condo development, such as the Core Lofts (which was done by an outsider). Stinson - we can only hope and pray - will break the back of this horrible tradition of selfishness and mediocrity.

And I believe a Toronto company did the Piggot-Sunlife condos, not 100% sure though, but thank goodness those gems were saved and we have them to be proud of.

Amen. I often take them for granted.

yup...they were slated for demolition until saved and converted to condos.

RePinion - hell will freeze over before Hamilton's media will do any public scolding of the true vilians of our downtown and crappy development practices in general. that's the problem...the media is in bed with them. the politicians are in bed with them. we're stuck. that's why I've mentioned before I'd love to see the Spec and CH go out of business entirely. Have some new blood start up a new media age in Hamilton that isn't just a puppet show of the local 'builders'.

Metrus was the developer who could be blamed for the current state of the Lister block. They are one of the largest in Toronto.

In any case, I'm not going to get involved in this one. Throw all the shit you want at the local guys.

I think the forum has become nothing more than a bunch of kids complaining about the same things over and over again.

^^I think the average age on this forum would surprise you.

eh?

I'm beginning to think that Goldfinger is Joe Mancinelli, or some other lower-ranking LIUNA guy....

No, it disturbs me.

Most of the discourse here is VERY one sided. How could anyone blame the demise of downtown squarely on the local developers without considering other factors such as city council and staff, the Province and the OMB, citizens of Hamilton, Macroeconomics, taxes, Planning and land use policies, etc.

Because the deadbeat developers are the ones that in the end own the properties that continue to not be developed. Now, this is only the case because the city/bylaws/tax laws allow it (and sometimes encourage it). We'd all like to see the land use laws and zoning change, and it's starting to happen, but the long bony fingers of the biggest developers appear to go so deep into council and the media that it all comes back on the developers shoulders when you approach it from that front too.

I actually blame the citizens of Hamilton for the demise of the downtown and not the developers. If it were up to the developers they would place a 80 story tower on every corner, with no underground parking whatsoever, and allow any type of mixed use. Why? Because this is what would make the most money consistently. The developers don't have any agenda to throw people out into the suburbs, it actually creates more work and more expenses for them. They are selling what the public is going for with 100 percent certainty. It is the planners and the municipality that are behind this. It reduces costs for them in terms of policing, social services, and the province pays for new roads so they cheat and blame it on the developer scape goats.

You say deadbeat developers, I say deadbeat municipality.

Well this is just my opinion but I'm not so much as blaming the demise of downtown on our local developers as I am for the lack of things happening. Successful and determined developers get their projects done even with the above mentioned obstacles to deal with, be they Stinson, Trump, Reimer, The Reichmanns, I could go on. And I think for the most part raise their own financing and don't have their hands in our (city taxpayers) pockets. We just keep getting fed reasons as to why projects are stalled, they want the city to do this and that for them. (eg. lease space at exorbitant rates, grant money, etc. (The Terraces on King probably the worst example. It involves taxpayer money, and that decrepit St. Deny's sat there for how many years?

Another note, if a building is ugly it has nothing to do with the developer. It has to do with with what the Architect designed for them. There is something called the Architects Act which requires that they design all buildings greater the 600 sm and taller than 3 stories. If you don't like the design of a building being constructed in your neighborhood then you would need to take it up with the architect and planners involved.

Developers are just like any other business venture. They'll build where and when it's cheapest, with the least difficulty, and with the greatest profit.

Urban densification and retrofit is more difficult and more expensive than greenfield development. Speaking as a consultant engineer - our approvals process with the municipality is WAY more difficult for urban infill projects. So difficult that it becomes economically unviable.

I'm not saying that our clients (developers) are clean of any blame in the situation - not by far! But to rest the blame squarely on their shoulders is a bit much. If you had millions of dollars to invest, would you invest it in something that you had to jump through hundreds of hoops for, pay through the nose for, get roadblocked at every opportunity - or would you buy a farmer's field, throw up some cheap McMansions, and then sell them for ginormous profit in a few quick years?

Some blame has to rest on the population as well - how many people screw up their noses at living in a downtown condo when they can have their little slice of suburban green? Not me, and not many others on this board, but most of the general population.

Ethics and ideals are cheap, unfortunately. The only solution to urban sprawl is to make it economically more painful to those who have the money.