200 Market Street | ?m| 2 x 27fl & 2 x 15fl | Planning
 

We don't have a thread yet for this specific development but it warrants a separate thread from the 364-366 King West one.

The Stratchona NIMBY group got ahold of some preliminary renderings but I don't think anything formal has been submitted to the City yet. Here's hoping that comes soon!

https://i.imgur.com/nTQPps3.jpg

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

I like it better than the original proposal.

I'm loving the new density, and it's perfectly suitable given other tall buildings on the same street and neighbouring streets!

Looks like Homewood Suites in the background of the ‘new’ rendering.

Makes too much sense, but will make for much angst.

I was at the Central Neighbourhood Association meeting yesterday and predictably many people were opposed to this development. I don't know what they want instead though, more sprawl? These projects could be bankrolling a new arena and taking subsidies off the books, saving us taxes and creating work. It would have to be pretty bad for me to want to oppose it. So far, it looks pretty normal.

Local residents often dont look for how developments in their neighbourhood would benefit the city as a whole, rather just the immediate effect on their neighbourhood.

I stopped going to neighbourhood association meetings a few years ago. They are dominated by NIMBY's living in single family homes.

Sorry for being a jerk, but when have our taxes ever gone down? ;)

Aesthetically, not great. Green space seems non-existent.

I dunno, I'm not sure I'd be against it, but Darko sure isn't giving locals much reason to support it. Density (re profit) isn't much of a selling point for neighbourhood associations.

And just as a frame of reference, I fully support, for what it's worth, the TV City proposal. This project, however, doesn't seem to have those same qualities.

Ok maybe not go down but go up less?? The reason taxes keep going up is we have an infrastructure deficit that was created by sprawl and an unhealthy reliance on residential property taxes. More density is an answer to both those problems. The effect on property taxes will certainly be better with densification than it will under a business as usual approach.

Fair enough.

My deal with Darko would be to up his game on the aesthetic front, and to include some green space. A bit of compromise and he gets what he wants.

And when I think of density, it's Europe that comes to mind, not Asia. I'm not sure we need this scale of development, especially if it's not affordable to the working class and barely for the middle. It's more a case of a developer (thank God we have some now!) wanting to get to market before it caves in. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the sense I get.

Heyyyy, finally someone agrees with me on here!

The issue is that a parking lot or suburban sprawl lot gets taxes lower because it's worth less despite it taking the same room and requiring the same servicing. If we taxes properly then suburban sprawl would stop and these mega projects would stop as well, and everything would densify across the city on brownfield.

The major reason why Hamilton has high property tax is because we simply don't have a lot of high level industry in the city (think high level financial, law firms, engineering consulting, etc). Those businesses make lots of money, and pay tax accordingly. There's a reason why Toronto has some of the lowest property taxes in the country.....they have the high level industry to support it.

Little late to this thread, I know :P .

Does anyone have any news on this project? Been almost a year since the last update.

Definitely a contributing factor, but the reality is also that sprawling plazas are one of the least tax efficient style of developments, and parking lots pay almost nothing in property tax.

Ya, I mean if all the empty parking lots in the core filled in with condos and office buildings I would expect property tax rates to go down....well more likely they would at least reduce the rate at which they increase each year.

The city has operating costs, and only so many people to pay it at the moment. We need more - more condos, more offices, more high level industry.

High property taxes are indeed a lack of employment real estate in a municipality. Burlington has cheap property taxes because it has a ton of employment, even in a sprawling form. Toronto’s residential taxes are dirt cheap because they are dense as hell and have insane amounts of employment at very high tax rates.

Hamilton’s employment growth seems to be picking up with increased industrial activity and the McMaster innovation area, so hopefully that starts to help. Increasing residential densities with projects like this one will help as well, but less so.

Just to give you an idea of what type of tax revenue increase we're looking at from redevelopments, the Steel City video offers a good example: as a vacant property it generated $19,899/year in tax revenue. The justification of the grant they are receiving to clean up the property is based on bring the property value from $635,000 to $11,750,000 raising the annual property taxes to $155,213 or a 680% increase.

My point is that while commercial and industrial are great, suburban style plazas and big box stores are not at all good. The types of mixed used developments actually are even better because they expand possible industrial and commercial while providing housing and in a tax efficient manner, not even because the highest value of the property, but also because servicing these residents is far cheaper.

https://i.imgur.com/F0P06F5l.jpg

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. We need more development, period. Empty downtown parking lots do nothing for the city.

perhaps we should break out another thread for this one but it looks like Vrancor has filed a ZBA for the north block here now.. The neighbour's heads are about to explode about this one if they hated the one to the south.

Thread here:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=241914