Quote:
Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese
The 30 Story limit is the poster child for the backwards, inept town planning which has plagued the city for 30 years. In theory, it is agreeable - to encourage new developments to infill all the vacant lots and integrate well with the existing buildings.
In practice, however, it's nothing but another mound of red tape which discourages development in the city. There's a tonne of other ways to encourage midrise developments, without trying in vain to protect a vista which is not visible unless you're maintaining the counterweights on the lift bridge.
|
The main goal is to reduce land speculation. The issue with unlimited height, or height beyond the demands of Hamilton developments leads to people zone flipping, or trying to sell properties for exuberant prices because "sky's the limit" which is ironic, because taller isn't always cheaper.
The other reality is that Hamilton had a finite demand of people interested in living in condos, and the best way to spread that out is to reduce the maximum height to force things to spread out more. Transit and cycling infrastructure doesn't work well when everybody and everything is in one place, and we need to stop the 20th century ideal of working in the centre and living on the periphery. Hamilton needs to aim for 15 minute communities, with more living and employment around other walkable centres. That will never happen if all the population of Hamilton moves into the core alone over the next 30 years.
Most decent cities have reasonable height limits for these reasons in the 21st century. It also reduces overshading of streets leading to lack of sunlight tree canopy and happiness.
The other issue is that while Amsterdam is more dense than Toronto, it feels less busy in most areas. Putting 60 or 90 storey towers leads too much density for most people. Hamilton doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the level of density beyond 30-40 storeys in the entirety of the core, especially the further you get from Main and King, because the lower city's North/South transit is mediocre because of its small distance. It is still profitable to build below 30 storeys as many developers are choosing to do so voluntarily, so those going above are doing so purely for profit. Profit is important for private developers, but livability is important for those who live here. Darko and Brad aren't going to move to Hamilton, so just as we typically want vacant unit tax, and non-resident sales tax which affects investors because they negatively effect our community and country, we need to be careful a love of architecture or "city living" don't trump livability. It's also key to understand that while R1 type single family housing is detrimental, unfettered density on the complete other extreme isn't necessarily the solution either. A balanced approach is necessary.
Again, unless you have the extreme ideal that there should be no height limit, you are suggesting another arbitrary number, and I question the expertise of those suggesting another number. What do you believe is acceptable for the core? 40? 50? 90? 300? What makes your number better?
The big issue here is that this forum is filled with height extremists who refuse to appreciate any other argument than "taller = better".