Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRitsman
After looking more into the economics of things too, I've become a fan of it as well. Your point is a great one. Having spoken with Jason Thorne about this policy, I became a supporter of it. His point is that there is a certain level of demand for Hamilton, and if it is all met downtown with skyscrapers, other areas of city won't get that same new growth.
The big issue is our idiot city council not incentivizing (cough LRT) development and outright denying them in many areas.
The other benefit is the effect on speculation. By setting a limit, there is a known profitability for properties, and therefore land can't be sold as if it could fetch a 50 storey height and it's profitability, which keeps land prices lower. Again, this is highly dependent on how council welds this power, and they do it terribly, but the on paper goal is sound from an economics perspective.
As we can see, there is enough demand for 30 storey buildings that a city that has had no condo development in 30 years has tons of towers proposed and being built, as well as new hotels and even some proposed office. Hamilton will be a completely different city in 10 years, and I'm doubtful as to the arguments against the building height limit, limiting that change.
Again, this is a forum for "skyscrapers" but I feel there is a bit of fetishism about tall building here that is simply around taller=better. As if the sky is the limit. I come here because new developments mean the city is progressing, and new people downtown will significantly alter the cities economics. People here also don't seem to have spoken with many developers, because higher =/= more profit in all cases, sometimes there is a profit margin at a lower height that is better.
Criticism of height, and support for the height limit gets attacked here though. Burlington does it all wrong, with it's inability to reign in development, whether you agree it should be done or not, but Hamilton's height limit is actually utilized and seems to be working. I would have been fine with a 20 storey limit if the city could properly wield the power to push medium density developments out to Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale along the LRT corridor.
|
Im gonna use your points here to rant a little bit. Ultimately I believe the issues with the lack of development in Hamilton fall completely on our city council. The benefits we both mention feel like a silver lining of what is really a long running anti development/NIMBY mindset. While the ramifications of a 30 floor height limit aren't as bad as we thought, and can be beneficial like I originally said, theres still benefit for allowing buildings of taller heights like the old television city proposal. A 30 floor height limit is great as a guideline for dispersing development, but with Television city we didn't see a third tower or larger building to replace the 40 floor one- instead we got two 32 story buildings (vs 40+30). The development was chopped, rather than dispersed.
The effect of any development on our city at this point is beneficial. Imagine being a city and having the issue of
too much development. Maybe someone could argue that's Toronto, but not here. We have hundreds of prime empty or underused lots. The ideal solution for most of these is mid-rise projects, while some (downtown) could easily be filled by true skyscrapers. The butterfly effect of a truly healthy downtown, where the number of empty surface lots is near zero cannot be underestated. Hamilton doesnt have to worry about an ugly highway tearing through the core; we just need good zoning policies and investment in transit to make this city really great.
I suppose Its nitpicking, but Hamilton really has the potential to be great, and I honestly cannot think of a city more inept at spurring growth that is in such an advantageous position. We are within close proximity to one of the fastest growing cities in North America. Hamilton has somehow managed to barely capitalize on this. We are a city that is more in league with American rust belt cities than many Canadian cities, so one would think our city would be grateful for such an economic blessing. This really doesnt seem to be the case. Im not suggesting Hamilton become the next Mississauga, but I do think it is completely within the cities power to attract medium scale projects to revitalize and rejuvinate the city. The Hamilton city centre redevelopment could theoretically be the tallest, most ambitious development in the city if we wanted to really consider whats possible. Not something thats 70+ stories, but anywhere from 50-65 floors could make for a landmark that also doesnt completely shut down demand in the city for new residential. This is all just me wanting a tall building in Hamilton; tall buildings are not necessary as we discussed, this city just needs some real vigor.