325 James St N | ? m | 12 fl | Under Construction

[Innsertnamehere]

12-storey proposal by Core Urban (Same developer as the Augusta St Blocks) at James N and Barton. This is a short walk from West Harbour GO Station and replaces the Mission Services of Hamilton, a homeless shelter, which is moving shortly to a new, larger space which Core Urban has renovated for them at 400 King St E. The project is going to the DRP tomorrow, but a low-res rendering has been posted in the NRU:

[TheRitsman]

Very excited for this. I live like 250 metres from here and this is the kind of stuff I want to see. Perfect height too to not overwhelm the street, and will bring more people along the Barton sections. I would love to see Barton fill in between the village and James St N

[King&James]

Oh man, Core Urban can keep on knocking out these doubles, nice that they are pushing up the density slowly.

[Berklon]

Excellent location and it looks like a good build.

[TheRitsman]

- 136 Residential unit
- 52 Underground parking
- 13 ground level parking

[TheHonestMaple]

My only criticism of Core Urban developments is the massive windowless walls they have on same sides. I guess it's for future development... But it doesn't really make much sense here.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

My only criticism of Core Urban developments is the massive windowless walls they have on same sides. I guess it's for future development... But it doesn't really make much sense here.

It's what happens when you have 0 lot line setbacks, you can't put windows on the wall. Part of a city, really.

[LikeHamilton]

If someone builds next to it, the windows would have to be filled in. These walls are fire seperation in the building code.

[Crapht]

That podium taking inspiration from Westdale Secondary school.
This is a great size. No complaints.

[TheRitsman]

My only issue pertains to the significant reduction in commercial space as a result of 13 ground level parking spots.

[Chronamut]

That overhang of the main part above the podium is a bit odd, makes it feel like the entire thing is unbalanced.. I am kinda a stickler for symmetry.. and im not a huge fan of the pictureframe type style above, feels kinda vranich-y.. podium is ok, I feel they've done better designs though.

At least it somewhat ties in with street level though. And it is barton area so meh, glad to see something going here, itll be interesting to no longer see people hanging around this area though. I do like the glassed in separation part on the side which from the renders shows the windows will be maintained next door though.

Would have been cool if the.. crenelations? Spires? I can't remember my architectural names today, at the top were more stylized or pointed to give more of that secondary school vibe instead of looking like grey pez on the top lol..

..kinda sucks theyre destroying a building with so many intact dormers though.. and one of the few yellow bricked buildings that isn't entirely covered in stains and soot hehe.. sigh.. I always feel a little pang of regret when any type of rowhouse stuff in hamilton is destroyed.. another one bites the dust. At least it's core urban, whatever replaced this could have been a LOT more disrespectful to the space. At least we have a pretty good idea of the finished brick and stone colours since they seem to be pretty consistent with their suppliers.

[PaperSun]

I really don't like those columns at the ground floor, I feel they don't add anything to the pedestrian space and just create a cold dark place. If you ever walk down by 99 Locke St S you will see, instead of a nice big pedestrian space you have these stupid columns in the way and only for dogs to pee on. Actually go on street view and you will see how gross and uninviting it is.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by PaperSun

I really don't like those columns at the ground floor, I feel they don't add anything to the pedestrian space and just create a cold dark place. If you ever walk down by 99 Locke St S you will see, instead of a nice big pedestrian space you have these stupid columns in the way and only for dogs to pee on. Actually go on street view and you will see how gross and uninviting it is.

these will be much shallower than 99 Locke, which has a problem with short retail ceiling heights and a deep inset making the space feel dark and uninviting.

The better equivalent here Core Urban's 53 King St E.

[Chronamut]

Yeah honestly I have no issue with columns, as long as they are semi decorative and nice looking, as it's a heritage feature - I hate a completely glassed exterior, makes it look bland and too modern looking, which I understand has its place, just not on the main corridors of king and james in the core imo at street level amongst so many other traditional styled rowhouse type buildings.

I agree with the feeling for locke st though - but yeah core urbans tends to feel less so like that because there isn't an awning with columns. It will probably feel more like 114 james st N. - that building where chocolat is at.

[TheRitsman]

If you watch the Urban Toronto forum you'll see there is some serious hate for uninterrupted glass fronting the street. Makes the entire section feel like one long expanse and provides no separation between units. Marquee actually does this better than most (please rent these out Darko) because it has inset entranceways, but Platinum is one of the worst ground floors in my opinion in the city.

This looks good on ground floor, and what is sure to be hand laid bricks it will feel good at street level.

I actually don't think Locke feels uninviting at all. I actually think it adds some nice variation to the street, and I appreciate the reduced height first floor. I find first floor of buildings are being made wayyyy too tall these days. It's creates difficult to animate spaces, and provides no space for a real ceiling so you always have to have this industrial vibe in any new commercial spaces.

[Innsertnamehere]

The Locke St building has had issues attracting tenants as it's not good retail space.

Ceiling height is absolutely important in retail, but yea, it can get almost too big some times too. A lot of buildings in Toronto have 6 metre ground floors these days to accommodate loading space clear heights, which is too big. The 4.5-5 metre clear height is the sweet spot for retail I think. The Locke St building looks like it's 4 metres maximum.

Core Urban's new Augusta buildings look like they have 4.5 metre ground floors, which I think is the sweet spot. shorter ~3.5m ground floor heights typically result in crappy retail spaces.

[ScreamingViking]

This looks great.

I imagine the DeRP will have something to say about "inappropriate density" and needing a greater setback above the base... I could see Core Urban doing the latter, but with other tall stuff going up just to the southeast, this is very appropriate and will have a great street-presence.

[Bubba9000]

Fully approve of the density on this parcel but I had assumed it would be an adaptive reuse of the existing building. With so much open surface beside, surely something great could have been designed with a little imagination. Alas business is business and I suppose the challenges outweighed the benefits in this case. CU has demonstrated their willingness to retain structures.

I'm hoping the shape of the upper section is refined as plans proceed. It looks rather awkward though perhaps the more technical looking rendering doesn't represent the look with proper finishes, etc. .. Oh wait .. I just looked again and saw the overhang. Not ideal

[Chronamut]

The only way to properly describe this is a cordyceps - something blegh erupting on an angle out of something ok.

Fortunately the podium is acceptable so I can just pretend the top part doesn't exist lol - but sheesh, this city abuses the picture frame jutout look like it's chic or something when really it's just blegh and boring..

100 years from now - so what was architecture like in the 2020s? "oh they seemed to think various shapes of rectangles all smushed together was good architecture" - arches? angles? "nah just rectangles.. everywhere."

hell even if they shaved off 2 columns on the right off of it so it was symmetrical and even I'd like it better. The leaning thing is driving me nuts. Asymmetry seems to be the chic thing in architecture lately.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

The leaning thing is driving me nuts. Asymmetry seems to be the chic thing in architecture lately.

Leaning? Do you mean the overhang on the James side?

I don't mind when that's done for a small-medium sized building like this, and especially if at the back (for very tall ones it looks so awkward to me). In this case they could probably do what you suggest, but add a floor to compensate for the lost space, depending on the financials of the build.

I like that they're planning to incorporate the original building that is 325 James N. even if it's mostly just the façade.

I expect this will get refined a lot.