Bruce Kuwabara West Harbour tower | 147 m | 45 fl | Approved

[King&James]

I was a bit surprised that no public parking was guaranteed. Great to see however that they have consolidated all underground (and vehicular building access), to below grade with I believe 6 access points in total. City looking to Pier 5 for what I assume will be deck or underground parking for those who want to use the waterfront at piers 7 & 8.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

From yesterday's event, there isn't much to report (all old news) but Bruce did talk more about the podium.

Podium information starts at page 24.
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/fi...ommunitymeeting-presentation-Jun2023.pdf

I like the public terrace idea.

And the bronze-coloured metal cladding on the podium and vertical elements on the tower.

[TheRitsman]

I'm partial to the plan to pedestrianize the area in front with retractable bollards. I never liked that the Pier 8 plan included a road between the buildings and the park. I would have loved to see more commercial at grade facing the street/promenade/park as well on the mid-rise sections.

Big fan of retail at grade in this podium too. It will help activate this area to be a more public space.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

From yesterday's event, there isn't much to report (all old news) but Bruce did talk more about the podium.

Podium information starts at page 24.
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/fi...ommunitymeeting-presentation-Jun2023.pdf

Soo.. they've basically taken away ALL of william pubs parking.. sooo.. with all those units and only like 5 underground parking spaces for this whole pier 8 redevelopment - are they just assuming that those who are local are going to come there? Cuz that parking lot they are taking over was always packed - usually to full capacity - meaning that's gonna heavily cut into their out of pier-8 userbase..

not only that the parking usually spilled out into the empty spots next to it.. I mean people went to williams pub because it was pretty much the ONLY place to cafe eat (that's affordable, the place behind notwithstanding) - with all these other places that are going to go in, they will now have less people to go to it, and less places to park for people to come down to it - I hope this doesn't kill their business. That building is pretty old iirc and was there long before anything else..

at least they still have the ice cream place and the roller rink..

[lachlanholmes]

Recommended for approval by staff:

Agenda link

[SteelTown]

Whoa staff to recommend approval for something above the escarpment?



That Revised Official Plan Amendment Application UHOPA-22-001, by WEBB Planning Consultants (c/o James Webb) on behalf of the City of Hamilton, Municipal Land Development Office, Owner, to redesignate the subject lands from “Institutional” to “Mixed Use” and to establish a Special Policy Area on Schedule “M-2” in the West Harbour (Setting Sail) Secondary Plan in the former City of Hamilton Official Plan to permit a maximum 45 storey mixed use building, for lands located at 65 Guise Street East (Pier 8, Block 16), as shown on Appendix “A” attached to Report PED22031(a), be APPROVED

[PaperSun]

Excellent news, hope Council approve it now. Really enjoying reading the letters in the appendix ������

[King&James]

This will be interesting , should I be surprised that the council will vote this down?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Whoa staff to recommend approval for something above the escarpment?



That Revised Official Plan Amendment Application UHOPA-22-001, by WEBB Planning Consultants (c/o James Webb) on behalf of the City of Hamilton, Municipal Land Development Office, Owner, to redesignate the subject lands from “Institutional” to “Mixed Use” and to establish a Special Policy Area on Schedule “M-2” in the West Harbour (Setting Sail) Secondary Plan in the former City of Hamilton Official Plan to permit a maximum 45 storey mixed use building, for lands located at 65 Guise Street East (Pier 8, Block 16), as shown on Appendix “A” attached to Report PED22031(a), be APPROVED

It's above the escarpment, yes.

Notably, it's not above the geodetic height of Landmark Place however.

[craftbeerdad]

It's beyond comprehension that Landmark Place remains and will continue for the foreseeable future as the tallest building in the lower city. You would think the city would want anything, literally any building to be taller but no, this majestic tower remains the beacon and pinnacle of our architecture in height! F--k me.

[Innsertnamehere]

I should say that it will technically be the same geodetic height as Landmark Place, more or less, from what I remember. It will physically taller as it sits at a decently lower elevation, and will be far more prominent from the Burlington Skyway as it will also be significantly closer to the skyway and further from the escarpment.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I should say that it will technically be the same geodetic height as Landmark Place, more or less, from what I remember. It will physically taller as it sits at a decently lower elevation, and will be far more prominent from the Burlington Skyway as it will also be significantly closer to the skyway and further from the escarpment.

And it will probably resemble yet another smokestack from that distance lol..

[ScreamingViking]

If only it had pediments and cornices and old-time craftsmanship.

There's still opportunity. Lobby the DeRP and council.

Or maybe we can have something like this instead.

[mikevbar1]

I don't actually want to tie this tower into the conversation of the height limit, at least not how its being done so far. Frankly, after attending a couple of public meetings for this I still have no indication of why they are going with a tower at all. The stated rationale is weak at best; no one in their right mind would buy that adding a 45-story tower makes an easier transition, even if the peripheral buildings are shortened. The city would literally have better grounds to increase the planned density period than shift it around. Truthfully, "mitigating the transition to the neighborhood" would be far easier if Pier 8 was built as previously planned, and there were community members who said such.

So that begs the question of why they are going for a tower. The easy answer is vanity, but again, why? For whom? It's ridiculous because it is a prioritization of height over proper planning, which is apparently the whole reason no one else can build such a landmark tower. Does the city want a landmark skyscraper so badly that they must put it on the only lands they're actually going to develop? If they want this so badly, then either put it somewhere it belongs (exempt themselves from the limit but not anyone else) or throw out the height limit and incentivize the market to do it itself.

It's as if the city was backed into a corner we cannot see. At best, this is merely the best the city could come up with if existing policy is that restrictive and the city/planners are that un-creative. I think it's a mix of both. The existing landscape would perhaps lead to this being the only place to put a landmark tower, but the jury is still out on why that is even necessary in the first place. Once you enter the threshold of "landmark", the tower becomes its own issue separate of West Harbour's density distribution, which could have been mitigated in countless other ways. Something is fishy here, and it's not the smell at the pier.

[craftbeerdad]

Further to the logical post above, seems like they're making unexplained excuses to put this by the water. I'd much rather see something iconic in the core. Doesn't make a ton of sense in the north end as there's no tall buildings and the surrounding build out won't really support the height either.

[atnor]

I wonder what the local councillor will have to say in his long winded threads.

[TheEmprah]

I also find it strange to put our Landmark tower on the bay, City Hall is sitting on over 2 acres of prime real estate in the middle of the core. They could use that land to efficiently build a 3-4 tower Landmark project, 2 residential(45 storeys), 1 rental/Hotel(40 storeys)tower and 1 all office space(50 storeys) integrated into a renovated city hall building at the base.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by TheEmprah

I also find it strange to put our Landmark tower on the bay, City Hall is sitting on over 2 acres of prime real estate in the middle of the core. They could use that land to efficiently build a 3-4 tower Landmark project, 2 residential(45 storeys), 1 rental/Hotel(40 storeys)tower and 1 all office space(50 storeys) integrated into a renovated city hall building at the base.

Yes but we are forgetting the fact that this is private development and they can do whatever they want with their money/development

If it were the city doing this development then yes they would be smart to put it at city hall

[Innsertnamehere]

Approved in a 7-5 vote, with Kroetsch notably being opposed.

A unanimous motion requires the development be constructed to net-zero standards.

[TheHonestMaple]

Did anyone watch, what is his reason for voting against? I don't get that guy. he wants to massively increase spending for his social programs, but consistently votes down development that will pay for it?

Edit: I just listened to it on youtube. His objections to the development are 1) Not enough affordable units planned. 2) Not enough community engagement. (he rolled his eyes at Bruce Kuwabara at this point) 3) Not enough greenspace