HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 1:22 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
upon closer inspection, the property is approximately .73 ha - just a slight typo there. here's a close-up:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 1:26 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
What could go on the property if it's zoned as istitutional? hotel? restaurant?
The Neighbourhood Institutional (I1) zone allows uses that you would see in your neighbourhood. These local uses have little impact on the surrounding residents and are used by those living near by. Some of the uses that would be allowed in the Neighbourhood Institutional zone are:

Elementary Schools
Places of Worship
Residential Dwellings
Retirement Homes
Residential Care Facility

*taken from city of hamilton website*

Last edited by the dude; May 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 1:44 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
the amazing thing to me is that 7 storey building that used to sit atop the Claremont many, many years ago.
Good luck building that today.

What a prime location this is though. Awesome view and IF the city goes with the idea of running LRT up the claremont and closing that 'West 5th' ramp for LRT-only, stinson could fight for a stop at the site of the old hotel/incline railway with a ped bridge across Upper James onto his site.
Again...all things that would be fought tooth and nail by mountain NIMBYS (I think they only thing they allow is vinyl townhomes, and lots of em).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:07 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
it's amazing we're half the city we are today given that zoning prohibits proper city building. i'd throw out the majority of our zoning laws and start fresh. i mean, do we really need a law to tell us not to build a factory in the middle of a neighbourhood? just start over and stop punishing good city planning. the greatest cities on earth evolved centuries before the ordinance of zoning. i think that says it all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:07 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,741
It's a nice neighbourhood in a good location. I imagine Stinson might be thinking of an infill midrise or townhouse type development here, incorporating the existing house, with some kind of small commercial component mixed in. I couldn't see a large scale project or highrise going here. It also sounds like the existing church might be involved in any development.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:14 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
i stole one of your photos, flar. you can see the outline of one of the buildings at the top of the photo. the view from there would be wicked and if a new building were constructed it would have great visibility from downtown...of course, he hasn't even bought the thing yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:17 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Harry just called CHML to chat about this.
No specifics, but he did say that it will be compatible with the neighbourhood and that he's hoping that being a neighbour himself will help the process along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:32 PM
block43 block43 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kitchener/Ottawa
Posts: 226
I think that the Niagara Escarpment Commission would limit the height of any new development. So this site would probably be lowrise, maybe midrise if he can prove to the NEC that it would not affect the viewshed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:38 PM
oldcoote's Avatar
oldcoote oldcoote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 627
Well, I don't think Stinson will get back into the restaurant biz, that's for sure.

My money is on a low-rise condo development, or perhaps townhouses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 2:51 PM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by block43 View Post
I think that the Niagara Escarpment Commission would limit the height of any new development. So this site would probably be lowrise, maybe midrise if he can prove to the NEC that it would not affect the viewshed.
ya, which is hilarious considering they managed to blow a ginormous hole in it a couple kms to the east.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 3:10 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,741
The view from there might look something like this, but from a little higher up:
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 3:45 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
great view

our zoning is ridiculous. everything urban is now illegal. But the city has no problem changing zoning to accommodate a drive-thru or changing industrial to accommodate residential and box retail.

I hope Harry can apply for a rezone to allow for a high rise. How would a highrise there be any different then the Maddison?
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 3:58 PM
block43 block43 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kitchener/Ottawa
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
I hope Harry can apply for a rezone to allow for a high rise. How would a highrise there be any different then the Maddison?
I think that the madison had zoning in place to permit a highrise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 4:05 PM
JT Jacobs JT Jacobs is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 157
If he gets it, he'll probably turn it into a condo-village-community with shopping and restaurants, too. All he has to do is shift the zoning. The locals wouldn't put that much fuss up if they saw that they'd get good amenities, I imagine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 4:13 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dude View Post
i think it must be 7.3 hectares, though even that seems too big.
7.3 hectares is just over 18 acres. How about .73 hectares which is 1.8 acres?
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 7:02 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Flar, that's one of my favourite pics of yours. Such a revelation. The first time I saw it, if it hadn't been for the Pigott Building, I wouldn't have known it was Hamilton! I've sent it around to some of my Hamilton-doubting friends and expats. Thanks.

If it is mid rise or townhouses, I hope the residents don't put the kybosh on it. It's amazing what people will object to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 8:06 PM
chris k's Avatar
chris k chris k is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton-Westmount
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
How about a new building like that old one?
lol a bit of an oxymoron?

I honestly have no idea what he is planning there, It could be anything. Hopefully this does not side track the connaught at all. Thats my only fear here but i like the fact that the spec did a peice on him just so we could hear his name again . It does not look like they forgot about him. Hopefully theres more good news to come.....


Cheers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 9:00 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
I'd be happy with a LOT of 'new buildings like old ones' in Hamilton. The new shite they build these days is unreal. And it IS shite!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted May 2, 2008, 11:35 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,376
Correction published: - 20080502

A story in yesterday's Spectator overestimated the size of a Rosedene Avenue property that developer Harry Stinson is trying to buy. Unity on the Mountain is 0.73 hectares, not 73.

We apologize for the error.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted May 3, 2008, 1:51 AM
chris k's Avatar
chris k chris k is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton-Westmount
Posts: 172
Bob Bratina last night at the meeting said that the connaught would employ about 300 people. Pretty good for one building!


Cheers
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:34 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.