Hamilton Downtown Mosque | ? | ? | Planning

[flar]

This is one development where I wouldn't care if it were built on the mountain.

[highwater]

Exactly. That's because it would be totally in keeping with it's surroundings on the mountain. Context is everything.

[realcity]

add up all the individual driveways in a suburb. These houses downtown do not have driveways. One or two big parking lots still won't total the parking space in a typical suburb.


Name a school? Queen Victoria

Granted it's a church and a private school, but the city could ask for more density or a residential component included for a mixed-use. Who doesn't want to live next to a school and rec center?

[markbarbera]

First off, let's all not get worked up based on what is seen in this drawing. It's obviously a stock drawing for general conceptual purposes, not a rendering specific for this site. I have seen the exact same drawing elsewhere with palm trees where the pines are in this drawing.

Personally I don't understand all the hubbub. I'm intrigued by the mixed use of a place of worship with a school and a residential building, and I think it will enrich the area. IMO low to mid rise development can improve urban density in a manner which is healthier than high rise developments. The proposed development will provide new downtown residents as well as a downtown destination in the form of a mosque and school. People will live here, and a lot more people will be drawn from all across the city to the downtown core to attend prayers at the mosque. This project will have a positive influence on overall density in the area, and will improve interaction between suburbanresidents and the downtown core. It's definitely a better option than a cop shop parking lot, that's for sure.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual site development proposal is before casting judgement...

[highwater]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I think I'll wait and see what the actual site development proposal is before casting judgement...

Well of course. But in the meantime I'm going to cast judgement on what has been presented. When something different is presented, I'll change my mind accordingly.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

IMO low to mid rise development can improve urban density in a manner which is healthier than high rise developments.

I agree, which is why I suggested low rise residential would be an improvement over what we see here.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by highwater

Ah. The old 'beggars can't be choosers' argument for accepting lowest common denominator suburban planning in an urban area. Pardon me for wanting more for my downtown. They are planning housing as a component of this project. Why not partner with a private developer? And in any case, if they have limited resources, shouldn't they be making better use of them by planning now for future growth?

You expect them to partner with developers to create more low density residential? We seldom have developers in this city get their own projects off the ground.

Originally Posted by highwater;

Density is not determined by whether there is a parking lot next door, but rather by population/area. By that measure, this is one of the densest neighbourhoods in the city.

If you consider the area between John and Wellington, King W and Cannon at least 30% of the area is surface parking. The rest is low rise residential or housing, how is this considered "dense"?

In this context parking lots do determine the density of the neighbourhood considering they consume such a large portion of the land and house 0 people.

Originally Posted by highwater;

Read my comment again. I said this site could be planned in a way that would be more in keeping with the surrounding community and still have space for a playground and yes, even parking. Inner city schools aren't surrounded by the acres of 'greenspace' (God, I hate that term, but I digress...) like their suburban counterparts. There are planning formulas in place that determine the amount of space required/student, and as long as that is met the little darlings should survive. Also, many inner city schools employ an innovative multi-storey technique whereby several storeys are piled on top of one another to reduce the school's footprint, thus allowing more room for that beloved 'greenspace'.

Again, the surrounding community is at least 30% surface parking. This is a community center; build low to mid-rise residential around this development and allow this to be the center of the community (as markbarbera was hinting towards).

As far as inner city schools not being surrounded by greenspace, why not? I would soon rather see a development like this than the ones you see in Toronto with a small patch of astroturf for children to play on.

[emge]

Isn't the whole discussion about how dense it already is.... kind of moot?

Sure, it's dense. There's a lot of people living in towers and above storefronts in that area - I don't think it's very accurate to arbitrarily draw the lines at John, Wellington, King West and Cannon though. Those aren't the neighbourhood boundaries, and certainly not the downtown boundaries in that area. Even with the parking lots.

However, in that location it doesn't matter how dense it already is. It matters how dense it should be. It's right in the middle of downtown. Any development shouldn't be 'whatever we can get' because it's the core of the city.

Putting any type of density except high-density there doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying there has to be a tower there, but putting a suburban-styled building that includes a lot of surface parking isn't the best use of space. Hopefully future renderings will be a little more detailed.

The other problematic aspect with this development is the lack of streetwall around the building. The property in the current design effectually becomes an island with the property isolated on at least three sides. That's not a good thing.

For something that has four faces, it's bounded with fenced-off greenspace, a barrier to the street. It's not a good visual. It doesn't encourage people to linger or do anything except toss cigarette butts over the fence. The psychological barrier of a fence isn't helpful. As you approach it, it doesn't give good vignettes, and it doesn't integrate with anything else around it.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by emge

Isn't the whole discussion about how dense it already is.... kind of moot?

Sure, it's dense. There's a lot of people living in towers and above storefronts in that area - I don't think it's very accurate to arbitrarily draw the lines at John, Wellington, King West and Cannon though. Those aren't the neighbourhood boundaries, and certainly not the downtown boundaries in that area. Even with the parking lots.

However, in that location it doesn't matter how dense it already is. It matters how dense it should be. It's right in the middle of downtown. Any development shouldn't be 'whatever we can get' because it's the core of the city.

Putting any type of density except high-density there doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying there has to be a tower there, but putting a suburban-styled building that includes a lot of surface parking isn't the best use of space. Hopefully future renderings will be a little more detailed.

The other problematic aspect with this development is the lack of streetwall around the building. The property in the current design effectually becomes an island with the property isolated on at least three sides. That's not a good thing.

For something that has four faces, it's bounded with fenced-off greenspace, a barrier to the street. It's not a good visual. It doesn't encourage people to linger or do anything except toss cigarette butts over the fence. The psychological barrier of a fence isn't helpful. As you approach it, it doesn't give good vignettes, and it doesn't integrate with anything else around it.

I understand that this is downtown and it should be dense, but when you consider what the development actually is this principle doesn't necessarily apply.

And I'm not sure you'd want to 'encourage people to linger' around an elementary school anyways. I agree that it should at least form a streetwall along Wilson, but from this rendering it doesn't look like it does.

Streetwalls are more suitable for commercial areas (not saying that's all they're suitable for), which this area clearly is not. I will use Vancouver's West End as an example: the main streets are vibrant and have a beautiful streetwall, but as soon as you turn off a main street you are in to (for the most part) what feels like a secluded neighbourhood with all different type of housing.

Good urban design doesn't necessarily have to have a streetwall on every single block.

[emge]

Guess I better clarify a couple things - I'm typing on short breaks here, bear with me. And like I said, I understand they only have so much of a budget, and I"m no stranger to knowing how places of worship often get built these days - the most space you can build for your limited bucks, and usually because space is so critical.

Lingering around an elementary school.. yeah, i hear ya. But that's only one function of a multi-use building. Is this going to really be a community hub? If so, the streetscaping needs to invite people in. And the portions of the building that do face the street need to integrate, not present a blank face or disconnection. Especially as surrounding areas develop and change - an island in the middle isn't the best thing.

http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/street-wall says it a bit better than I do about what I mean by a streetwall.

I guess my question is - by which criteria are you categorizing this as good urban design? It doesn't meet density standards. It doesn't integrate with the space around it. It doesn't have any distinctively urban features. Basically it's putting a building in that doesn't interact wit the space around it way. Instead of there being anything to draw people in (e.g. at the front of the building distinct from the schoolyard) it just puts a physical barrier around.

The only activity it invites is if you're already a member of the community that meets in it. Since that's how suburban buildings function, that's fine there. But downtown, buildings need to be a little more - and very often places of worship have been good at providing ways and space to allow the community to use their space or at least communicate they want to be part of the neighbourhood.

This design doesn't say that - including the fact that the front doors aren't facing, or even at right angles to, the street - they're inward-pointing. That's a mistake I've seen a church in St. Catharines do before when renovating (put the main doors at the back and the "back" door at the front, and it communicates something very different than when it had large front steps and double doors opening.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by emge

This design doesn't say that - including the fact that the front doors aren't facing, or even at right angles to, the street - they're inward-pointing. That's a mistake I've seen a church in St. Catharines do before when renovating (put the main doors at the back and the "back" door at the front, and it communicates something very different than when it had large front steps and double doors opening.

I totally agree. I agree, as highwater said, that they could try to implement more urban design elements. I may have come off a bit strong in my posts; I don't advocate this necessarily as being good urban design, I just wouldn't go as far as to say it's suburban.

[SteelTown]

Police get downtown land sought by mosque
Council OKs sale to create more storage space

July 16, 2010
Nicole O'Reilly
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/808740

The controversial plot of downtown land wanted by both the Hamilton police and the Muslim community is going to the cops.

City council approved a land acquisition resolution in camera last week and publicly announced it afterwards, as per procedure.

They agreed to convey their interest in purchasing the land bordered by Mary, Rebecca, Wilson and Catherine streets to the province, which owns a chunk of the land, and negotiate on behalf of the police to acquire that land.

Government agencies have first pick of provincial property. The sale has not gone through yet.

But mosque spokesperson Mohamed Khattab said his community will keep pressing the issue.

The group met with police yesterday and they are hoping to meet with the city later this month.

The Muslim community has a multimillion-dollar plan to expand its downtown quarters into a new mosque, elementary school and housing units. The desired property is adjacent to its mosque at 96 Wilson St. that accommodates about 200 people.

But the land is also kitty-corner to the Hamilton police headquarters and police had been working for about a year toward acquiring that land for storage, apparently unaware that the mosque had also been working for several years toward acquiring that same land.

Police spokesperson Catherine Martin would only say that police have identified a "space deficit" and a study on space needs is under way. The police service is following a city-approved process and is committed to long-term planning, she said.

When news of the land dispute emerged earlier this year, police Chief Glenn De Caire said both sides decided not to discuss the issue with the media and come to a resolution behind closed doors.

Downtown Councillor Bob Bratina, who had been working with members of the mosque community, called this ending very disappointing.

But he said there was no way for the city to purchase the land for the mosque. Had they declined interest the land would have gone to an open bid, where Bratina said a land developer could have outbid the mosque.

From his perspective, he said it seemed like the police were interested all of a sudden.

Bratina said the city will work to try and find a suitable replacement location.

The mosque's plans fit in much better with downtown renewal plans than a storage facility, he said.

This sentiment was echoed by Hussein Hamdani, legal counsel for the Muslim Association of Hamilton but who has not been involved with the land negotiations.

"I think the community understands this is a legal process, if the process of the Ontario government was followed I think we can live with that," he said.

But, he also added, this isn't the first time Muslim groups have been pushed out of buying land in Canadian municipalities.

This is very disappointing for the ever-growing Muslim community in Hamilton, he said.

[matt602]

So... its going to be a giant parking lot full of cop cars then? Yah. Great urban use.

Shouldn't the new Rymal station have a giant sea of "storage space"?