Downtown Update - Page 195

Sehnsucht · #**3881** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

best response ever.

Just a quick thought here. Wouldn't it have been better if the CIBC had built one tower twice as tall instead of occupying two prime lots with those squat buildings? I suppose that's why I prefer to see loosening of height restrictions.

Sehnsucht · #**3882** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamilton23

I don’t want to.

My DM’s are open for that kind of conversation.

Yes, sure, in the future, I'll message you offline so that we don't bore the rest and so that perhaps you and I can better understand each other.

You might want to be a little less dismissive of someone you don't know, though.

My scant posts are because I closed an old account. I was active in the Flar, BC Ted, RealCity days. Been part of this for over ten years. I closed my previous account because I tired of the conversation. But I've had renewed interest of late. So don't be so hasty to judge, and don't call me 'Professor.' That's dismissive.

Finally, I used to be neighbours with Joe Mancinelli, and this is a small city, so let's speak to each other with a little more respect . . . .

hamilton23 · #**3883** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 1:23 PM**

Sehnsucht wrote:

Yes, sure, in the future, I'll message you offline so that we don't bore the rest and so that perhaps you and I can better understand each other.

You might want to be a little less dismissive of someone you don't know, though.

My scant posts are because I closed an old account. I was active in the Flar, BC Ted, RealCity days. Been part of this for over ten years. I closed my previous account because I tired of the conversation. But I've had renewed interest of late. So don't be so hasty to judge, and don't call me 'Professor.' That's dismissive.

Finally, I used to be neighbours with Joe Mancinelli on Mountain Park Avenue, and this is a small city, so let's speak to each other with a little more respect . . . .

Being neighbours (or former neighbours with my uncle) is irrelevant to this thread. Let's please not veer off topic again.

Jake Potter · #**3884** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sehnsucht

Agreed. However, those advocating for height are not doing so just for the sake of it, I believe. They're providing logical, defensible reasons.

Yes, they're too many vacant lots. But that doesn't logically mean that developments on these vacant lots should have arbitrary height restrictions. Core land will inevitably become scarce, and density is a good thing, of course.

I advocate more height for a few reasons, one of which is that valuable space frequently gets taken up by squat, ugly little buildings.

Two examples, the Staybridge suites would've been much better on a smaller footprint and with more height--slender, more height, more glass.

And the newish rental apartment building with the ugly brick-panelling across the street from the Hilton is another example of brutal, squat architecture that does nothing to enhance the skyline. And those two lots are now lost for more meaningful development.

If Brad Lamb can sell out his big towers, then why not let him build them?

Brad Lambs towers are ambitious and all, but like many other posters have noted, what's the point of building such large residential towers for no reason?
I wouldn't be so quick to point out that the towers would sell out. A lot of the suites are under 500 square feet and still cost a good amount of $$. We'll see how it all works out.

hamilton23 · #**3885** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 1:37 PM**

I think if people have an issue with height restrictions, they should just continue to make it known and argue their points, etc.

Both sides of the argument have quality points in favour of increasing height requirements and for not increasing the heights.

I'm sure some developers will either fight the restrictions or just adjust their proposals.

Sehnsucht · #**3886** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake Potter

Brad Lambs towers are ambitious and all, but like many other posters have noted, what's the point of building such large residential towers for no reason?
I wouldn't be so quick to point out that the towers would sell out. A lot of the suites are under 500 square feet and still cost a good amount of $$. We'll see how it all works out.

First, I didn't contend that they would sell: I used the conditional 'if.' So, if the market can handle it, then maybe it's okay.

I will say, though, that 40 storeys does make me a bit leery, too. It's unprecedented for our city. But just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Anyway, not fighting hard for this either way. Just prefer tall, nicely designed buildings.

Sehnsucht · #**3887** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamilton23

Dude. The conversation reverted back to Downtown Updates since your rants on Thursday/Friday. Why even respond to me directly on this thread after noticing the conversation has been moving in a more positive direction since? How did you expect me to respond to you? You attacked me for literally no reason and I have 0 idea of who you are.

That's cool that you were neighbours with my uncle. I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way though. Please just DM me if you want to talk.

Let this thread be what it's supposed to be.

Messaged you offline. Apologies to all. Let good discussion proceed.

hamilton23 · #**3888** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sehnsucht

Messaged you offline. Apologies to all. Let good discussion proceed.

Ditto.

atnor · #**3889** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 2:37 PM**

The higher the building the greater the travel demand and trips to and from the building. If we allow super skyscrapers to be built uncheck we will swell the existing road network and will lead to gridlock, congestion, pollution, etc.

In my opinion, compared to other cities in the GTA, hamilton is great because we can get around very easily. You are never rushed and we don’t have real congestion (yet). This means you can either take your time or travel a bit faster if you so desire.

hamilton23 · #**3890** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atnor

The higher the building the greater the travel demand and trips to and from the building. If we allow super skyscrapers to be built uncheck we will swell the existing road network and will lead to gridlock, congestion, pollution, etc.

In my opinion, compared to other cities in the GTA, hamilton is great because we can get around very easily. You are never rushed and we don’t have real congestion (yet). This means you can either take your time or travel a bit faster if you so desire.

I agree with this. As someone who went to school and lives in Downtown Toronto but was born and raised/ works in Downtown Hamilton, I would hate to see anywhere near that level of congestion on our roads.

I also agree with what you said about not feeling rushed. Toronto has this constant 'GO' vibe. Which is good and bad depending on how you feel or look at it. I like the more mellow vibe of Hamilton. I like knowing I can get from one end of Downtown to the other by car in fifteen minutes.

King&James · #**3891** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 4:45 PM**

Lots of discussion around height, and not so much about density. I would much prefer taller towers with say 25-30% lot coverage if it created more interesting pockets at ground level that encourages Street art and interactive / social spaces

hamilton23 · #**3892** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

Lots of discussion around height, and not so much about density. I would much prefer taller towers with say 25-30% lot coverage if it created more interesting pockets at ground level that encourages Street art and interactive / social spaces

That's a pretty good point

Chronamut · #**3893** Posted **Oct 24, 2017, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sehnsucht

Just a quick thought here. Wouldn't it have been better if the CIBC had built one tower twice as tall instead of occupying two prime lots with those squat buildings? I suppose that's why I prefer to see loosening of height restrictions.

actually, that WAS the original plan.

King&James · #**3894** Posted **Oct 24, 2017, 11:36 AM**

I'm not too fussed about the CIBC development's height, it beats the Robinsons / Royal Banks strategy next door (technically no door... I digress). Nothing but crickets on that site (and cars), I wonder who is sitting on that - if there ever could be a site that broke the 30 storey limit, surely that one (backing into a transit mall) could receive top consideration.

Chronamut · #**3895** Posted **Oct 24, 2017, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

I'm not too fussed about the CIBC development's height, it beats the Robinsons / Royal Banks strategy next door (technically no door... I digress). Nothing but crickets on that site (and cars), I wonder who is sitting on that - if there ever could be a site that broke the 30 storey limit, surely that one (backing into a transit mall) could receive top consideration.

the person sitting on it last I heard was asking an exorbitant amt of money for someone to build on it..

atnor · #**3896** Posted **Oct 24, 2017, 1:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

the person sitting on it last I heard was asking an exorbitant amt of money for someone to build on it..

The ground there is actually hollow and was never properly filled. Heavy equipment like a crane cannot be placed there if the CIBC needs something hoisted.

lachlanholmes · #**3897** Posted **Oct 25, 2017, 1:16 AM**

New street signs at Bold and MacNab, and Bold and Charles, (probably at MacNab and Hurst too, and at Charles and Hurst, but haven't had time to confirm.

"MacNab Charles Heritage District"

drpgq · #**3898** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 7:59 AM**

Certainly would be a nice sized venue. Would also probably be a lot cheaper to rent than
the studio at Hamilton Place in terms of rental. I saw Robert Fisk speak there a couple of years ago and it was a good venue.

Downtown Hamilton church re-envisions itself as a concert hall

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/76846...h-re-envisions-itself-as-a-concert-hall/

f Hamilton wants to truly consider itself a "music city," it needs a mid-sized performance venue, something smaller than the 2,100-seat FirstOntario Concert Hall and something bigger than the 450-capacity Studio at Hamilton Place, something that can hold 600 to 1,100 people.

Rev. Ian Sloan at New Vision United Church has a simple solution. Bring his congregation's 149-year-old building up to building and fire code regulations and you have a concert hall just the right size, with outstanding sightlines and proven acoustics.

anactualalien · #**3899** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 8:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

I'm not too fussed about the CIBC development's height, it beats the Robinsons / Royal Banks strategy next door (technically no door... I digress). Nothing but crickets on that site (and cars), I wonder who is sitting on that - if there ever could be a site that broke the 30 storey limit, surely that one (backing into a transit mall) could receive top consideration.

I might be off base here but that site more than any other would create legitimate shadow issues at sunset for Gore park. (fwiw I don't feel that way about any other development in the downtown re: shadows)

King&James · #**3900** Posted **Oct 26, 2017, 11:29 AM**

^ This is where good and thoughtful design comes into play. Very large lot. Not sure of coverage by zoning, but at say 11 times, and 25% coverage, nationally you get 44 storeys. With a decent set back from James for the Tower and step-back design, you get an interesting building form, lessened shadow impact, and the ability to create some human scale at street front / curbside that could add some real dimension to this area of downtown.