Cobalt Luxury Residences On King | 97.5 & 97.5m | 2 x 30 fl | Complete - Page 23

CaptainKirk · #**441** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidcappi

The reason I heard the heights were levelled was to reduce shadows on John/Rebecca park. Oh wait, that park isn't even built yet.

And one small block away there's Gore park. I don't get it.

Chronamut · #**442** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

And one small block away there's Gore park. I don't get it.

shadows don't fall from the building onto gore park if I recall - they span out at a 45 angle north eastward to northwestward.

LRTfan · #**443** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidcappi

The reason I heard the heights were levelled was to reduce shadows on John/Rebecca park. Oh wait, that park isn't even built yet.

This would only be an issue in mid-winter, late afternoon.... if people want full sun 100% of the time, move to Florida or the country where there's no buildings.

CaptainKirk · #**444** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

shadows don't fall from the building onto gore park if I recall - they span out at a 45 angle north eastward to northwestward.

I should have been clearer. The point I was trying to make was, why have another park so close to Gore park? Especially when it inhibits developing prime Hamilton real estate.

I think a top notch development at King & Hughson should trump a redundant park. Gore park is so close.

Crapht · #**445** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 9:30 PM**

I have to agree. A total of 60 floors would be more elegant as one tower at 45 floors and one at 15 floors. IMO. Partial shadow on a park is sometimes a relief in the summer. Embrace the shadow.

drpgq · #**446** Posted **Jan 13, 2018, 5:41 PM**

Are floors 2, 3, and 4 offices or retail?

Crapht · #**447** Posted **Jan 14, 2018, 5:41 AM**

Interesting perspective... if you draw a straight line down York Blvd or if you enter the city that way this property is directly in front of you behind FirstOntario Centre. More height and quality design would make for epic vantage point.

Chronamut · #**448** Posted **Jan 14, 2018, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

I should have been clearer. The point I was trying to make was, why have another park so close to Gore park? Especially when it inhibits developing prime Hamilton real estate.

I think a top notch development at King & Hughson should trump a redundant park. Gore park is so close.

or have parks on top of buildings - imagine all that underutilized rooftop space

bigguy1231 · #**449** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 5:33 AM**

It looks like the city is going to OK this development.

https://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-st...r-kresge-site/

lachlanholmes · #**450** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 7:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

It looks like the city is going to OK this development.

https://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-st...r-kresge-site/

Union friends want tall tower and preferential treatment, they get it.

LRTfan · #**451** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootaround

Union friends want tall tower and preferential treatment, they get it.

Not exactly. They wanted 34 stories. City Hall is acting line a bunch of clowns with this new 30-storey obsession. It's going to drive away investment that we desperately need.

Innsertnamehere · #**452** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 7:08 PM**

They revisit it from 34+26 to 30+30, no? That's the same GFA, just reconfigured.

SteelTown · #**453** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 7:35 PM**

King at Hughson | 97.5 & 97.5m | 2 x 30 fl | Proposal -> King at Hughson | 97.5 & 97.5m | 2 x 30 fl | Approved

LRTfan · #**454** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

They revisit it from 34+26 to 30+30, no? That's the same GFA, just reconfigured.

you are correct, but it's so petty and small-townish. What are we accomplishing by lowering it 4 floors?? And in the Rebecca St thread, you'll see they've denied the proposal for 40. Will only consider 30. Again, what are we accomplishing??
This is all because some folks in the DNA got the ear of city hall and came up with this boogey-man 'escarpment height' idea in order to gain opposition to TV City.
We've had several buildings taller than the escarpment for 45 years. And in that time, I'm going to guess the city has received exactly zero complaints about it.
When have you ever overheard someone say "can you believe we have buildings taller than the escarpment here?!" It's a red herring, boogeyman fabricated by a bunch of NIMBYs

Sehnsucht · #**455** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRTfan

you are correct, but it's so petty and small-townish. What are we accomplishing by lowering it 4 floors?? And in the Rebecca St thread, you'll see they've denied the proposal for 40. Will only consider 30. Again, what are we accomplishing??
This is all because some folks in the DNA got the ear of city hall and came up with this boogey-man 'escarpment height' idea in order to gain opposition to TV City.
We've had several buildings taller than the escarpment for 45 years. And in that time, I'm going to guess the city has received exactly zero complaints about it.
When have you ever overheard someone say "can you believe we have buildings taller than the escarpment here?!" It's a red herring, boogeyman fabricated by a bunch of NIMBYs

Well said. Height restrictions are utterly preposterous. I've yet to hear a logical reason for them that isn't anchored in petty NIMBY-based self-interest.

The reality is that it will take our city some adjusting--once they see a few 30 storey towers on the skyline, they will become habituated (dare I say 'warm'?) to the concept of 40-plus storeys.

King&James · #**456** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 10:18 PM**

I would echo the argument that the city folk (would be nice to know who these people actually are) , holding some fascination on height limits, probably have been lucky not to have needed to defend arbitrary number for lack of any economics that would support or need extra density via height. No limits on lot coverage alone can achieve nominally the same return that say one that restricts (10 storey full lot,vs 40 storey at 25%). Just that you probably end up with a more interesting streetscape if you limit coverage and remove height caps.

So I say bring on the height, let Century 21 be lost in the new landscapes and not forever remain the 70s icon that we have all become too familiar with.

Also and as complete aside, why are there no outrages against building towers along the mountain crest (recall condo going up at Mountain Park and Upper Wentworth without any complaints that the escarpment look and feel would be taken away).

LRTfan · #**457** Posted **Jan 17, 2018, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

I would echo the argument that the city folk (would be nice to know who these people actually are) , holding some fascination on height limits, probably have been lucky not to have needed to defend arbitrary number for lack of any economics that would support or need extra density via height. No limits on lot coverage alone can achieve nominally the same return that say one that restricts (10 storey full lot,vs 40 storey at 25%). Just that you probably end up with a more interesting streetscape if you limit coverage and remove height caps.

So I say bring on the height, let Century 21 be lost in the new landscapes and not forever remain the 70s icon that we have all become too familiar with.

Also and as complete aside, why are there no outrages against building towers along the mountain crest (recall condo going up at Mountain Park and Upper Wentworth without any complaints that the escarpment look and feel would be taken away).

good thoughts....and yes, re: the escarpment buildings. There is a 22 storey building on the escarpment...making it the tallest building in the city, equivalent to 52 stories when you factor in the 30 storey escarpment height. Why no outrage there?

atnor · #**458** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRTfan

good thoughts....and yes, re: the escarpment buildings. There is a 22 storey building on the escarpment...making it the tallest building in the city, equivalent to 52 stories when you factor in the 30 storey escarpment height. Why no outrage there?

Because it’s not 52 stories lol.

LRTfan · #**459** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atnor

Because it’s not 52 stories lol.

Lol...true. But it kinda is according to their ridiculous logic.
Oh, better example: the condo at Upper Wentworth at Mtn Brow. 12 stories. So, equivalent to 42 stories and literally overlooking the downtown core.
Why do we allow city hall to talk about the escarpment as if it's some wild, protected nature preserve, but on the other hand see it lined with buildings and urban development? It's a totally false narrative with no substance or logic. Just rooted in NIMBYism

atnor · #**460** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Lol...true. But it kinda is according to their ridiculous logic.
Oh, better example: the condo at Upper Wentworth at Mtn Brow. 12 stories. So, equivalent to 42 stories and literally overlooking the downtown core.
Why do we allow city hall to talk about the escarpment as if it's some wild, protected nature preserve, but on the other hand see it lined with buildings and urban development? It's a totally false narrative with no substance or logic. Just rooted in NIMBYism

I believe the protection of the escapement is beyond municipal jurisdiction and is protected by the province. Anything that has been approved along or on the escarpment has been done by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, not the city.