Downtown Update

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Ottawa has a pretty dense core despite strict height limits. Possible because of the height limits. The demand is still there, so it just means more towers.

Vancouver as well.

Actually Ottawa's height limits got overturned in court. And Vancouver raised their limits in 2011-2013.
They now have 2 buildings over 60 stories in Vancouver.

I'm not aware of any North American city that used to have height limits that still does.

As for the general topic/idea here, I still encourage people to email council and Jason Thorne. There's a reason you can purchase entry level condos in the most booming city in the country, but not in Hamilton. TO allows height.
We can't sit around as Hamiltonians and complain that homes are too expensive for first time buyers, but then block developers ability to offer entry level condos.

This is an economic issue that planners are totally missing.

[realcity]

Ottawa streets are at least nice canyons, no setbacks. Hamilton wants both setbacks and height limits.

Vancouver's reason was for earthquakes. where Seattle and Los Angeles proved decades ago that building technology can counter earthquakes. Tokyo same thing.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

100%. Well said. Sad to see Hamilton start dreaming up red tape for downtown developments in a core that saw virtually none for 4 decades.

The very same red tape that caused the 4 decades long dry spell. That red tape never went away, they just rediscovered the old rules and realized they were still in force. Those rules and that thought process needs to change. It's just bureaucrats being bureaucrats and following the rules. It's up to council to change them.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

I'm not aware of any North American city that used to have height limits that still does.

Montreal. But given that they relate to the height of Mont Royal, 200+ metres above the city, they're much less limiting than the ones Hamilton has proposed.

I get what the planners are trying to do, though I don't agree with such rigid planning. Every proposal is scrutinized anyway -- why not look at height as just one part of the merits of each?

It costs a lot of money to build and operate tall buildings. It's not like every developer can afford to front a project that is 100 or 150 or even 200 metres tall. The vast majority of them are shorter, even in most larger North American cities, though we tend to focus on the taller proposals.

Developers have an option of asking for a variance to the zoning rules. This happens quite a lot for lots of reasons. I think we'll see planning staff and council being requested to make exceptions for the developers that feel it's worth it for themselves financially, so we'll have to wait and see whether the proposed limits actually have any teeth.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Montreal. But given that they relate to the height of Mont Royal, 200+ metres above the city, they're much less limiting than the ones Hamilton has proposed.

I get what the planners are trying to do, though I don't agree with such rigid planning. Every proposal is scrutinized anyway -- why not look at height as just one part of the merits of each?

It costs a lot of money to build and operate tall buildings. It's not like every developer can afford to front a project that is 100 or 150 or even 200 metres tall. The vast majority of them are shorter, even in most larger North American cities, though we tend to focus on the taller proposals.

Developers have an option of asking for a variance to the zoning rules. This happens quite a lot for lots of reasons. I think we'll see planning staff and council being requested to make exceptions for the developers that feel it's worth it for themselves financially, so we'll have to wait and see whether the proposed limits actually have any teeth.

very good points.... and precedent is always a good rationale in court. Pretty tough to tell someone they can't build a building as tall as an existing building in their same hood.
Brad Lamb got his OPA documents submitted last year, so he still has the OMB option, which I hope he takes.
After the OMB dies, it'll be lots of court cases.

[LRTfan]

Did some reading on Montreal and found some interesting stats re: their Mount Royal height limit.
In the downtown core, buildings can't be taller than 120 metres....but city-wide, the height limit is 225metres. Not very often you hear of a city that allows taller buildings outside of the core. Lol

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Did some reading on Montreal and found some interesting stats re: their Mount Royal height limit.
In the downtown core, buildings can't be taller than 120 metres....but city-wide, the height limit is 225metres. Not very often you hear of a city that allows taller buildings outside of the core. Lol

There have been a number of new towers built or proposed since 2010 that are between 120m and 185m. Perhaps they were awarded variances? I don't know.

Quite right that there is precedent in Hamilton. In that way it's too bad Landmark/Century 21 wasn't built much taller... though aesthetically I'm glad it wasn't.

[TheRitsman]

I want to see what they do with it. I am not pleased with such low heights, but generally lower heights give municipalities some negotiating power if developers want to go higher. Most of us here think Hamilton is on the cusp of a renaissance, and the city may be positioning itself to ask for more from developers.

Hopefully anyway. They have not shown much toward that effect yet, but I suppose we do not really have a choice.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

and the city may be positioning itself to ask for more from developers.

That's my hope as well. Agreeing with a proposal just because "YAY! They chose us!!!" isn't good city building.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I want to see what they do with it. I am not pleased with such low heights, but generally lower heights give municipalities some negotiating power if developers want to go higher. Most of us here think Hamilton is on the cusp of a renaissance, and the city may be positioning itself to ask for more from developers.

Hopefully anyway. They have not shown much toward that effect yet, but I suppose we do not really have a choice.

Trying to negotiate with developers put the city in a decades long funk before. Not sure the city should be doing the same thing again. The city should have learned from past mistakes. Developers decide the point where they will maximize their profits. If they can't meet those goals they will just take their money elsewhere like they have in the past. Hamilton isn't the only city competing for investment dollars.

[king10]

Regarding that carmens article. I thought they were in the BMO pavillion(jackson square), not the City Cente as it made reference to?

[palace1]

Originally Posted by king10

Regarding that carmens article. I thought they were in the BMO pavillion(jackson square), not the City Cente as it made reference to?

There is a photo on the Carmen's Group website showing the new office entrance in the Hamilton City Centre mall:


source: http://carmensgroup.com/Carmens-group-moves-HQ-downtown-Hamilton

They also have a building permit to add a sign on the exterior
"17-131094-00 To construct a new 17.17 m² wall sign "CARMEN'S GROUP" on the East elevation at the South East corner along James St N ."

[johnnyhamont]

Regarding height limits, is there something to be said for the successful density of cities like Amsterdam, Munich and Washington DC, each of which are absent of skyscrapers? These cities have a world class feel on the streets with buildings that are 5-6 stories - the only trick is that this applies to every property so none are more than that but none are less either (no parking lots anywhere, no 1-3 story buildings anywhere). Everything is built up and nothing is built very high up.
To be clear, I'm not saying that this is the track that Hamilton's bureaucracy has us headed towards nor that we should embrace Hamilton's current landscape of development restrictions. I'm arguing that it's possible that a city can achieve great density and livability without taller-than-the-escarpment skyscrapers (in Hamilton, sure this may take generations but regardless)... Imagine if all of lower Hamilton became infilled with no parking lots and every property on an arterial street rose 5-30 stories!
Yes we need to tell council and our planning staff that policies need to favour a dramatic increase in downtown density but I'm not convinced it necessarily needs to be via 40+story buildings.

As for regulations in general, some are saying that Hamilton needs to cut red tape. Red tape is unfavourable from an economic standpoint sure, but not necessarily from a planning standpoint. Bad planning policies and good planning policies can equally present themselves to developers as red tape. Less red tape may mean more successful high rises but may also mean more disasters like the one-story merit brewery building on James North. Hamilton may or may not need less red tape, what it needs is smart red tape.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Regarding height limits, is there something to be said for the successful density of cities like Amsterdam and Washington DC, both of which are absent of skyscrapers? Both cities have an excellent feel on the streets with buildings that are 5-6 stories - the only trick is that this applies to every property so none are more than that but none are less either (no parking lots anywhere, no 1-3 story buildings anywhere). Everything is built up and nothing is built very high up.
To be clear, I'm not saying that this is the track that Hamilton's bureaucracy has us headed towards nor that we should embrace Hamilton's current landscape of development restrictions. I'm arguing that it's possible that a city can achieve great density and livability without taller-than-the-escarpment skyscrapers (in Hamilton, sure this may take generations but regardless)... Imagine if all of lower Hamilton became infilled with no parking lots and every property on an arterial street rose 5-30 stories!
Yes we need to tell council and our planning staff that policies need to favour a dramatic increase in downtown density but I'm not convinced it necessarily needs to be via 40+story buildings.

As for regulations in general, some are saying that Hamilton needs to cut red tape. Red tape is unfavourable from an economic standpoint sure, but not necessarily from a planning standpoint. Bad planning policies and good planning policies can equally present themselves to developers as red tape. Less red tape may mean more successful high rises but may also mean more disasters like the one-story merit brewery building on James North. Hamilton may or may not need less red tape, what it needs is smart red tape.

Problem is that we've made so many regulations and developer fees and costs, that building anything medium density like the vintage downtown Hamilton buildings, just isn't possible. We either need to reduce developer costs, and increase property taxes a bit, or cut red tape blocking height. If we made it affordable to build 10 storey or less buildings in Hamilton, and expensive to own a parking lot, there would be 30+ development applications for 5-15 storey buildings all through the downtown.

Either way council is stifling the success of Hamilton. And it —, because the city has so much potential. It hurts to see it go to waste while other cities nearby grow and get so much more desirable so quickly.

[LRTfan]

The European city examples are beautiful, but totally not realistic here unless we get all property owners from Dundas to Stoney Creek to sell, and we demolish all properties and replace with 6-8 stories on every block.

Washington DC's limit is about 12-15 stories, but again in the central city you don't see a house anywhere. Stacked towns, 12-15 stories on all main streets and row homes sprinkled throughout.
We need to take advantage of our rather small geographic core to go higher IMO

[king10]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Problem is that we've made so many regulations and developer fees and costs, that building anything medium density like the vintage downtown Hamilton buildings, just isn't possible. We either need to reduce developer costs, and increase property taxes a bit, or cut red tape blocking height. If we made it affordable to build 10 storey or less buildings in Hamilton, and expensive to own a parking lot, there would be 30+ development applications for 5-15 storey buildings all through the downtown.

Either way council is stifling the success of Hamilton. And it —, because the city has so much potential. It hurts to see it go to waste while other cities nearby grow and get so much more desirable so quickly.

Development charges were almost 100% exempt in the downtown core for the better part of the last 15 years. Theyre still roughly 75% exempt. Im not buying the developer fees are too expensive... there legitmately havent been any development fees. The whole reason the fees were exempt was to jump start construction downtown which the exemptions have suceeded at doing. With price per sq foot going up the exemptions are being scaled back as there is more money for developers to make downtown vs 15 years ago.

Where are you getting your info? The city has liteally been giving away money to develop downtown? Intetest free loans and waiving fees

[king10]

Development Charge exemptions in 2015. Downtown core was 90% exempt.

http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D5ABC7BE-D5D0-4B73-82CF-DF89FE6BC318/0/DCPamphletJan62015.pdf

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by king10

Development charges were almost 100% exempt in the downtown core for the better part of the last 15 years. Theyre still roughly 75% exempt. Im not buying the developer fees are too expensive... there legitmately havent been any development fees. The whole reason the fees were exempt was to jump start construction downtown which the exemptions have suceeded at doing. With price per sq foot going up the exemptions are being scaled back as there is more money for developers to make downtown vs 15 years ago.

Where are you getting your info? The city has liteally been giving away money to develop downtown? Intetest free loans and waiving fees

This is true, and I meant to include the cost of land in my post. The cost of the land has been increasing at an alarming rate. We need better transit from city to city to maintain lower land prices. You can still buy land within an 45m drive for a decent price that isn't in the Greenbelt, but not every has a car, and the drive is still brutal for a lot of people. We need to have less people needing to live so close to Toronto or the downtown of Hamilton.

I'm not against height necessarily, but we do need to spread the height out a bit in my opinion. The transit in this region is absolutely terrible, and there are still people against the LRT. Hamilton should have a few LRT lines by now, and daily regular service to St Catharines and Toronto.

[Chronamut]

You have 2 go stations near james st now - one that is sorely underutilized, which appears to be waiting for the density to build up on james to be utilized more. The transportation is there.

What I would love to see is via rail trains stopping at the new go station. I shouldn't have to go to aldershot or toronto to take one.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Bad planning policies and good planning policies can equally present themselves to developers as red tape. Less red tape may mean more successful high rises but may also mean more disasters like the one-story merit brewery building on James North. Hamilton may or may not need less red tape, what it needs is smart red tape.

I thought the reason Merit is like it is, is because of red tape.