Downtown Update

[drpgq]

This is pretty depressing. Honestly letting a few local NIMBY nobodies like Cameron Kroetsch drive the bus is ridiculous and sadly a recipe for less supply and higher rents.

Due to people moving to Southern Ontario, higher rents are coming to Hamilton regardless. We could try and build some dense, cost effective supply, but no, let's concentrate on tiny houses in alleys (like NIMBYs won't stop that too).

We should form a Skyscraper Hamilton Forum for tall buildings committee and get some press.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

While I would have preferred a 40 storey limit, these guidelines aren't that bad. Remember that the height guidelines are more to be used as a bargaining chip toward community benefits.

Is there anything besides the height element that you disagree with in particular?

height obviously, also mandating podiums, mandating setbacks, using an arbitrarily low height for the escarpment etc...

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by drpgq

This is pretty depressing. Honestly letting a few local NIMBY nobodies like Cameron Kroetsch drive the bus is ridiculous and sadly a recipe for less supply and higher rents.

Due to people moving to Southern Ontario, higher rents are coming to Hamilton regardless. We could try and build some dense, cost effective supply, but no, let's concentrate on tiny houses in alleys (like NIMBYs won't stop that too).

We should form a Skyscraper Hamilton Forum for tall buildings committee and get some press.

Not sure about that name suggestion, but your idea has good potential. Someone needs to speak up. I think I see it more as a group advocating for less restrictions and more investment downtown and city-wide, not just skyscrapers.

The previous draft had a whole swath of 12 storey height limits that could easily bump to 30 with a sun/shadow and impact analysis. New draft is back to requesting a full rezoning or OP amendment to increase height.

[markbarbera]

If your interest is in a healthy city, then density should focus more on widespread mid-rises than clusters high rises, especially when redeveloping land adjacent to existing low density development. This really should be a given.

The developer-driven high rise explosion in downtown Toronto is causing an infrastructure crisis to develop, which we should be trying to avoid here.

[atnor]

I’m fine with the report. I’ve said this many times, height for the sake of height and additional units is poor planning which will swell the existing transportation and infrastructure network leading to more congestion, pollution, and service deficiencies.

I agree with markbarbera.

[king10]

I'm fine with the report. I like the idea of leveraging the 30 story limit for community benefit bonusing. A whole swath of new 30 level apartments would do wonders for addressing the affordable housing situation.

Also I like the idea of setbacks. The setback on the new Liuna student building on James street makes a huge difference and integrates the new building with James st nicely.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Heritage

When it comes to protecting the city's heritage, the plan now goes further according to Robichaud.

The secondary plan identifies cultural heritage landscapes such as the Gore says Robichaud.

"We're limiting the current permissions in those areas to six storeys, saying you can increase the height provided you submit the necessary heritage studies. You can't demolish the building and you have to submit a cultural heritage study that shows how those heritage buildings are going to be re-used or incorporated into the new development," said Robichaud.

*wipes hands off* Well I'm happy.That's all I needed to hear for my own personal interest in the gore. Projects like william thomas show what a great mentality this is.

I think we can all agree that the William Thomas building was done wonderfully. Good density, nice setback, nice heritage protection. It's just all pluses. Liuna does great work.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by drpgq

This is pretty depressing. Honestly letting a few local NIMBY nobodies like Cameron Kroetsch drive the bus is ridiculous and sadly a recipe for less supply and higher rents.

Due to people moving to Southern Ontario, higher rents are coming to Hamilton regardless. We could try and build some dense, cost effective supply, but no, let's concentrate on tiny houses in alleys (like NIMBYs won't stop that too).

We should form a Skyscraper Hamilton Forum for tall buildings committee and get some press.

I'm working on something....

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by atnor

I’m fine with the report. I’ve said this many times, height for the sake of height and additional units is poor planning which will swell the existing transportation and infrastructure network leading to more congestion, pollution, and service deficiencies.

I agree with markbarbera.

Then why waste money on an LRT. If the city is going to stifle development there will be no need for any transportation improvements. The developers are just going to walk away to more business friendly cities like they did in the past.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Then why waste money on an LRT. If the city is going to stifle development there will be no need for any transportation improvements. The developers are just going to walk away to more business friendly cities like they did in the past.

Better infrastructure should be built BEFORE developing up and having to meet increased density, not after. Personally I think hamilton should deal with its crumbling centuries old infrastructure first before they start plopping skyscrapers everywhere, congesting everything and taxing an already ancient system.

I don't get everyones obsession with HAVING to have over 30 stories for buildings.. we're not trying to outshine toronto. 30 stories is plenty high.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I don't get everyones obsession with HAVING to have over 30 stories for buildings.. we're not trying to outshine toronto. 30 stories is plenty high.

I agree.

I don't like that we have a minor group of people deciding what can/can't be done to developments, but for now this isn't that important of a battle. We're not at the point where we need skyscrapers yet.

If given the choice between a 60 story or 2 30 story buildings - I'm choosing the latter. The downtown needs more infill... less empty lots. The quicker we can fill in these empty lots, the more vibrant the downtown will look and eventually become.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I agree.

I don't like that we have a minor group of people deciding what can/can't be done to developments, but for now this isn't that important of a battle. We're not at the point where we need skyscrapers yet.

If given the choice between a 60 story or 2 30 story buildings - I'm choosing the latter. The downtown needs more infill... less empty lots. The quicker we can fill in these empty lots, the more vibrant the downtown will look and eventually become.

Agreed! It's also nice to work with the existing heritage - for instance nothing in the james/king core should be knocked down - and the new rules now protect these buildings so that you either have to renovate them or do a william thomas building on them where you must keep the facade - I think that's great in keeping with the character of the downtown

Hell if every building in the downtown was done like that where the street buildings were kept low and the skyscrapers rose behind them I would be happy.

Personally though I find it stressful when you are surrounded with nothing but supertall buildings - it's one reason I don't like staying in toronto for long.

You all need to get something through your heads:

HAMILTON IS NOT TORONTO. HAMILTON IS NOT MONTREAL. HAMILTON IS NOT NEW YORK. HAMILTON IS HAMILTON.

Nor do the longtime citizens want it to be. Robichaud met with citizens all over the city and the new rules are based off what THEY said, not a few disgruntled people on this site. If you want to live in what you classify as a "real" city - then go move to toronto or new york. I am tired of this tired argument back and forth of "hamilton isn't a real city because it doesn't have giant skyscrapers everywhere or because it won't build over 30 stories". As berklon above me said let's just focus on infilling the parking lots with new development and work on smart building before we make our city into a subdivision of massive supertall buildings and rob our city of sunlight forever.

Contrary to what you believe, developers aren't going to leave simply because they can't build over 30 stories.. that's a ridiculous argument. Also as was mentioned below hamilton isn't reserved to just below the escarpment - they can always build 30 stories and above ON the escarpment as far as I know.

[drpgq]

This tweet from @JasonThorne_RPP "2/ As the defining landscape feature of our city, no building can be taller than the Niagara Escarpment ... and key Escarpment view corridors will be protected" shows where the opposition to tall buildings is coming from.

I agree with bigguy1231, Hamilton isn't an investment island. If developers aren't going to get a return here comparable to other places by building exactly what city planners deem optimal, then we will get nothing.

Like the graphic scootaround.

[durandy]

so many different arguments are being thrown around, but the essence of the Max-30 story argument is the view issue. It's not density, infrastructure, conformity with the Growth Plan, housing supply, or consistency with the neighbourhood. If these towers were proposed at 30 stories, all of the NIMBY arguments based on any of the above would fail.

Yet the view issue seems to be the least well understood of any of these. The escarpment view from the lower city is obstructed throughout the lower city. The view from the escarpment, meanwhile, seems like such a minor issue. Are we talking about the 200 dwelling units on the mountain that have views of the harbour? Are we talking about the vibrant spaces of the Claremont access and Sam Lawrence Park? This sounds to me like a mantra that has been repeated enough times by planners that it carries an air of truth, but no one really knows what it means.

[SteelTown]

Can you always build a 40 storey building on the mountain As far as I know, the sky is the limit lol

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by durandy

so many different arguments are being thrown around, but the essence of the Max-30 story argument is the view issue. It's not density, infrastructure, conformity with the Growth Plan, housing supply, or consistency with the neighbourhood. If these towers were proposed at 30 stories, all of the NIMBY arguments based on any of the above would fail.

Yet the view issue seems to be the least well understood of any of these. The escarpment view from the lower city is obstructed throughout the lower city. The view from the escarpment, meanwhile, seems like such a minor issue. Are we talking about the 200 dwelling units on the mountain that have views of the harbour? Are we talking about the vibrant spaces of the Claremont access and Sam Lawrence Park? This sounds to me like a mantra that has been repeated enough times by planners that it carries an air of truth, but no one really knows what it means.

I am thinking claremont access and sam lawrence park. The apartments on the mountain if you go high enough will be able to see the lake regardless.

I think it's more like "we put these buildings up years ago and they started to obstruct views of the water, so we want to stop doing it before we get to a toronto situation where all of the waterfront has giant skyscrapers in front of it"

I think their goal is more like the buildings act like an artificial slope, where ideally they would get lower and lower as they approach the water.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Can you always build a 40 storey building on the mountain As far as I know, the sky is the limit lol

Yeah I don't believe there are any height restrictions- and that's a really good point - hamilton is not just limited to the crater in which it exists by the water.

I like to think of the lake ontario "crater" like a pool with crystals around it - none jutting too much out of the crater.

[king10]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Then why waste money on an LRT. If the city is going to stifle development there will be no need for any transportation improvements. The developers are just going to walk away to more business friendly cities like they did in the past.

If we have 30 new 30 story towers in the central lower city we're going to need better transportation. Also you can still build over 30 stories with a variance ie. The Connought phase 3 plus and Vranich towers.

I don't get this obsession that if we dont have towers over 30 stories we're not intensifying, and won't need improved transit, and developers won't want to build. You build 30 new 30 story towers where there used to be empty lots and 3 story buildings and you are intensifying. Brad Lamb at yesterdays planing meeting said he has made progress with City planners and he feels they will strike a balance without having to go to the OMB. He said he has many other sites downtown he still wants to develop and the disagreements with city planners is all part of the process, not out of the ordinary.

The land values in the lower city aren't expensive enough where the only way to make money is to build over 30 stories. not to mention the development charges are still 70% exempt allowing for even higher returns on investment without having to shoehorn or cram massive towers on small plots of land.

Also LRT and transit improvements should be built to coincide with future development, not retroactively, by then it would be 10-15 years late.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by drpgq

This tweet from @JasonThorne_RPP "2/ As the defining landscape feature of our city, no building can be taller than the Niagara Escarpment ... and key Escarpment view corridors will be protected" shows where the opposition to tall buildings is coming from.

I agree with bigguy1231, Hamilton isn't an investment island. If developers aren't going to get a return here comparable to other places by building exactly what city planners deem optimal, then we will get nothing.

Like the graphic scootaround.

Thanks. It's the wordmark of an upcoming group that seeks to promote responsible development within Hamilton, which includes opposing the height limit and working towards increased density for community benefit. I hope to release the "Enshrined Values" of the group within the next week or so.

[king10]

Originally Posted by scootaround

Thanks. It's the wordmark of an upcoming group that seeks to promote responsible development within Hamilton, which includes opposing the height limit and working towards increased density for community benefit. I hope to release the "Enshrined Values" of the group within the next week or so.

Wouldn't responsible development include things like height restrictions?

30 stories where an empty lot or 5 story building was is increased density isn't it? It's not like we tear down 40 story towers to build a 30 story tower thus decreasing density.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by king10

Wouldn't responsible development include things like height restrictions?

30 stories where an empty lot or 5 story building was is increased density isn't it? It's not like we tear down 40 story towers to build a 30 story tower thus decreasing density.

It depends what responsible development means to you. To us, it means development that isn't bound by regressive height limits and is rather looked at on a case-by-case scenario.