Downtown Update

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

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.

They aren't going to build infrastructure without money and those buildings will provide millions in taxes to build that infrastructure. The old adage build it and they will come doesn't always work. Why would the city spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure on speculation. The city could have already spent the money on infrastructure and have it all wasted in one fell swoop with a restrictive planning proposal like the one being proposed.

This planning document will kill development in downtown Hamilton. Too many restrictions and too much red tape. This document looks like they went back into the archives and dusted off planning from the 70's. The city did the same things then and it resulted in the stagnation of the downtown. Beggars can't be choosers and this city despite some small improvements is still a beggar.

Just to add. That plaza on John St. and Forrest was the result of similar planning. The original plan for the site was for two twenty something floor buildings and a podium with retail space. The city rejected the idea because the buildings were supposedly too tall. So the owner of the property that already had a commercial zoning just said screw you and built that plaza so they could at least make something off the property.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They aren't going to build infrastructure without money and those buildings will provide millions in taxes to build that infrastructure. The old adage build it and they will come doesn't always work. Why would the city spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure on speculation. The city could have already spent the money on infrastructure and have it all wasted in one fell swoop with a restrictive planning proposal like the one being proposed.

This planning document will kill development in downtown Hamilton. Too many restrictions and too much red tape. This document looks like they went back into the archives and dusted off planning from the 70's. The city did the same things then and it resulted in the stagnation of the downtown. Beggars can't be choosers and this city despite some small improvements is still a beggar.

It's been proven that this doesn't work. Millions don't flock to these buildings - what happens is those who already live in the city fill them up and it just leaves voids everywhere else.

Also 30 stories is plenty to bring millions into the city in all honesty. We don't need 60 story buildings in hamilton, sorry. Hamilton is too small of a city for that to even LOOK good.. i would look like you tried to cram too many pens into a cup.

Also your example doesn't fit the conversation - the conversation is about rejecting anything above 30 stories.. there is a lot more that goes into accepting a building other than just height. If we are going to get all up in arms whenever a high rise is rejected.. I dunno..

Originally Posted by scootaround

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.

any exceptions to the 30 story rule are already looked at on a case by case basis - for example the later phases of the royal connaught, one of which is over 30 stories.

Originally Posted by king10

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.

This. Very much this. What we have on this forum are dreamers who want to build sky high vs realists who want to see hamilton built responsibly.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Revised downtown Hamilton plan proposes new rules for height, density and heritage
The proposed guidelines including height allowances will go to planning committee next month

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-downtown-plan-1.4582914


Protecting rental units

The new plan says that for every demolition or redevelopment of a building containing rental units, they have to be replaced.

"If you were looking at demolishing a building that had six or more rental units you had to replace those housing units. We've gone further to say, three or more housing units in the zoning bylaw and you have to provide for that housing within that redevelopment," said Robichaud.

A public open house for people to talk with staff and learn about the proposed downtown plan will be held early next month.

For clarification: Does this mean anything for rental-to-condo conversions? Zoning bylaws and secondary plans can't claim authority over those cant they?
It doesn't take a redevelopment of a building to rurn rented units into owned ones. So basically, what's the point in protecting demolished rental units if once they're replaced, they can immediately be turned into condo units?

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

For clarification: Does this mean anything for rental-to-condo conversions? Zoning bylaws and secondary plans can't claim authority over those cant they?
It doesn't take a redevelopment of a building to rurn rented units into owned ones. So basically, what's the point in protecting demolished rental units if once they're replaced, they can immediately be turned into condo units?

Yeah the replacement of apartments with overpriced condos is a plague that needs to be stopped- many times you're not even getting your bang for your buck - you're just footing the bill for the building.

Even rentals are getting ridiculous. I just checked what my apartment is going for in the east end now - and it is literally TWICE the amt I am paying for it, since I am grandfathered in. Now I can't even move if I wanted to, because I wouldn't be able to afford to move anywhere else that has what I currently have.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

For clarification: Does this mean anything for rental-to-condo conversions? Zoning bylaws and secondary plans can't claim authority over those cant they?
It doesn't take a redevelopment of a building to rurn rented units into owned ones. So basically, what's the point in protecting demolished rental units if once they're replaced, they can immediately be turned into condo units?

Yes, condo conversions are regulated under the OP. You can't convert without approval. However, I don't know what the mechanism is for protecting rentals. ie if you redevelop with a condo, the units are individually owned, whether by buyers or the developer. The city might put some kind of covenant on title to require owners to rent? And what's a rental - does Airbnb count?

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by durandy

Yes, condo conversions are regulated under the OP. You can't convert without approval. However, I don't know what the mechanism is for protecting rentals. ie if you redevelop with a condo, the units are individually owned, whether by buyers or the developer. The city might put some kind of covenant on title to require owners to rent? And what's a rental - does Airbnb count?

If your apartment is being threatened to be turned into a condo you can get a signed petition from everyone in the building with contact information from each tenant and present it to the board before the public city hall meeting - if enough people express interest against it the board can use this as a basis to overturn the decision.

Of course this would happen before demolition or conversion ever happened.

[Sehnsucht]

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.

Sign me up.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

I think some people are missing the point.... When a developer is coming to Hamilton to invest THEIR money and use THEIR property we need to stop telling them to go use an empty lot somewhere else! This is the property they have and they would like to use it and make some profit from doing so .... Also, if we continue to make it so difficult and slow for them to do so they WILL go SOMEWHERE ELSE !!
We continue to play games and running them away and then we are left with nothing but run down buildings and the same empty lots !

Who's winning then ???

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

I think some people are missing the point.... When a developer is coming to Hamilton to invest THEIR money and use THEIR property we need to stop telling them to go use an empty lot somewhere else! This is the property they have and they would like to use it and make some profit from doing so .... Also, if we continue to make it so difficult and slow for them to do so they WILL go SOMEWHERE ELSE !!
We continue to play games and running them away and then we are left with nothing but run down buildings and the same empty lots !

Who's winning then ???

exactly why Hamilton has been the only depressed, undervalued city in the GTHA for decades and decades. Closed for business, old-fashioned union mentality still runs rampant here.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by durandy

Yes, condo conversions are regulated under the OP. You can't convert without approval. However, I don't know what the mechanism is for protecting rentals. ie if you redevelop with a condo, the units are individually owned, whether by buyers or the developer. The city might put some kind of covenant on title to require owners to rent? And what's a rental - does Airbnb count?

Re: "Whats a rental?" - In the context of rental-to-condo conversions, we would be talking about a rental being a situation where you rent from the owner of the building, not merely renting from the owner of your unit (so Airbnb doesnt count).
Given OP regulation of such situations then, does the new DTSP for all intents and purposes ban rental-to-condo conversions?

[durandy]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Re: "Whats a rental?" - In the context of rental-to-condo conversions, we would be talking about a rental being a situation where you rent from the owner of the building, not merely renting from the owner of your unit (so Airbnb doesnt count).
Given OP regulation of such situations then, does the new DTSP for all intents and purposes ban rental-to-condo conversions?

Sounds like it, unless there was some way to force the developer condoing units to continue renting them. There are big tax benefits from condoing units, so a developer might be able to convince the city to let them convert if they continue renting all of the units. But legally, it would be complicated.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

I think some people are missing the point.... When a developer is coming to Hamilton to invest THEIR money and use THEIR property we need to stop telling them to go use an empty lot somewhere else! This is the property they have and they would like to use it and make some profit from doing so .... Also, if we continue to make it so difficult and slow for them to do so they WILL go SOMEWHERE ELSE !!
We continue to play games and running them away and then we are left with nothing but run down buildings and the same empty lots !

Who's winning then ???

Yes the empty lot argument is strange. There's plenty of lots where the owner is more than happy to sit on it and use it for a tax loss. The number of lots where development can reasonably happen in the near future is probably surprisingly limited.

Also rents will go up higher than they would have if we build no supply. Television City is more than 600 units in one big swoop. Plus like it was mentioned in that Raise the Hammer article, the lower city population is down 25,000 people from 1971. We have too much commercial and office space for the number of people living in the lower city.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

It's been proven that this doesn't work. Millions don't flock to these buildings - what happens is those who already live in the city fill them up and it just leaves voids everywhere else.

Also 30 stories is plenty to bring millions into the city in all honesty. We don't need 60 story buildings in hamilton, sorry. Hamilton is too small of a city for that to even LOOK good.. i would look like you tried to cram too many pens into a cup.

With attitudes like that Hamilton will always be a small city. If you want to have a thriving city you have to think big and not just settle for average.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

With attitudes like that Hamilton will always be a small city. If you want to have a thriving city you have to think big and not just settle for average.

^^^^ so much this, sometimes I have to question though whether people actually want a thriving city.

[Paul29]

Originally Posted by scootaround

^^^^ so much this, sometimes I have to question though whether people actually want a thriving city.

I'm born and raised but left when I was about 30 (13 years ago), so maybe take my comment with a grain of salt since I've been away for so long.

That's the attitude I always felt around Hamilton. People don't want bigger/better/nicer. Most seem to be happy with the status quo.

I have old school friends who complain about the run down areas and buildings that fall into a state of disrepair yet also complain when someone wants to do something about it.
"Someone needs to step in and save the Kresge building"
"A developer wants to buy the Kresge building, restore the facade and build a condo on top. Someone needs to stop this!"

I love the Hammer and always will, it's my home even though I probably won't ever live there again. I get frustrated when I see people so resistant to change when the change seems positive.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by Paul29

I'm born and raised but left when I was about 30 (13 years ago), so maybe take my comment with a grain of salt since I've been away for so long.

That's the attitude I always felt around Hamilton. People don't want bigger/better/nicer. Most seem to be happy with the status quo.

I have old school friends who complain about the run down areas and buildings that fall into a state of disrepair yet also complain when someone wants to do something about it.
"Someone needs to step in and save the Kresge building"
"A developer wants to buy the Kresge building, restore the facade and build a condo on top. Someone needs to stop this!"

I love the Hammer and always will, it's my home even though I probably won't ever live there again. I get frustrated when I see people so resistant to change when the change seems positive.

^^^. This is exactly how I feel!.... I left Hamilton for school and work 18 years ago ... I decided to move back last year and bring my business here as I always intended to ... The mentality is still very much the same amongst the original Hamiltonians .... "That's too big" ..."not in that location" .... "Why doesn't the developer do what I think is better" ....

The interest is out there to make Hamilton better and bigger but the few who have dug their feet in and claimed downtown as their own have somehow managed to do just that ... Keep it their own .... I suggest that if you don't like growth and change...maybe consider moving to a farm with tons of acres and be the king of your own domain.... The downtown area of a major Canadian city is prob not the place for you ������

[drpgq]

As a native Hamiltonian, I certainly understand that some among us have a negative mentality towards development. However I would argue that some of the most vocal are those that have moved here more recently.

For example, this Raise the Hammer piece co-written by Cameron Kroetsch:

Hamiltonians Want Responsible Change and a Liveable Downtown

https://raisethehammer.org/article/3460/...sponsible_change_and_a_liveable_downtown

His byline in the piece: "Cameron Kroetsch moved to Hamilton in 2014"

I could list some others, but the common denominator is that they bought a single family dwelling and seem to really, really dislike high rises. What's especially ironic is that they drape themselves in faux concern for rising rental prices, but basically they're behaving like the inhabitants of Oakville.

[atnor]

First off, no one here is opposed to development. It goes without saying everyone here would love for Hamilton to shed its image of being a run down crack head city and be seen as an attractive modern city. However, development must be done sensibly. We mustn’t give free reign to the developers; after all, the development review process is allowed via the planning act to give municipalities control of what gets built. I can assure you the various committees that review development applications are not stupid people by any means and are not swayed by neighbourhood associations. Let’s be honest, the report regarding tv city has legitimate reasons to deny the current site plan. It’s not fear of change but rather design and infrastructural deficiencies that held back approval.

Second, brad lamb’s developments are always making concessions. Having spoke to Toronto planners, they said lamb’s developments are always mired in back and forth submissions to reach a compromise.

Let’s not look as Toronto as a model to aspire to, rather let’s see Toronto as a lesson in poor planning and learn from the mistakes they’ve made.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by scootaround

^^^^ so much this, sometimes I have to question though whether people actually want a thriving city.

Oh, I settled that question in my mind years ago. I mean we have local residents and media honks criticizing Toronto and other ultra-successful cities. Imagine being from a successful city, coming to visit Hamilton, and hearing us complain about successful cities? LOL I'm sure people leave with a clear realization of how we've been so far behind the rest of the world.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by drpgq

As a native Hamiltonian, I certainly understand that some among us have a negative mentality towards development. However I would argue that some of the most vocal are those that have moved here more recently.

For example, this Raise the Hammer piece co-written by Cameron Kroetsch:

Hamiltonians Want Responsible Change and a Liveable Downtown

https://raisethehammer.org/article/3460/...sponsible_change_and_a_liveable_downtown

His byline in the piece: "Cameron Kroetsch moved to Hamilton in 2014"

I could list some others, but the common denominator is that they bought a single family dwelling and seem to really, really dislike high rises. What's especially ironic is that they drape themselves in faux concern for rising rental prices, but basically they're behaving like the inhabitants of Oakville.

I love the double standard of all the social media warriors here too. Anyone from Toronto opening a cafe or building new housing is the Devil and should go back to Toronto.
But if you move here and become a NIMBY interested only in your single family home lifestyle, we praise you and let you run neighbourhood associations.