Métro City Condos | ?m | 3 x 20 fl | Proposed

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Any word on this one? Corktown seriously needs an influx of people...

Corktown and Hamilton seriously needs this project to be scaled back to mid rise level. 8 maybe 10 storeys. This should take inspiration from 101 Locke.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Crapht

Corktown and Hamilton seriously needs this project to be scaled back to mid rise level. 8 maybe 10 storeys. This should take inspiration from 101 Locke.

I think I disagree with you on this one. Corktown is already full of high rises, whereas as the area around 101 Locke has none at all really. This proposal fits in, and would add lots of high earning professionals to the area that would support the nearby shops and bars.

[Innsertnamehere]

But why crapht?

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

But why crapht?

I just believe that high rises that close to the edge of the escarpment ruin the
view from the escarpment and I think that view is something worth preserving. Personally I’d like to see Corktown full of mid rise buildings with green roofs.

[TheHonestMaple]

I don't think it would block the view as much as people think it would.

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I don't think it would block the view as much as people think it would.

Well I'm going to disagree. I already think The Arkledun and The Olympia add negatively to the view from Sam Lawrence Park. The more that's added the more that view is impacted. I think green roofs on mid rises throughout Corktown would be a good deal of density while preserving those views.

I hope this street view image link works.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.24535...!7i6080!8i3040

[Pipedreams]

Originally Posted by Crapht

Corktown and Hamilton seriously needs this project to be scaled back to mid rise level. 8 maybe 10 storeys. This should take inspiration from 101 Locke.

Yes 101 Locke is beautiful

But 1 & 2 bedroom units start at 600,000 + this is unobtainable for the vast majority of residents. City hall and NIMBYism have created a situation where the only way things get developed is by going the "luxury" route or by going up in the form of skyscrapers. If you want affordable (and I mean median income, not low income) midrise towers we're going to have to make it a lot easier to build here.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Pipedreams

Yes 101 Locke is beautiful

But 1 & 2 bedroom units start at 600,000 + this is unobtainable for the vast majority of residents. City hall and NIMBYism have created a situation where the only way things get developed is by going the "luxury" route or by going up in the form of skyscrapers. If you want affordable (and I mean median income, not low income) midrise towers we're going to have to make it a lot easier to build here.

This argument bothers me because everything brand new is "luxury". Those shitty commie blocks from the 80s were sold as "luxury" when they were new.

The issue isn't with luxury. The developers will sell every single piece of garbage that's new, as luxury. The issue is around bad housing policy. Everyone here loves skyscrapers, and honestly I'm tired of the "skyscrapers good, everything else bad" argument we always get into. I'll concede that especially in North America taller buildings are required. But the reality is that skyscrapers in one place and suburbs everywhere else is still bad housing policy. The most sense neighbourhoods in Montreal are 3 storey to 4 storey flats. We need to redevelop our entire city. Suburbs with duplexes, denser victorian neighborhoods with triplexes, and corner stores and plazas with a mix of commercial and residential mid rises.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

This argument bothers me because everything brand new is "luxury". Those shitty commie blocks from the 80s were sold as "luxury" when they were new.

The issue isn't with luxury. The developers will sell every single piece of garbage that's new, as luxury. The issue is around bad housing policy. Everyone here loves skyscrapers, and honestly I'm tired of the "skyscrapers good, everything else bad" argument we always get into. I'll concede that especially in North America taller buildings are required. But the reality is that skyscrapers in one place and suburbs everywhere else is still bad housing policy. The most sense neighbourhoods in Montreal are 3 storey to 4 storey flats. We need to redevelop our entire city. Suburbs with duplexes, denser victorian neighborhoods with triplexes, and corner stores and plazas with a mix of commercial and residential mid rises.

Unfortunately, when businesses are operating for a profit that is literally never going to happen. Highrises are what developers need to build to remain in business.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Unfortunately, when businesses are operating for a profit that is literally never going to happen. Highrises are what developers need to build to remain in business.

That's simply not true though. As we've discussed as nauseum on this forum and in others. Skyscrapers are not some sort of magic affordability machine. In fact, often tall towers become less affordable with increased heights.

The affordability per unit is based on a pretty simple formula that is heavily affected by cost of land.

If we were able to improve our housing policy to make density as of right, we could allow smaller actors to make a profit off upzoning regular plots of land and get rid of the wretched "yellow belt".
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/08/...ousing-Crisis/

Toronto Yellow Belt: https://outline.com/fak677

There is plenty profit to be made off triplexing, duplexing existing properties. As I said. If there wasn't the actual bank on doing so, I'd be doing this already. I have the money to invest and build numerous triplexes, maybe even 4 - 8 unit buildings, but regulations imposed on the 50s to protect white suburban neighbourhoods has made this impossible. That's why 90% of the triplexes downtown are technically illegal. The parking requirements alone make it impossible to do legally.

I've toyed with the idea of buying a small apartment building with a friend as a fellow investor, but they don't come on the market very often.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

That's simply not true though. As we've discussed as nauseum on this forum and in others. Skyscrapers are not some sort of magic affordability machine. In fact, often tall towers become less affordable with increased heights.

The affordability per unit is based on a pretty simple formula that is heavily affected by cost of land.

If we were able to improve our housing policy to make density as of right, we could allow smaller actors to make a profit off upzoning regular plots of land and get rid of the wretched "yellow belt".
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/08/...ousing-Crisis/

Toronto Yellow Belt: https://outline.com/fak677

There is plenty profit to be made off triplexing, duplexing existing properties. As I said. If there wasn't the actual bank on doing so, I'd be doing this already. I have the money to invest and build numerous triplexes, maybe even 4 - 8 unit buildings, but regulations imposed on the 50s to protect white suburban neighbourhoods has made this impossible. That's why 90% of the triplexes downtown are technically illegal. The parking requirements alone make it impossible to do legally.

I've toyed with the idea of buying a small apartment building with a friend as a fellow investor, but they don't come on the market very often.

I really just don't agree. It's called economies of scale. Taller buildings are absolutely more profitable than shorter ones. Although I do agree with you and others that shorted mid-rise developments are certainly nicer and make a more livable neighbourhood. I'm just pointing out that developers want height for a reason - they make more money off of them.

One other thing that I wanted to point out, that I think a lot of people miss on this forum. We're seeing a lot of cheaper construction materials being used in Hamilton, compared to say Toronto. There's a reason for that. Units sell for more money in Toronto. They can simply afford to use better materials and designs than they can in Hamilton, and keep the development profitable.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I really just don't agree. It's called economies of scale. Taller buildings are absolutely more profitable than shorter ones. Although I do agree with you and others that shorted mid-rise developments are certainly nicer and make a more livable neighbourhood. I'm just pointing out that developers want height for a reason - they make more money off of them.

One other thing that I wanted to point out, that I think a lot of people miss on this forum. We're seeing a lot of cheaper construction materials being used in Hamilton, compared to say Toronto. There's a reason for that. Units sell for more money in Toronto. They can simply afford to use better materials and designs than they can in Hamilton, and keep the development profitable.

Except that's not the reality. Economics of scale are not that simple. You can't just say "more equals cheaper". That's not how economics works. There are other factors to take into account. If you see detailed modelling that developers do, you can see a break even point, and interestingly, different heights have different costs associated with them. It's not a linear scale or any type of simple line at all, but a wavy line where specific heights are actually not profitable. As an example, I saw a model for a Burlington development that showed that 15 storeys was break even, and 20 was profitable, and 25 storeys was slightly below break even, and then 30 was again profitable but less than the 15 storey on a per unit basis.

Even with my limited background in finance and real estate, it's difficult to understand all the factors, and it's also quite interesting. This is something many don't understand about building tall, it's not as simple as an economics of scale formula. There are also environmental and psychological effects to consider, wind, traffic, transit utilization, park space, water run off, sewage, hydro and water requirements. Many of these projects are incredibly complex and so are the policies that handle these developments. They seem simple, but they are far from it.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

As an example, I saw a model for a Burlington development that showed that 15 storeys was break even, and 20 was profitable, and 25 storeys was slightly below break even, and then 30 was again profitable but less than the 15 storey on a per unit basis.

How could that be? Can you explain. Not saying it isn't true, just curious how they arrived at that.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

This argument bothers me because everything brand new is "luxury". Those shitty commie blocks from the 80s were sold as "luxury" when they were new.

The issue isn't with luxury. The developers will sell every single piece of garbage that's new, as luxury. The issue is around bad housing policy. Everyone here loves skyscrapers, and honestly I'm tired of the "skyscrapers good, everything else bad" argument we always get into. I'll concede that especially in North America taller buildings are required. But the reality is that skyscrapers in one place and suburbs everywhere else is still bad housing policy. The most sense neighbourhoods in Montreal are 3 storey to 4 storey flats. We need to redevelop our entire city. Suburbs with duplexes, denser victorian neighborhoods with triplexes, and corner stores and plazas with a mix of commercial and residential mid rises.

And I'm tired of the disingenuous arguments you bring to discussions on height every time, only to then act as if you're always arguing in good faith. Even in this post, you choose to summarize the position of those in favour of greater height as "skyscrapers good, everything else bad" which is a dishonest and frankly rude overview of those who support height. Or the multiple times you've claimed that those who dislike the height limit just want to build 90-storey towers and Burj Khalifas. Or the times you've stated that those who oppose the height limit are just not as enlightened and educated as you about urban planning. And so on.

I don't bring these things up with the goal of stirring things up. It's just that your claims really seem rich to me considering the manner in which you consistently discuss the issues.

Everyone is entitled to hold their views, and advocate for them. It's just tiring and discouraging to engage in discussion in which your positions get twisted, your arguments get misrepresented, and your opinions get denigrated.

---

Happy New Years, everyone.

[TheRitsman]

"why is there a height limit, there is literally not a single good argument for a height limit".


Look I'm all into conversations about height and economics, but when you simplify every argument into I'm right your wrong. I cannot argue that in good faith. Everyone here is obsessed with height. But isn't willing to discuss the negative impacts of height. That isn't arguing in good faith.

And it's fucking bullshit and I'm not really interested in this silliness. So fucking stop.

[ZTrade]

We're choosing to start 2021 with violence, I like it.

The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. 30 Storey being too short for Downtown Hamilton developers and something over 50 storey being counter productive for the city. In my opinion, a better idea would be to limit the number of 50+ storey towers to 3, 40+ to 10 and let them build as many 30 storey towers as the market allows. I agree with Ritsman about this not being a simple, linear line for profitability.

On this project: One of these towers should have been 30+ Storey in my opinion and gave us more density. Based on what? Housing supply issues, near a GO station and it's pretty much Downtown.

[Pipedreams]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

We need to redevelop our entire city. Suburbs with duplexes, denser victorian neighborhoods with triplexes, and corner stores and plazas with a mix of commercial and residential mid rises.

100% agree that this would be a wonderful and my ideal city; unfortunately anytime someone tries to make mix-use midrises in our city they face the exact some road blocks and backlash that they would if they were trying to make the more lucrative highrise. Look at every project that has fought to get off the ground in the North End. Unless the city makes it easier to get midrise, missing middle and gentle infill easier to make the majority of proposals it will receive will be for dense high rises where the cost benefits outweight the years of lengthy court battles and regulations they have to navigate to build here.

[TheHonestMaple]

The city just needs to approve this project already. I just don't understand it. The city wants to clean up the downtown, bring in young high earning professionals, support local businesses by increasing the downtown population. Yet they make it almost impossible for these developers to get these projects moving. It's very disappointing.

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by Pipedreams

Yes 101 Locke is beautiful

But 1 & 2 bedroom units start at 600,000 + this is unobtainable for the vast majority of residents. City hall and NIMBYism have created a situation where the only way things get developed is by going the "luxury" route or by going up in the form of skyscrapers. If you want affordable (and I mean median income, not low income) midrise towers we're going to have to make it a lot easier to build here.

I was referring to the scale of 101 Locke. I also like the aesthetics of that project which is just personal preference. This project, as it stands will impede on views from Sam Lawrence Park without question. People who have lived in Hamilton for a long enough time know that this space is priceless. It's scheduled for a major redevelopment which will greatly improve the park as a whole. I'm in favour of greater height in many cases but just not this one. Imagine if Hamilton built houses on the waterfront trail or Cootes Paradise. Those would be spaces and views we never get back. It would be a foolish move to build this to the proposed scale it's at now.

Does anybody agree with this? Can you visualize from the photo link above how this will appear? Anybody?

[Crapht]

Best wishes to you all in the new year!!