Hamilton City Centre | ? | 3x30 & 24 fl | Proposal - Page 13

johnnyhamont · #**241** Posted **Jul 20, 2020, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

What do you reckon on investment $$ north of $350MM?

about 100% north of it!
https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2020/...s-street-north

Chronamut · #**242** Posted **Jul 20, 2020, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

about 100% north of it!
https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2020/...s-street-north

"Webb focused upon what he said was a lack consideration of the heritage character on that portion of James Street. "

THANK YOU.

About time someone considered the heritage buildings. This block is ugly enough with its blocky bulkiness. William thomas proved you can have a heritage street line and soaring modern buildings - this city should be focused on fusing the old styles with the new - that's what seems to really make its buildings shine.

ChildishGavino · #**243** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 12:52 AM**

What I'm perhaps most excited for is the padestrian avenue from King Willy to the roof of Jackson Square. That street is on the brink of being Woonerf'd and this only furthers the case, apart from it just being the right idea

Chronamut · #**244** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChildishGavino

What I'm perhaps most excited for is the padestrian avenue from King Willy to the roof of Jackson Square. That street is on the brink of being Woonerf'd and this only furthers the case, apart from it just being the right idea

You mean the roof of jackson square that NOONE uses even though there are already 2 stairways to it..?

Let's be honest - the roof has been sorely underutilized for decades. It's used by people to sit up and study on the grass at best. 99% of the time it is barren and empty.

Tbh I blame whoever designed it - there isn't anything to do up there and it's not the most pleasantly designed up there - just a big waste of space really that should really be redesigned - id say put something up there for concerts but that's really what copps is for..

maybe make it a giant garden area like beuchart gardens in BC

also not sure how they are going to do the pedestrian avenue - couldn't really see it on the renderings - a ramp over james st..?

But yes THIS is part of the top of jackson - one of the few places with actual greenery on the roof.

Not the most inspiring for the heart of downtown - esp. with a place to congregate in gage park literally across the street. Honestly everything west of james on king street I am very meh towards.

Also what's gonna happen to the connection between the outdoor parking and the new building..? If they are going to be incorporating parking in this lot then they really could demolish the outdoor parking and maybe even utilize that space for something else.. or just keep it for general downtown parking I s'pooose...

ChildishGavino · #**245** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 3:16 AM**

Perhaps the greatest fault in the """design""" (more an afterthought really) Is how it works around the other buildings, literally. The Rideau Centre's roof is in a similar style, though it isn't as barren as you rightly said. What the roof desperately needs is... anything, really. What is there now? patches of grass, which hoards of geese use to carpet bomb, an empty fountain with a large plaque saying to not splash in the water (no problem there chief), some tables that haven't had a meal eaten at them as long as I've been alive, and a small stage which has been gig-less for longer.

Though perhaps most importantly, the roof needs a building which properly interacts with it. Not just sticking an entrance onto it and calling it a day, like with Eaton's... and the theatre... and that building McMaster owns... and Stelco Tower... and I suppose Copps too, though out of the lot it's not as bad. Still not good, though.

Markus83 · #**246** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 11:40 AM**

https://www.thespec.com/news/council...do-towers.html

King&James · #**247** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

about 100% north of it!
https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2020/...s-street-north

Ha,better stick with my day job or become low bidder for every major construction project in the Hammer!

Assume average unit size is 700 sq ft and there will need to be a lot of well heeled Hamiltonian's to afford to live at these addresses.

Chronamut · #**248** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 6:06 PM**

I think the one thing I really don't like about this development is no matter how you look at it it just looks like a jumble of skyscraper glass - even the elevation drawings just look like a jumble.

Doesn't feel cohesive at all - just feels.. intimidating looking. The weird triangular angles on the skyscrapers is more distracting than anything..

the architest even said it himself - he's not focucing on aesthetic, just density.

urban_planner · #**249** Posted **Jul 21, 2020, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I think the one thing I really don't like about this development is no matter how you look at it it just looks like a jumble of skyscraper glass - even the elevation drawings just look like a jumble.

Doesn't feel cohesive at all - just feels.. intimidating looking. The weird triangular angles on the skyscrapers is more distracting than anything..

the architest even said it himself - he's not focucing on aesthetic, just density.

It's perfect then, it will fit in with the rest of of our skyline with the 30 story height limit. All these 30 story blocks.

Innsertnamehere · #**250** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 1:41 PM**

some more renderings from Harlo Capital's (The developer) website:

https://www.harlocapital.com/project/77-james/

The fact that they have broken down the block and provided a pedestrian extension if King William Street looks incredible, but it needs work on material selection still I think..

I'm also left wondering how they are providing parking now. Before they had a large above grade garage in the middle of the block, it looks like that has now been nixed and replaced with the courtyard. Where did the parking go? Underground? Or did they just kill most of it (Hopefully!)?

johnnyhamont · #**251** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

some more renderings from Harlo Capital's (The developer) website

The height of the towers is the only giveaway that these buildings aren't designed for North Oakville. The whole site just looks and feels so suburban. They've presented to DRP already- will there be a point when they have to go back again?

Innsertnamehere · #**252** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 2:04 PM**

The urbanism of the project looks much better, I will give them that much. As I said though, the actual design of the buildings is still terrible. There needs to be greater differentiation between buildings, and material selections are too suburban, like you said. This may just be a master planning exercise and each building will come in with a different look, but it may not be either. Given that they are building this as of right and have an active site plan application.. I'm thinking these are what they intend to build.

The thing is that this developer isn't very good on the aesthetic front. They are ambitious and build what they propose.. they just build crap.

They are building the new tallest building in Kitchener right now. And it looks like this:

https://www.waterlooregionconnected....d=1146&page=74

TheRitsman · #**253** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 2:40 PM**

I love the continuation of the streets like King William into a pedestrian street with market and stores. I love the use of brick and wood and hanging lights at the podium level. I love the juliette balconies on the first few floors over looking the pedestrian focused areas.

Truth be told, I'm completely okay with this level of height for the pedestrian streetscape continuing into where city centre is. Seeing King William and Rebecca continue past James for the first time in likely half a century makes me giddy with excitement for Hamilton. The materials on the podium look fine, but their utilization is what would make or break the building design. The upper glass floors are plain and forgettable with little variation, and very little massing changes.

ccheck7 · #**254** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 3:00 PM**

I agree that some variation in the aesthetics would be a nice improvement but overall I'm actually quite happy with these revised renderings. The streetscape improvements will make a real impact on the feel of this area. I also love the continuation of King William and Rebecca into pedestrian corridors.

While the towers have a suburban feel, I think overall this will add a lot of new life to the streetscape and make this a much nicer area to walk around and enjoy.

ShavedParmesanCheese · #**255** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 3:08 PM**

I think I understand the type of excitement people felt for Jackson Square now.

The towers could certainly do with some variance. That’s the one catch. Though thankfully, one which could be re-clad later on, but WOW am I excited for everything else! It extends King Willy and Rebecca, and LOOK at that central square!!!

These are interesting times

TheHonestMaple · #**256** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 3:58 PM**

That's incredible, King William is going to be completely transformed once this and Cobalt goes up.

When does this go before the city?

davidcappi · #**257** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 4:04 PM**

this developer + this architect = zero chance this gets executed well

It looks like they're trying their hardest to do something like The Well but it lacks the diversity and level of detail BDP and HPA brought to that site.

Innsertnamehere · #**258** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

That's incredible, King William is going to be completely transformed once this and Cobalt goes up.

When does this go before the city?

It already has zoning so unless council decides to undelegate it, the project doesn't need to go in front of council at all.

Council has undelegated projects before though, like those huge towers proposed in Stoney Creek.

Undelegation also doesn't mean that council can force reductions in height and density either. Just means that council can review the site plan matters (location of driveways, selection of materials, etc.).

TheHonestMaple · #**259** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It already has zoning so unless council decides to undelegate it, the project doesn't need to go in front of council at all.

Council has undelegated projects before though, like those huge towers proposed in Stoney Creek.

Undelegation also doesn't mean that council can force reductions in height and density either. Just means that council can review the site plan matters (location of driveways, selection of materials, etc.).

Good to know. I wonder when we'll realistically see this one get started then.

ScreamingViking · #**260** Posted **Mar 1, 2021, 5:18 PM**

Love the podium and how this interacts with the streets using pedestrian extensions of King William and Rebecca (which, as others have called for, would be a good way to split up Jackson Square and make it more friendly to the outside world)

The original rendered towers were funkier, which I'd prefer. Perhaps that will change. I don't mind that they're all the same design, but something a little more unique would be great.