80 John St N | 97m | 2 x 30 fl |Proposed - Page 4

drpgq · #61 Posted **Dec 15, 2020, 9:55 PM**

"There are not 1500 Hamiltonians searching for 1-bedroom shoeboxes." I don't think this is true. Rents are so out of whack to income now in Hamilton that there are a lot of desperate people out there that would take something small if it was affordable. If it wasn't for the height limit, developers probably would build higher and there would be more supply.

TheRitsman · #62 Posted **Dec 15, 2020, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

"There are not 1500 Hamiltonians searching for 1-bedroom shoeboxes." I don't think this is true. Rents are so out of whack to income now in Hamilton that there are a lot of desperate people out there that would take something small if it was affordable. If it wasn't for the height limit, developers probably would build higher and there would be more supply.

As I've mentioned, this is an incredibly simplified way of thinking of supply and demand. Housing policy is more complex than "build taller, more demand, then lower prices". If people here truly think that's as simple as it gets, then there is clearly some naivety here.

Housing in all one place also causes issues. You're telling me, that assuming price goes down the taller it gets, some developer could build the Burj Khalifa in Hamilton with 10,000 units and BAM! Prices would decrease and everybody would sing kumbaya?

No. The lowered demand would decrease profits, meaning the development wouldn't get built, because giant corporations care about profit margins. Any small developers get washed out because of expensive zoning restrictions in other areas of the city.

I would love to develop an old style 8-plex in a more suburban area, but I can because of shitty zoning. I wouldn't care about profit margins on sale of units, because it would be an apartment building, and there would likely be demand out further from downtown. Allowing some mega corporation to build sky high is an insanely dense urban planning theory. It's like arguing that Walmart should get to flatten Ottawa street because bigger is better and there's too much demand!!!

I'm sure if urban planning was as simple as people here made it out to be. You wouldn't need anything more than a highschool math diploma to get a job in the field.

Dr Awesomesauce · #63 Posted **Dec 15, 2020, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

As I've mentioned, this is an incredibly simplified way of thinking of supply and demand. Housing policy is more complex than "build taller, more demand, then lower prices". If people here truly think that's as simple as it gets, then there is clearly some naivety here.

Housing in all one place also causes issues. You're telling me, that assuming price goes down the taller it gets, some developer could build the Burj Khalifa in Hamilton with 10,000 units and BAM! Prices would decrease and everybody would sing kumbaya?

No. The lowered demand would decrease profits, meaning the development wouldn't get built, because giant corporations care about profit margins. Any small developers get washed out because of expensive zoning restrictions in other areas of the city.

I would love to develop an old style 8-plex in a more suburban area, but I can because of shitty zoning. I wouldn't care about profit margins on sale of units, because it would be an apartment building, and there would likely be demand out further from downtown. Allowing some mega corporation to build sky high is an insanely dense urban planning theory. It's like arguing that Walmart should get to flatten Ottawa street because bigger is better and there's too much demand!!!

I'm sure if urban planning was as simple as people here made it out to be. You wouldn't need anything more than a highschool math diploma to get a job in the field.

I was waiting for a solution or two - perhaps I need to read more carefully.

Something about relaxing zoning restrictions and building smaller, is that what you're getting at?

TheRitsman · #64 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

I was waiting for a solution or two - perhaps I need to read more carefully.

Something about relaxing zoning restrictions and building smaller, is that what you're getting at?

Looking at somewhere like Portland that is going to allow 6plexes as of right, so long as a certain number are affordable unit, on ANY property in the city. We need that kind of progressive thinking. That a more like Pier 8 and better secondary plans that put in minimum requirements, like James that force minimum heights.

I made this a while back, and never meant to share it here, but I'll share it. Not super relevant to this topic, but there isn't much discussion over at policy.

This is bounded by Lottridge, Gage, Barton and the CN Rail.

ZTrade · #65 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I made this a while back, and never meant to share it here, but I'll share it. Not super relevant to this topic, but there isn't much discussion over at policy.

This is bounded by Lottridge, Gage, Barton and the CN Rail.

Hey, I live in Stipley.

I have had your EXACT same vision for that strip of Barton and grocery store plaza. But I never made a nice visual like you did, thanks for sharing.

The brick buildings that go up to the sidewalk end at Lottridge and there is a gap until Gage. That stretch by the stadium should be a higher quality for pedestrians.

There are also plans for a new park north of the Freshco plaza. That area can transform drastically with all of this new development done properly. Combine all of this with the LRT and Industrial Stelco lands redeveloping into different uses in that area, and this becomes a very desirable location in Hamilton.

What are your thoughts on the abandoned school on Gage St (King George). Last I read, that it's becoming an art college with mixed affordable and market priced condos.

King&James · #66 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 4:59 AM**

imagine if you will that maximum given height is 3 storeys on all lands , with additional density and height bonuses given on a host of community serving and/or quality build requirements. the rules on density bonusing being set out and simple . There would need to be some thought on the economics of each bonusing rule to further incent developers to add more. That would remove speculation on land , or reduce it..... perhaps even make density under 3 storeys taxed at a higher rate.

TheRitsman · #67 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZTrade

Hey, I live in Stipley.

I have had your EXACT same vision for that strip of Barton and grocery store plaza. But I never made a nice visual like you did, thanks for sharing.

The brick buildings that go up to the sidewalk end at Lottridge and there is a gap until Gage. That stretch by the stadium should be a higher quality for pedestrians.

There are also plans for a new park north of the Freshco plaza. That area can transform drastically with all of this new development done properly. Combine all of this with the LRT and Industrial Stelco lands redeveloping into different uses in that area, and this becomes a very desirable location in Hamilton.

What are your thoughts on the abandoned school on Gage St (King George). Last I read, that it's becoming an art college with mixed affordable and market priced condos.

I posted this on twitter and Jason Thorne actually noticed and messaged me about that exact park which I was not aware of. The entire frontage of Barton has been upgraded to mixed use medium density. Despite this, a brand new KFC went in because while there is a maximum density, there is no minimum. They need to incentivize growth around these areas. Being the first to build in economically depressed areas is a difficult sell to investors. It's possible your condos or apartments won't be filled in this kind of area. We need the city to seed these areas like one would seed a bacteria tray and then the development and investment will multiply because people will see potential in the area and there will be things to look forward to. People would be investing into future growth around the area.

I hope something great happens with that school. While condos and apartments would be great, I would love to see continued public use of some kind whether education or otherwise for these magnificent schools.

Spoke to Cllr. Nann about it, and the college deal seems to have fallen through unfortunately.

ScreamingViking · #68 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 1:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I hope something great happens with that school. While condos and apartments would be great, I would love to see continued public use of some kind whether education or otherwise for these magnificent schools.

I've always thought it would be a good building for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame. If too large for that, the idea of a "Hamilton museum" has been floating around for a long time... combine the two.

Where they moved the CFHOF is not very accessible, and only visible to a select group of people.

Katrillion · #69 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

"There are not 1500 Hamiltonians searching for 1-bedroom shoeboxes." I don't think this is true. Rents are so out of whack to income now in Hamilton that there are a lot of desperate people out there that would take something small if it was affordable. If it wasn't for the height limit, developers probably would build higher and there would be more supply.

I see what you're getting at. I brought that up in order to say that this flood of a single-type of housing isn't necessarily the best way to go about things. Due to the construction costs and other factors, these units you're seeing in Hamilton's new towers won't ever be affordable for low-income people unless there is some type of government intervention. We need the organic growth of diverse housing types such as the ability for a suburban home to be converted into a triplex AND more rooming houses (the term co-living seems to have a better reputation), among others. There is more wiggle room here for price fluctuations.

Innsertnamehere · #70 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 11:29 PM**

I mean the existing apartment blocks that populate the city from the 1960’s weren’t affordable when they were built either. New build units by nature are the nicest units on the market which means they won’t be the cheapest.

TheRitsman · #71 Posted **Dec 16, 2020, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean the existing apartment blocks that populate the city from the 1960’s weren’t affordable when they were built either. New build units by nature are the nicest units on the market which means they won’t be the cheapest.

That's also why it is important to be building a diverse set of housing.types now. If we only build one type, then older styles will become more and more rare. Not everyone wants to live in a small apartment. That's why it's important we build different options, that way in 15 years we have other options that are affordable. I would argue our suburbs should become more expensive though. Suburbs are heavily subsidized living, being paid on the backs of those living in the most sense areas of the city.

TheHonestMaple · #72 Posted **Sep 27, 2021, 2:18 PM**

Seems like we haven't heard anything about this project since the DRP last year. Any news?

mikevbar1 · #73 Posted **Sep 27, 2021, 8:57 PM**

Man, I must have forgotten about this one. This still looks perfect if Im being entirely honest. The ocean of parking here is going to be filled in very thoroughly now, and with mostly 30 floor buildings at that. Truly fantastic and overdue. The design is also pretty good by Hamilton standards. If anyone has info on when we can see this get approved, that would be great. It has been nearly a year, and with the way some projects are picking up momentum I'm sure we could see construction begin shortly after approval. And who knows, developers might test the city and the supposed "end" of the height limit.

King&James · #74 Posted **Sep 27, 2021, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King&James

https://renx.ca/emblem-ontario-devel...ifamily-units/

Story on Emblem with excerpt on two sites in Hamilton ..

1 Jarvis, 41 Wilson in Hamilton
All 354 units in downtown Hamilton’s Studio JCI-designed 15-storey 1 Jarvis condo were sold in less than 48 hours, according to Pashootan. Construction started within four months and is expected to complete in Q1 2024.

EMBLEM’s next Hamilton development, 41 Wilson, will be much more ambitious. It will be comprised of three 30-storey towers that will house approximately 1,500 units on a site primarily occupied by a surface parking lot as well as a community centre and an auto shop. The property fronts Wilson, Hughson and John Streets and is a five-minute walk from 1 Jarvis.

Pashootan said EMBLEM is still working through the design details for 41 Wilson, but noted it will have impressive design, finishes and amenities.

Pashootan calls Hamilton a “fresh canvas” for EMBLEM to work on and government investment in public transit and infrastructure adds to its appeal — particularly downtown and on the waterfront.

lifting my previous note on 1 Jarvis - think Emblem will get this one going fast on the heels of that project