Hamilton City Centre | ? | 3x30 & 24 fl | Proposal

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by 905er

I'm happy for Kitchener for getting a new tallest, but have to concur, the design is so incredibly bland. Had that been built 3 decades ago I would have forgiven the design. Seems like a missed opportunity for KW to get a signature tower. Looks like something you'd see go up in Ottawa.

Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton are apples to oranges from a planning perspective despite their multiple overlaps in size and infrastructure.

From a Planning POV, The architecture of a project doesn't determine its worth, and I would wager that's especially true for condo towers. It is certainly important to us on SSP, but I personally enjoy seeing towers built for the contributions they make to the urban fabric as well. I am a student @UW, so I get to see both Kitchener and Hamilton's growth in tandem as I move from one city to the Other. Comparing Hamilton's pace of development to this region is unfair in just about any context; sure, Kitchener projects look like shit, but their often big, well connected, and (most importantly) enjoy quick, streamlined approvals. If you can bring a project to market quickly, I can't see why a developer would bother sprucing it up. This is 180 degrees away from Hamilton's reasons for poor design and lack of infill, which stems from defeatism and compromises from developers and the city.

Sometimes us mid-sized cities can't afford architectural criticism, and that's OK. KW/Hamilton-sized cities are in much more dire need of development and infill than 'good' designs, even though I will agree boring/actively bad designs are frustrating. KW is simply more willing to bridge that gap than we are, bad designs included. I would accept sh*t [architectural] design here if there was so much development that the pedestrian experience downtown improved tenfold regardless (like in KW). Screw a signature tower; if the cityscape is good, good projects will eventually follow.

By and large, Toronto's tower designs have gotten better since the modern boom began nearly 20 years ago; the same will happen in KW and in Hamilton too if we ever get ourselves out of this bureaucratic mud. If it ever feels like NO project fits into Hamilton's cityscape (good or bad design), THAT is the fault of our leaders and their inability to create a good rubric for developers to follow. I will forgive every shitty design this city sees so long as the fundamental planning desirables are present (walkability, mixed-uses, quality material, low/no parking, etc). I know alot of people won't agree with that sentiment, but building projects for vanity/architecture is how you get Dubai or to a lesser extent Mississauga. Cool skyscrapers are awesome, but they need to make practical sense for the city before we worry about what they look like.

[TheRitsman]

Architecture above the 10 floor you're right, but I heavily disagree that architecture isn't important for anything other than looks.

1) Architecture effects many things regarding health of humans. Access to sunlight, materiality, emotional wellbeing and other factors that effect mental health, and physical health significantly.

2) Architecture can push people away, what you're talking about with the urban fabric is absolutely a part of architecture. Hostile architecture can make areas inhospitable and terrible for everyone. Sure Mississauga looks "epic" from afar and perhaps more housing is important, but that doesn't negate the fact that the urban fabric of Sauga is terrible at ground level because of architecture designed for cars, and with no thought toward the effects of people living on the street. Which is where many condo owners end up since condos are smaller than houses and most people that live in them aim to be out and about much of the time (one of the joys and benefits of living in an urban area is access to the "third place").

I think you're mixing up architecture and something else. A beautiful skyline is not architecture, it's something else. I do think we agree though, but the elements of good you describe are part of architecture. It's also why an architect like Graziani is terrible, because they design god awful *places* not just buildings.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

By and large, Toronto's tower designs have gotten better since the modern boom began nearly 20 years ago; the same will happen in KW and in Hamilton too if we ever get ourselves out of this bureaucratic mud.

They have, but the units are also generating much higher prices per square foot in Toronto. So builders can splurge more on design. Plus the number of developers there is a lot greater than it is here... some of them want to stand out or maintain a level of prestige, others not. We seem to have the "nots" here, to date.

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

Comparing Hamilton's pace of development to this region is unfair in just about any context; sure, Kitchener projects look like shit, but their often big, well connected, and (most importantly) enjoy quick, streamlined approvals. If you can bring a project to market quickly, I can't see why a developer would bother sprucing it up. This is 180 degrees away from Hamilton's reasons for poor design and lack of infill, which stems from defeatism and compromises from developers and the city.

The market in KW is farther ahead. I agree there's still a lot of red tape here in Hamilton and old thinking among local politicians, but I think the market is the main reason. That's changing, and now that LRT looks like it will happen the pace should increase further.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Architecture above the 10 floor you're right, but I heavily disagree that architecture isn't important for anything other than looks.

1) Architecture effects many things regarding health of humans. Access to sunlight, materiality, emotional wellbeing and other factors that effect mental health, and physical health significantly.

2) Architecture can push people away, what you're talking about with the urban fabric is absolutely a part of architecture. Hostile architecture can make areas inhospitable and terrible for everyone. Sure Mississauga looks "epic" from afar and perhaps more housing is important, but that doesn't negate the fact that the urban fabric of Sauga is terrible at ground level because of architecture designed for cars, and with no thought toward the effects of people living on the street. Which is where many condo owners end up since condos are smaller than houses and most people that live in them aim to be out and about much of the time (one of the joys and benefits of living in an urban area is access to the "third place").

I think you're mixing up architecture and something else. A beautiful skyline is not architecture, it's something else. I do think we agree though, but the elements of good you describe are part of architecture. It's also why an architect like Graziani is terrible, because they design god awful *places* not just buildings.

I'm definitely conflating architecture with the 'urban design' element of these projects. Architecture certainly has its place, but good urban design should always precede good architecture.

[LikeHamilton]

From Joey Coleman

Former Eatons Centre likely to be demo'd in 2022.
Owners are close to Site Plan application approval for a new mixed use redevelopment of the site.
I last "pulled" the file in early November.
Staff and owners working negotiating final details for conditional SPA approval.

[TheHonestMaple]

This one is moving faster than I expected.

[SteelTown]

I wonder if they intend to keep anything from City Centre to the new buildings.

I would try to save the glass elevator and make it a signature piece. Imagine using the glass elevator to go up to the 30th floor from the main lobby.

Obviously the Clock Tower will be preserved, I believe it is historically designated (I think the city owns the clock tower).

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I wonder if they intend to keep anything from City Centre to the new buildings.

I would try to save the glass elevator and make it a signature piece. Imagine using the glass elevator to go up to the 30th floor from the main lobby.

Obviously the Clock Tower will be preserved, I believe it is historically designated (I think the city owns the clock tower).

The clock is. Not sure about the tower.

I'd rather see the clock moved or placed within a more attractive structure. There's absolutely nothing I'd want to preserve about City Centre. All the natural light made it a nice interior space, but that's all I liked about it.

[TheHonestMaple]

Yeah this is one demolition that I think would be much welcomed.

[The Gore]

lets hope the new building construction starts not long after the demolition

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by The Gore

lets hope the new building construction starts not long after the demolition

I hope so, James will look so sad with a vacant lot there. Memories of mistakes past. People will hate on the development until it's done.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by The Gore

lets hope the new building construction starts not long after the demolition

I was thinking the same thing.
It's bad enough when a building gets torn down and the lot sits empty, but a vacant lot this large will really set back the look of the downtown core a few years.

[catcher_of_cats]

Its been so long since I've been inside this mall but isn't one of the levels below grade, which would leave a huge hole in the ground with demolition?

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by catcher_of_cats

Its been so long since I've been inside this mall but isn't one of the levels below grade, which would leave a huge hole in the ground with demolition?

It would be back filled immediately most likely. You can't have a hole that large and deep for more than a few weeks.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

You can't have a hole that large and deep for more than a few weeks.

Unless you're POTUS.

[lachlanholmes]

Initially I was going to comment that I cannot see them demolishing a revenue-generating asset in favour of a vacant lot, but after some further thought, I'm not sure it actually generates revenue.

The thing is significantly empty, and weighed against the costs of simply keeping the lights on and the air warm, not even to mention any mortgage carrying cost, probably represents an ongoing expense for IN8. Maybe revenue-neutral at best.

So, I echo the questions about when the construction will actually start. I suppose that some solace can be found in that IN8 seem not to mess around and sit on their projects in KW. It will very very likely be a phased build considering the sheer number of condo units they'll have to sell. I think as long as some construction starts on the site it won't look too miserable, and hopefully they time it so phase two begins at 70% completion of phase one so it's continual progress.

As for the pit, they can't really leave it as a big pit. When you dig out a below-grade level, you have to fill it back in with dirt so the shoring machines can do their work - like we saw at 75 James South albeit with a much smaller basement to backfill.

It still disappoints me that this was planned in isolation from the rest of Jackson Square block. If there was some real vision in this city I think we would've seen all the players sit down and draw up a plan to redevelop the whole thing over the next twenty years, so everyone can make a boatload of money and so this development doesn't inadvertently keep the rest of the block in stasis. I believe that the DRP recommended this at one point, one of few things I think they got right...

[Innsertnamehere]

I’m not sure Yale Properties has any real plans for Jackson Square any time soon. I really do wish one of the major pension funds would pick the mall up with their access to capital to improve it, but alas.

City Centre rents likely exceed operating costs, but definitely don’t exceed mortgage costs, particularly at the price IN8 paid here as a development site. So unless IN8 wants to build, it would likely be more profitable to keep the building than demolish it. With their mortgage hanging over their heads here though they likely want to move ASAP.

With the city moving their offices out of City Centre, I expect this to start relatively soon. I agree it’ll likely be phased, but to what extent I’m not sure. They may build the entire underground first to bring the site up to grade and phase the towers, staggering sales by a year or two for each tower.

[TheHonestMaple]

I'm sure once this project is complete and the hundreds (thousands?) of new residents are living right next door Jackson Square may actually go through some sort of renaissance.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I'm sure once this project is complete and the hundreds (thousands?) of new residents are living right next door Jackson Square may actually go through some sort of renaissance.

This has IIRC about 1,800 units in it which would mean about 3,000 residents.

I'm hopeful that Jackson Square will start to improve as more residents live in the core among all the active development applications. While 3,000 residents alone won't fully rejuvenate the mall, the thousands upon thousands of residents moving into the core in the other planned buildings will.

[ScreamingViking]

Yale/Real Group making a major investment in JS would be about as momentous as when the mall was originally built.

That said, I bet they sell the mall when the price ripens rather than spend money on it.