213 King St W | 95 m | 30 fl | Under Construction

[TheRitsman]

I think it can strike a balance. Using brick, precast concrete ornamentation, or metal panels in place of rectangle square concrete Lego blocks, glass spandrel is a very minimal cost. Darko just doesn't give a shit. You think that if Darko could make this 70 storeys tall he would care about what the building looks like? I can gaurantee he won't. Core Urban finds the locations that work with their finished, and even builds shorter than the as of right density. If Core Urban can do it, Darko could too, he doesn't want to.

That being said, they are definitely doing shoring work here.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I think it can strike a balance. Using brick, precast concrete ornamentation, or metal panels in place of rectangle square concrete Lego blocks, glass spandrel is a very minimal cost. Darko just doesn't give a shit. You think that if Darko could make this 70 storeys tall he would care about what the building looks like? I can gaurantee he won't. Core Urban finds the locations that work with their finished, and even builds shorter than the as of right density. If Core Urban can do it, Darko could too, he doesn't want to.

That being said, they are definitely doing shoring work here.

It's sad, but it is what it is. We just need to attract higher profile architects. We've started to, we just need to... keep doing so. And yeah core urban is top notch

[TheRitsman]

Going to be nuts having two construction sites side by side. One wonders when the other McMaster building on the northwest corner of Bay and George will start. Surely after 10 Bay is done, but will be good to see this block filled. Hoping to push for some retail in the other McMaster building as well.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Hopefully the new buildings on this block can match the excellent landscaping on the existing Vrancor building here.

[mikevbar1]

If it is true that building here is just as expensive as Toronto, then I can understand how bland projects like these come about- they have to cut corners somewhere. I do sympathize with your ambition for a higher architectural standard, Chromonaut, I just do not know how we can possibly get there given the economics of building here. Does it mean prioritizing tasteful midrises? enabling different construction methods to make better materials/design pencil out? I don't know. I simply do not like that cheaper 905 markets get higher quality buildings, even if they fall victim to at least some of the pitfalls of modern developments you mentioned.

The best outlook I can muster is that we wait until our market is just as hot as Toronto's, but that isn't realistic and more indicative of a bubble than anything. I struggle to accept that the root of this high cost to build is truly all because of the subterranean rivers and their effects on construction. There has to be a better way around that.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

If it is true that building here is just as expensive as Toronto, then I can understand how bland projects like these come about- they have to cut corners somewhere. I do sympathize with your ambition for a higher architectural standard, Chromonaut, I just do not know how we can possibly get there given the economics of building here. Does it mean prioritizing tasteful midrises? enabling different construction methods to make better materials/design pencil out? I don't know. I simply do not like that cheaper 905 markets get higher quality buildings, even if they fall victim to at least some of the pitfalls of modern developments you mentioned.

The best outlook I can muster is that we wait until our market is just as hot as Toronto's, but that isn't realistic and more indicative of a bubble than anything. I struggle to accept that the root of this high cost to build is truly all because of the subterranean rivers and their effects on construction. There has to be a better way around that.

I guess that's the price we paid for basically building on what equated to cootes paradise 200 years ago. They actually laid down hay and then cemented over the marsh and rivers, so it's understandable that there would be issues farther down..

and lol noone ever spells my username right

and I dunno, look at the pigott building - maybe we need to focus less on height and more on quality. It's what core urban does. Most people on street view don't notice anything above the first 6 stories. Even if we did a fusion where someone like core urban paired with other architects - they designed the podium to be historic and the other architects designed the skyscraper part. Honestly I get that with balconies and glass there is only so much you can do aesthetically, but if you look at some of the high rises at square one you can see even they are better looking.

For one we need to migrate away from all glass and vinyl paneled looks, and migrate back to a stone/glass look. The renovated school near west harbour go station is a great example - templar flats, the courthouse - all examples of beautiful fusions of old and new styles - toronto has plenty of these - in fact if was the duke from the UK that originally recommended they keep all the old historic building shells and build skyscrapers on top. Honestly it's the best solution - and it's what the building across the street is doing. The podium design is the most important part of the building For anyone who is walking down the street. Esp when you have historic buildings still existing across the street. The podium for this one is just awful, just a box on each side.

As for the tower part - we need to REALLY get away from flat roof designs being EVERYTHING in the city, and look at more peaked roof designs, and designs with more illumination - toronto has illumination EVERYWHERE - we have a string of christmas lights at the top of landmark place - pathetic.

Having columns or risers of stone, embossed mullions with beautiful designs like they used to have on the connaught addition building under each window, pediments and lintels where appropriate, classy new york 20s-40s style grand entrances like is being proposed for the new connaught building going up beside it - CLASS. We need to bring back class. We need to bring back a sense of pride of being in hamilton like existed in the 40s and 50s. We haven't had that for a very long time, but it's time to rebuild that. The feeling of upscale without a sacrifice of quality. It doesn't even need to be expensive - a lot of the stonework of core urban is actually simply formed concrete - you can do a lot of the stuff for relatively cheap - you just need to work with skilled people to make it look.. substantial, expensive, while not actually BEING expensive.. ish.

Core urban has basically run against any argument anyone has of "well it's too expensive to build anything of quality" - bullshit. They did it 100-200 years ago with far less technology than we have now. We even have the stonemasons if it came down to that. It doesn't even need to be solid - look at the William thomas building - they hollowed out all those stones so it was just a veneer. I am not HUGE on that, but it's better than nothing. I still believe the building elements should look like they actually support the building, but whatever.

One thing the council said a while back made me cringe, an that was that they don't let most people do traditional designs because unlike core urban they don't have the SKILL to pull them off - how sad is that - we claim to be the pinnacle of technology yet we have devolved in our ability to make quality architecture. So yeah I do have ambitions for a higher architectural standard, and maybe one day I'll just take that responsibility on myself - one can dream.

For hamilton it's not even an ambition - we are one of the only remaining cities left in ontario with as MUCH architecture that is beautiful -for me it's just a matter of MAINTAINING and continuing that ancient path of excellence in this city, and building it higher, much higher, as core urban is now starting to flirt with.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I
Having columns or risers of stone, embossed mullions with beautiful designs like they used to have on the connaught addition building under each window, pediments and lintels where appropriate, classy new york 20s-40s style grand entrances like is being proposed for the new connaught building going up beside it - CLASS. W

Core urban has basically run against any argument anyone has of "well it's too expensive to build anything of quality" - bullshit. They did it 100-200 years ago with far less technology than we have now.

First bold: again, this sounds very expensive, and will surely be passed on to the consumer. Sure, we could use better designed towers, but you're expectations are not reasonable in this economic climate.

Second bold: CoreUrban is great no doubt. But building high rises (30s) is much different than building the small midrises (6s) that they are doing now. Additionally, saying it's doable now because it was hundreds of years ago is irrelevant -- prices of material, labour, etc. change.

I do agree, adding some light fixtures and not having plain, flat roofs would be inexpensive and make a big impact on many of these proposals

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

First bold: again, this sounds very expensive, and will surely be passed on to the consumer. Sure, we could use better designed towers, but you're expectations are not reasonable in this economic climate.

Second bold: CoreUrban is great no doubt. But building high rises (30s) is much different than building the small midrises (6s) that they are doing now. Additionally, saying it's doable now because it was hundreds of years ago is irrelevant -- prices of material, labour, etc. change.

I do agree, adding some light fixtures and not having plain, flat roofs would be inexpensive and make a big impact on many of these proposals

As I said - you can do a fusion - even just making the first 6 stories traditional and leaving the tower ultra modern would be a welcome change. The ironic part here is the building being built where the rubble is being cleaned out is doing EXACTLY that hehe..

And it's actually not THAT expensive. I mean they pay for faux stone slabs and wood finishes already - embossing designs is basically just a pressed stamp onto metal - you can do that yourself, and the rest can be done with concrete - you can use molds and pour concrete into them to make architectural elements, a lot of it is more innovation vs cost.

Not to say that there wouldn't be more labour costs - there probably would be a bit - but there is always a way to achieve common ground - even if you just network ones skills together with other architects. Darko working together with core urban could be great. One designs the bottom, the other designs the top. I am being a bit facetious with that statement I know it doesn't work that way, still, it would be nice.

[ScreamingViking]

Just spent 9 days in Lisbon. VERY different urban pattern there, though they do have their "suburban" parts. Unless you're out in the country though one to two storey buildings are rare. Much of the city is 6-floor buildings, many of which are old by our standards but "new" by theirs (the central city had to be rebuilt after a massive earthquake and tsunami in 1755). In some cases an original 4 floor building has had additions on top, which still look old but maybe by design.

Anyway, it's all very dense, interspersed by squares. And as you wander through, it makes for a very interesting feeling. Easy to get lost, but I enjoy doing so when I have that kind of time.

They have some modern towers but they're not in the central districts, and not all that tall (75 to 110m for the tallest handful... there's a hotel that is taller on account of a spire, but it's not near the core)
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=803

Hamilton would be extremely different with the same scale of architecture just because of our broader grid system of streets, that also tend to be wider. But what if we had an urban policy that demanded podiums no taller than 6 or 7 floors, with towers set back? Care more about the design of the podiums than that of the towers? Dare to imagine.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Just spent 9 days in Lisbon. VERY different urban pattern there, though they do have their "suburban" parts. Unless you're out in the country though one to two storey buildings are rare. Much of the city is 6-floor buildings, many of which are old by our standards but "new" by theirs (the central city had to be rebuilt after a massive earthquake and tsunami in 1755). In some cases an original 4 floor building has had additions on top, which still look old but maybe by design.

Anyway, it's all very dense, interspersed by squares. And as you wander through, it makes for a very interesting feeling.

They have some modern towers but they're not in the central districts, and not all that tall (75 to 110m for the tallest handful... there's a hotel that is taller on account of a spire, but it's not near the core)
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=803

Hamilton would be extremely different with the same scale of architecture just because of our broader grid system of streets, that also tend to be wider. But what if we had an urban policy that demanded podiums no taller than 6 or 7 floors, with towers set back? Care more about the design of the podiums than that of the towers? Dare to imagine.

I have dared to imagine that - and I very much think it's what we need to do going forward. I mean look how well it worked for the william thomas building. If that had been a modern podium noone would even notice it - but streetwise that stone pediment area is now the shining jewel of the building. Compare to the new one on king and queen - it's just.. intimidating looking - the only thing that makes it noticeable is that its just so BIG, and clunky.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I have dared to imagine that - and I very much think it's what we need to do going forward. I mean look how well it worked for the william thomas building. If that had been a modern podium noone would even notice it - but streetwise that stone pediment area is now the shining jewel of the building. Compare to the new one on king and queen - it's just.. intimidating looking - the only thing that makes it noticeable is that its just so BIG, and clunky.

I was just about to edit to add that it would be something Chronamut would love. And probably what you were getting at when you mentioned Core Urban... they would be an ideal partner to the Liunas and Vrancors of the local development scene: they take care of the first 6, everything else is the purview of the monster tower builders.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I was just about to edit to add that it would be something Chronamut would love. And probably what you were getting at when you mentioned Core Urban... they would be an ideal partner to the Liunas and Vrancors of the local development scene: they take care of the first 6, everything else is the purview of the monster tower builders.

Exaaaaactly - EEX AAAACTLY. It would basically solve everyones problems - let everyone specialize in what they are good at. Or mediocre at - but at least I wouldn't have to suffer looking at it from the streetview. I mean for those tho think podiums aren't important just look at the mess from ellen faircloud building and on up to this building on this side of the street - it's a mess - it's horrible to walk down and unfriendly.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I guess that's the price we paid for basically building on what equated to cootes paradise 200 years ago. They actually laid down hay and then cemented over the marsh and rivers, so it's understandable that there would be issues farther down..

and lol noone ever spells my username right

and I dunno, look at the pigott building - maybe we need to focus less on height and more on quality. It's what core urban does. Most people on street view don't notice anything above the first 6 stories. Even if we did a fusion where someone like core urban paired with other architects - they designed the podium to be historic and the other architects designed the skyscraper part. Honestly I get that with balconies and glass there is only so much you can do aesthetically, but if you look at some of the high rises at square one you can see even they are better looking.

For one we need to migrate away from all glass and vinyl paneled looks, and migrate back to a stone/glass look. The renovated school near west harbour go station is a great example - templar flats, the courthouse - all examples of beautiful fusions of old and new styles - toronto has plenty of these - in fact if was the duke from the UK that originally recommended they keep all the old historic building shells and build skyscrapers on top. Honestly it's the best solution - and it's what the building across the street is doing. The podium design is the most important part of the building For anyone who is walking down the street. Esp when you have historic buildings still existing across the street. The podium for this one is just awful, just a box on each side.

As for the tower part - we need to REALLY get away from flat roof designs being EVERYTHING in the city, and look at more peaked roof designs, and designs with more illumination - toronto has illumination EVERYWHERE - we have a string of christmas lights at the top of landmark place - pathetic.

Having columns or risers of stone, embossed mullions with beautiful designs like they used to have on the connaught addition building under each window, pediments and lintels where appropriate, classy new york 20s-40s style grand entrances like is being proposed for the new connaught building going up beside it - CLASS. We need to bring back class. We need to bring back a sense of pride of being in hamilton like existed in the 40s and 50s. We haven't had that for a very long time, but it's time to rebuild that. The feeling of upscale without a sacrifice of quality. It doesn't even need to be expensive - a lot of the stonework of core urban is actually simply formed concrete - you can do a lot of the stuff for relatively cheap - you just need to work with skilled people to make it look.. substantial, expensive, while not actually BEING expensive.. ish.

Core urban has basically run against any argument anyone has of "well it's too expensive to build anything of quality" - bullshit. They did it 100-200 years ago with far less technology than we have now. We even have the stonemasons if it came down to that. It doesn't even need to be solid - look at the William thomas building - they hollowed out all those stones so it was just a veneer. I am not HUGE on that, but it's better than nothing. I still believe the building elements should look like they actually support the building, but whatever.

One thing the council said a while back made me cringe, an that was that they don't let most people do traditional designs because unlike core urban they don't have the SKILL to pull them off - how sad is that - we claim to be the pinnacle of technology yet we have devolved in our ability to make quality architecture. So yeah I do have ambitions for a higher architectural standard, and maybe one day I'll just take that responsibility on myself - one can dream.

For hamilton it's not even an ambition - we are one of the only remaining cities left in ontario with as MUCH architecture that is beautiful -for me it's just a matter of MAINTAINING and continuing that ancient path of excellence in this city, and building it higher, much higher, as core urban is now starting to flirt with.

I have a few takeaways here. First I would like to say that I agree with your architectural sensibilities, and if we can somehow incentivize craftsman-quality builds that you describe then I would love to see it. Unfortunately this doesn't really address the economic limitations of building said nicer structures, so the feasibility of getting what you describe Isn't necessarily any closer. I do understand that Core Urban does great work, so I will use that as a jumping-off point, but we cannot build the Pigott building today, tragic as it is (not without significantly deeper pockets).

The crux of the issue is crossing the gap of construction cost. What we see built are cheap structures, even by regional/national/global standards. The traditional way of building higher quality things is for real estate to become more expensive, as it is starting to do in Toronto. What I (and I think you) are interested in is how to bring that level of quality and then some without the needed real estate value, so reducing the cost to build (the structure or the beautification elements).

I like that you bring up Core Urban, because they are the ones building high-quality, timeless structures. This proves that somehow there is an economic niche of some kind, but we need insight on what that niche is and how their projects manage to pencil out. If we can crack this 'code' we can begin to tackle bigger projects of similar quality as you and I desire. Do Core Urban's projects (midrises) work because they require little digging for foundations? If so, it is possible they can avoid the groundwater issues, but this doesn't work as well for highrises. Core Urban does not have the ability to take on such projects as major developers can, so we cannot determine if the lack of quality bigger structures is due to sheer cost for Core Urban or if it doesn't fit a pro forma for any developer.

My current train of thought is to create a partnership (city or otherwise) with Core Urban. Give them more capital to build, help the partner understand what makes these projects work, and attempt to support and expand the practice. Ie, make Core Urban into a larger developer and we can foster the necessary trades to build better, and ideally drive down the cost of stone/brickwork in Hamilton, something most developers simply avoid due to cost.

Really, some of this is better for planners to solve. We can possibly incentivize buildings downtown to have a podium (every building up to floor x) that 'respects its surroundings' by requiring a historical-like facade. This way, the at-grade urban design you desire can be found, and does not require the elaborate and costly needs of building a 50s art deco skyscraper in 2022. It sidesteps the economic issue for better urban design practice, something that is sorely lacking here.

My main points are that to bring what Core Urban does to a larger scale, we need supportive industries to reduce the cost to build good architecture, willing developers, and policies to incentivize it. It is not too much to ask the city for more cohesive and architecturally respectful urban design guidelines, given we are talking about creating a better public realm. These are all kind of abstract goals however and I don't know if they are actually very realistic given how far it deviates from the contemporary development model we see today.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

I have a few takeaways here. First I would like to say that I agree with your architectural sensibilities, and if we can somehow incentivize craftsman-quality builds that you describe then I would love to see it. Unfortunately this doesn't really address the economic limitations of building said nicer structures, so the feasibility of getting what you describe Isn't necessarily any closer. I do understand that Core Urban does great work, so I will use that as a jumping-off point, but we cannot build the Pigott building today, tragic as it is (not without significantly deeper pockets).

The crux of the issue is crossing the gap of construction cost. What we see built are cheap structures, even by regional/national/global standards. The traditional way of building higher quality things is for real estate to become more expensive, as it is starting to do in Toronto. What I (and I think you) are interested in is how to bring that level of quality and then some without the needed real estate value, so reducing the cost to build (the structure or the beautification elements).

I like that you bring up Core Urban, because they are the ones building high-quality, timeless structures. This proves that somehow there is an economic niche of some kind, but we need insight on what that niche is and how their projects manage to pencil out. If we can crack this 'code' we can begin to tackle bigger projects of similar quality as you and I desire. Do Core Urban's projects (midrises) work because they require little digging for foundations? If so, it is possible they can avoid the groundwater issues, but this doesn't work as well for highrises. Core Urban does not have the ability to take on such projects as major developers can, so we cannot determine if the lack of quality bigger structures is due to sheer cost for Core Urban or if it doesn't fit a pro forma for any developer.

My current train of thought is to create a partnership (city or otherwise) with Core Urban. Give them more capital to build, help the partner understand what makes these projects work, and attempt to support and expand the practice. Ie, make Core Urban into a larger developer and we can foster the necessary trades to build better, and ideally drive down the cost of stone/brickwork in Hamilton, something most developers simply avoid due to cost.

Really, some of this is better for planners to solve. We can possibly incentivize buildings downtown to have a podium (every building up to floor x) that 'respects its surroundings' by requiring a historical-like facade. This way, the at-grade urban design you desire can be found, and does not require the elaborate and costly needs of building a 50s art deco skyscraper in 2022. It sidesteps the economic issue for better urban design practice, something that is sorely lacking here.

My main points are that to bring what Core Urban does to a larger scale, we need supportive industries to reduce the cost to build good architecture, willing developers, and policies to incentivize it. It is not too much to ask the city for more cohesive and architecturally respectful urban design guidelines, given we are talking about creating a better public realm. These are all kind of abstract goals however and I don't know if they are actually very realistic given how far it deviates from the contemporary development model we see today.

You bring up some good points, and we're very much on the same page.

I honestly think Liuna needs to team up with Core urban. We have seen what they can do when they are given something to work with at grade that already exists - aka the william thomas building, and then set back and build a high rise on top of that. They have the pockets, core urban has the talent for constructing beautiful buildings. That building did not have a very deep foundation so it IS possible to build high rises, esp in the core where parking should not be as big of a deal. They both seem to at least have the sensibility that to build "modern" on james st is such a pearl clutching travesty that even the city seems to understand and encourage traditional design. We could also just make it that anywhere historical podium wise in the city core urban should table - like cobalt podium imo should have REALLY been done by them - esp since they did olympia right beside it - they could have worked together - you'll notice olympias cornices are not symmetrical - one side is flat and the other winged because of that design - if they had been able to work on the whole thing they could have built it into the existing deisagn.

There is also something we suggested before - and to be fair this is how in the past a LOT of the old expensive buildings were built, and that was from donations from rich doners - usually from the city elite, or in this case it could be crowdfunded by core urban if they need deeper pockets. But I also like your idea of simply making them a bigger company to be able to tackle bigger builds. I feel core urban is the star child for traditional architecture in the city.

I feel like Core urban is a fledgling juggernaut, just starting to flex its muscles and see what it is capable of in this city. If core urban did not exist I must say my optimism for such builds in this city would be very much nonexistent - but they proved, all on their own (maybe liuna a bit too) that the interest IS there, it's just nobody is skilled enough to want to take it on - or interested in the aesthetic that much vs vranich and darko just wanting to turn over some quick bucks. Stinton had some nice looks as well for renovating existing buildings but we all know the problems behind him. So at least core urban is reliable, and have.. I would say, in their field of expertise, the MOST respect of any architectural firm in the city (them and lintack architects with which they work with). Like if they say they wanna do something, the city sometimes encourages them to go even GRANDER, like on augusta and james.

I just wish they could move faster, and take on more projects - I mean they are working at herculean speed as it is, part of me just prays they take over all the spots that might otherwise not be as .. brilliantly realized along james, like the spots beside the pigott building and where the old zellers was.

And you are right, we lack the pockets to build another pigott - but the pigott was actually the very first skyscraper to be built in hamilton, and one of the first in ontario (I know my history very well hehe) and even back then it probably required some donations, and even then it was considered one of the most beautiful buildings - an excerpt about it below:

"Built in 1928-1929 for $1,000,000, the Pigott building was the first sky-scraper in Hamilton and one of the first in Ontario. Hamilton architects Bernard and Fred Prack used Art Deco/Gothic Revival style to make this building unique. It was called the most beautiful building of Hamilton and the most interesting in the province. Pigott Construction Co. brought glass from Belgium and steel window frames from England. The exterior was decorated with tyndall limestone sheating which covered the steel skeleton. The interior was decorated with marble and fine tiles. The lobby was painted by church decorators and stained glass windows were installed."

Like that, THAT is the type of detail and pride we need where you work to make it a masterpiece - not just an ikea frame.

But yes I think we are all on the same page - we need to elevate core urban more to be able to do more in this city - OR bring more architectural firms like them in - if they designed every single podium around historic areas of the city to match I would be PERFECTLY happy - they could build a duplo block of 80 stories above that for all I care - skyscraper people are happy - tall build people are happy, and you and I are happy. Mostly for me it's not the towers per say I am blegh about - there is only so much you can do around balconies - it's the podiums, or the first 1-6 floors- which are often sorely lacking.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

You bring up some good points, and we're very much on the same page.

I honestly think Liuna needs to team up with Core urban. We have seen what they can do when they are given something to work with at grade that already exists - aka the william thomas building, and then set back and build a high rise on top of that. They have the pockets, core urban has the talent for constructing beautiful buildings. That building did not have a very deep foundation so it IS possible to build high rises, esp in the core where parking should not be as big of a deal. They both seem to at least have the sensibility that to build "modern" on james st is such a pearl clutching travesty that even the city seems to understand and encourage traditional design. We could also just make it that anywhere historical podium wise in the city core urban should table - like cobalt podium imo should have REALLY been done by them - esp since they did olympia right beside it - they could have worked together - you'll notice olympias cornices are not symmetrical - one side is flat and the other winged because of that design - if they had been able to work on the whole thing they could have built it into the existing deisagn.

There is also something we suggested before - and to be fair this is how in the past a LOT of the old expensive buildings were built, and that was from donations from rich doners - usually from the city elite, or in this case it could be crowdfunded by core urban if they need deeper pockets. But I also like your idea of simply making them a bigger company to be able to tackle bigger builds. I feel core urban is the star child for traditional architecture in the city.

I feel like Core urban is a fledgling juggernaut, just starting to flex its muscles and see what it is capable of in this city. If core urban did not exist I must say my optimism for such builds in this city would be very much nonexistent - but they proved, all on their own (maybe liuna a bit too) that the interest IS there, it's just nobody is skilled enough to want to take it on - or interested in the aesthetic that much vs vranich and darko just wanting to turn over some quick bucks. Stinton had some nice looks as well for renovating existing buildings but we all know the problems behind him. So at least core urban is reliable, and have.. I would say, in their field of expertise, the MOST respect of any architectural firm in the city (them and lintack architects with which they work with). Like if they say they wanna do something, the city sometimes encourages them to go even GRANDER, like on augusta and james.

I just wish they could move faster, and take on more projects - I mean they are working at herculean speed as it is, part of me just prays they take over all the spots that might otherwise not be as .. brilliantly realized along james, like the spots beside the pigott building and where the old zellers was.

And you are right, we lack the pockets to build another pigott - but the pigott was actually the very first skyscraper to be built in hamilton, and one of the first in ontario (I know my history very well hehe) and even back then it probably required some donations, and even then it was considered one of the most beautiful buildings - an excerpt about it below:

"Built in 1928-1929 for $1,000,000, the Pigott building was the first sky-scraper in Hamilton and one of the first in Ontario. Hamilton architects Bernard and Fred Prack used Art Deco/Gothic Revival style to make this building unique. It was called the most beautiful building of Hamilton and the most interesting in the province. Pigott Construction Co. brought glass from Belgium and steel window frames from England. The exterior was decorated with tyndall limestone sheating which covered the steel skeleton. The interior was decorated with marble and fine tiles. The lobby was painted by church decorators and stained glass windows were installed."

Like that, THAT is the type of detail and pride we need where you work to make it a masterpiece - not just an ikea frame.

But yes I think we are all on the same page - we need to elevate core urban more to be able to do more in this city - OR bring more architectural firms like them in - if they designed every single podium around historic areas of the city to match I would be PERFECTLY happy - they could build a duplo block of 80 stories above that for all I care - skyscraper people are happy - tall build people are happy, and you and I are happy. Mostly for me it's not the towers per say I am blegh about - there is only so much you can do around balconies - it's the podiums, or the first 1-6 floors- which are often sorely lacking.

I agree with basically everything you have said, and for the sake of brevity, I won't rehash it all. think there is a twofold value in having Core Urban do more- it sets a high standard locally (and regionally, but I don't think anyone is looking here quite yet), and choosing to build midrises means that they will need to do more projects to see the same market penetration as a 30-storey tower. They are ideal for performing the downtown and downtown-adjacent infill we need. As I am sure you are aware, much of the lost buildings and blocks were of a midrise height, so it would be quite fitting to return these lots to said height.

There is a strong case for having strong, good-looking streetwalls as well; its not just an aesthetic preference on my/our end. People's experience of streets and buildings needs to be cohesive, engaging, and interesting. It is one thing for buildings to be modern and bland, but it is another to also be cheap- It won't hold up over time. This is where it ties back into the actual project at this site- I don't care if the tower itself is cheap, I was wracking my brain earlier in the thread to try and find ways around the circumstances that make it cheap. It is the interface with the street and adjacent buildings that sucks.

Since we are getting off-topic, I'll end with a comment that this wouldn't at all be an issue if Hamilton had better design guidelines to make even cheapo stuff like this look inviting on the street. I do appreciate that we have a lot of pre-zoned areas ready for intensification, clearly, the city is trying to be inviting to developers who see alot of difficulties in building. I appreciate the idea of the city stepping out of the way and letting the market do its job; However, the city must do its job. There is no harm in adopting better guidelines for development, and developers are going to be interpreting the zoning and bylaws anyway. Those being piss-poor does not make development easier, it just results in neglect during the design process. If we can cultivate a small industry dedicated to providing high-quality materials on the cheap, then all the better; we can achieve a better downtown that is still taller than it was while rebuilding and respecting the continuity and quality of historic streetwalls. This project is the opposite of this, however, and I hope we can ditch this practice with all the other projects of the 2010s.

[Innsertnamehere]

Still no permits even filed here, yet alone issued.

[SteelTown]

I'm hesitant to change the title to 'Under Construction' since no permit has been approved.

There have been past examples where Vrancor got slapped with a stop-work order. It's very likely the same will happen.

[TheRitsman]

To be also fair, sometimes the city's website doesn't get updated quickly.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

I agree with basically everything you have said, and for the sake of brevity, I won't rehash it all. think there is a twofold value in having Core Urban do more- it sets a high standard locally (and regionally, but I don't think anyone is looking here quite yet), and choosing to build midrises means that they will need to do more projects to see the same market penetration as a 30-storey tower. They are ideal for performing the downtown and downtown-adjacent infill we need. As I am sure you are aware, much of the lost buildings and blocks were of a midrise height, so it would be quite fitting to return these lots to said height.

There is a strong case for having strong, good-looking streetwalls as well; its not just an aesthetic preference on my/our end. People's experience of streets and buildings needs to be cohesive, engaging, and interesting. It is one thing for buildings to be modern and bland, but it is another to also be cheap- It won't hold up over time. This is where it ties back into the actual project at this site- I don't care if the tower itself is cheap, I was wracking my brain earlier in the thread to try and find ways around the circumstances that make it cheap. It is the interface with the street and adjacent buildings that sucks.

Since we are getting off-topic, I'll end with a comment that this wouldn't at all be an issue if Hamilton had better design guidelines to make even cheapo stuff like this look inviting on the street. I do appreciate that we have a lot of pre-zoned areas ready for intensification, clearly, the city is trying to be inviting to developers who see alot of difficulties in building. I appreciate the idea of the city stepping out of the way and letting the market do its job; However, the city must do its job. There is no harm in adopting better guidelines for development, and developers are going to be interpreting the zoning and bylaws anyway. Those being piss-poor does not make development easier, it just results in neglect during the design process. If we can cultivate a small industry dedicated to providing high-quality materials on the cheap, then all the better; we can achieve a better downtown that is still taller than it was while rebuilding and respecting the continuity and quality of historic streetwalls. This project is the opposite of this, however, and I hope we can ditch this practice with all the other projects of the 2010s.

Well said man - it's nice to see someone as passionate as I who most likely speak for the silent majority.

[TheRitsman]

I called the city and apparently they have permits for here. Something to do with a gas line repair too?