Smart, aesthetic, non-super-sprawling development can happen if there was collective will! The stuff built around Stoney Creek mountain is an example of how not to build. Why oh why does Hamilton have to accept ugliness?? Even the wealthy go for ugly. Rarely does anything worthwhile and pleasing comes around.
Kudos to the incrimentalists like Core Urban. Kudos to the rehabilitators of historic properties (when done right.)
Many of you have decried the state of construction here. It is mostly pathetic.
FINALLY no more building height limit in Hamilton!
Quote:
The province's decision was posted late on Friday and approves an expansion of 2,200 hectares — even more than the 1,310 hectares the city proposed in its "ambitious density" scenario when debating expansion last year.
It is also removing the city's proposed 30-storey height limit on buildings and allowing taller buildings in community areas like Ancaster.
"The approved official plan amendments outline new policies and mapping to guide growth and development in the city to the year 2051," the decision summary says.
That is where my celebrating stops though. We need to make sure they do not develop our greenbelt and especially our wetlands!
__________________ Living in and loving Hamilton since Jan. 2014!
Follow me on Instagram & Threads where I feature the beauty of Hamilton, Niagara & Toronto!
That is where my celebrating stops though. We need to make sure they do not develop our greenbelt and especially our wetlands!
All of hamilton originally was a marsh and looked like cootes paradise. They laid down hay and then concreted over it. They also filled in a large majority of the bay - from an environmental perspective none of the city within the "crater" should exist.
I believe his interpretation of the old height limits being in effect for now is incorrect - The as-of-right zoning for 30 storeys remains unmodified, but deleting the maximum height in the Secondary Plan opens the door for developments to apply for zoning amendments for taller buildings. This wasn't previously possible without amending the Secondary Plan as well, which presented a significant barrier.
Basically it means that you may start to see developers start to apply for rezonings in some cases for taller buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50+ storeys soon. It seems like most municipalities in the 905 seem to have at least 1 50+ storey application right now, and many have 60+ storey applications (Pickering, Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill all have 50+ floor applications).
I believe his interpretation of the old height limits being in effect for now is incorrect - The as-of-right zoning for 30 storeys remains unmodified, but deleting the maximum height in the Secondary Plan opens the door for developments to apply for zoning amendments for taller buildings. This wasn't previously possible without amending the Secondary Plan as well, which presented a significant barrier.
Basically it means that you may start to see developers start to apply for rezonings in some cases for taller buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50+ storeys soon. It seems like most municipalities in the 905 seem to have at least 1 50+ storey application right now, and many have 60+ storey applications (Pickering, Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill all have 50+ floor applications).
Unless I've totally missed it in the Ministry's decision, I am pretty sure that the province overruled the city-wide expansion of the height limit, not the escarpment height limit as contained within the provisions of the Downtown Secondary Plan.
Essentially, you can now apply for a tower over the height of the escarpment or higher than 30 storeys outside of the lands in the DTSP, and the City will not be able to use the now-deleted provision of a city-wide height limit as a reason to deny a project, they would have to rely on other planning policies. If you apply for more than 30 storeys within the boundaries of the DTSP, the escarpment height limit and 30 storey limits are still on the books, and the City can and will use them to fight applications above those heights.
This effects two applications that I am aware of at the moment — the Eastgate Square development with towers proposed up to 42 storeys, and the 310 Frances project.
It's a bit strange to potentially allow for taller towers outside of the downtown but not within it, but I am hoping that this is signal from the province that they may be willing to take action on removing the DTSP limit as well, perhaps under the Minister's new Bill 23 powers, but they don't (can't??) go there yet.
The Downtown Secondary Plan height limit allows for above 30 storeys with conditions related to design, community benefits, etc.
The height limit is beneficial to the developments we are seeing in the Downtown because land value can be assessed in real terms instead of speculative guesses.
One of the problems before the DTSP was nobody knew what the actual value of land was because nobody knew what could be built.
Land is selling for many reasons, including the out of control real estate values which means condos are profitable to build, and a glut of capital looking for places to invest.
As-of-right zoning, including 30-storeys with clear design guidelines, is why the three towers at 41 Wilson will go forth with only minor variances.
The Province is not eliminating height limits, zoning remains in force and effect.
It is not known why they removed that provision - there are no directives nor statements in Hansard. Thus, developers cannot go to the OLT arguing the Minister intends there to be no height limit.
As the OP, Zoning, and Secondary Plans are written, the old height limits remain.
The City can, and likely will, put a similar height limit into secondary plans.
The Tall Building Design Guidelines can be used across the City now.
The Eastgate tall building proposal will occur. There will be negotiation to ensure it
is a great building that is both profitable for the developer and beneficial for the community.
The Downtown Secondary Plan height limit allows for above 30 storeys with conditions related to design, community benefits, etc.
This assertion is at best, specious, and at worst, deceptive. The Downtown Secondary Plan is crystal clear that no building can exceed the Escarpment height limit, whatsoever, no matter the "conditions" or "community benefits." It does allow for increases above the maximum # of storeys, but again, it is unambiguous that these increases CANNOT be above the height of the Escarpment in any case.
This in practice means the additional density you can get is somewhere between 30 storeys and the height of the Escarpment, which is around 4 or 5 floors if the proposal is in one of the lower-lying areas of the downtown. The effective potential additional density is miniscule and not worth the cost, and precludes the effective use of these provisions, and they simply don't get used. Intentionally or not, they are for show only.
If you want to build above the height of the Escarpment, you require an amendment to the DTSP provisions within the UHOP as well as an amendment to the zoning by-law. It is expensive, time consuming, and the City's planning policies are stacked against you, as they repeatedly try to reinforce the Escarpment height limit. Period, end of question.
Transfers of development rights do not allow for towers above escarpment height OR 30 storeys:
Quote:
6.1.4.4 Transfers of development rights may be accommodated within the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan area, subject to land use regulations through the Zoning By-law. In no case shall the Transfer of development rights allow building heights exceeding the maximum building height permissions in accordance with Policies 6.1.4.5 a) and c), 6.1.4.12 and established in the implementing Zoning By-law. [emphasis added] Transfers of development rights may be undertaken to achieve the following policy objectives:
a) conservation of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes;
b) provision of at-grade open space conforming to Section B.6.1.7, Open Space and Parks designation of this Plan;
c) access to views of the Niagara Escarpment;
d) mitigation of shadow impacts on the public realm and surrounding properties; and,
e) retention of existing open space/park areas adjacent to private development.
The reference to policies "6.1.4.5 a) and c)" appears erroneous — policy 6.1.4.5 is a singular policy, there is no a) or c) to refer to. I believe 6.1.4.5 may be a typo and is intended to refer to 6.1.4.6, which does have an a) and c) to refer to. Due of this, I'll include both.
The reference to policy 6.1.4.12 clearly states that any increases under this provision can never exceed 30 storeys.
Quote:
6.1.4.5 The Zoning By-law shall recognize buildings and permissions which existed on the effective date of the Zoning By-Law where height exceeds the maximum permitted heights, as shown on Map B.6.1-2 – Downtown Hamilton – Building Heights.
Quote:
6.1.4.6 When considering an application for development, the following matters shall be evaluated:
a) compatibility with adjacent land uses including matters such as shadowing,
grading, overlook, noise, lighting, traffic and other impacts;
b) the consideration of transition in height to adjacent and existing buildings;
c) that height, massing, scale and arrangement of the buildings and structures are compatible with adjacent development and sympathetic to the character and heritage of the neighbourhood; and,
d) the conservation of on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources
Quote:
6.1.4.12 Building heights are identified on Map B.6.1.2 – Downtown Hamilton Building Heights and the maximum heights for each area shall fall into the following categories:
a) Low-Rise 1 – up to 3 storeys;
b) Low Rise 2 – up to 6 storeys;
c) Mid Rise – up to 12 storeys;
d) High Rise 1 – up to 20 storeys; and,
e) High Rise 2 – up to 30 storeys.
Section 37 agreements allow for increases above 30 storeys but DO NOT allow for heights greater than the escarpment. If you apply this to towers on lands that allow for 30 storeys, the additional height equals maybe four or five floors in a best case scenario, which is not enough additional density to make these agreements practical. See below:
Quote:
6.1.4.8 Through the implementing Zoning By-law for the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, or site-specific zoning by-law amendments, the City may authorize increases in the height of a proposed development beyond those permitted in the Zoning By-law, subject to the policies of the Secondary Plan, in return for the provision of community benefits. Where the City enters into Section 37 agreements with a landowner for increases in height, the following shall apply:
a) The proposed height increase:
i) shall be no greater than the height of the top of the Escarpment in accordance with Policy 6.1.4.14 of this Plan; [emphasis added]
ii) is consistent with the principles, objectives, and policies of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan;
iii) is compatible with the surrounding area;
iv) provides community benefits consistent with the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, above and beyond those that would otherwise be provided under the provisions of the Planning Act, Development Charges Act, or other statue; and,
v) provides community benefits consistent with the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan that bear a reasonable planning relationship to the increase in height, including, at a minimum, having a geographic relationship to the development and addressing the planning issues associated with the development.
Policy 6.1.4.14 is the escarpment height limit.
Quote:
6.1.4.14 Notwithstanding Policy B.6.1.4.12 and Map B.6.1-2 Building Heights, maximum building height within the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan area shall be no greater than the height of the top of the Escarpment as measured between Queen Street and Victoria Avenue, identified on Appendix “D” – Niagara Escarpment Heights.
Policy 6.1.4.18 contain the High-Rise (Tall) Buildings criteria, which again repeats that the escarpment height limit cannot be built above. As well, this policy is not referenced in either the transfer of development rights provisions or the Section 37 bonusing agreement provisions, which means that it cannot be overridden through usage of either of those mechanisms.
Quote:
6.1.4.18 The following policies shall apply to High-rise (tall) buildings:
a) a tall building is any building that is greater than 12 storeys in height; b) new tall buildings shall be no greater than the height of the top of the Escarpment as measured between Queen Street and Victoria Avenue; [emphasis added]
c) a tall building is typically defined as having a building base component (also known as podium), a tower component and tower top, however, Policies
B.6.1.4.18 through B.6.1.4.24 shall also apply to other typologies of a tall building;
d) a building base is defined as the lower storeys of a tall building which are intended to frame the public realm with good street proportion and pedestrian scale or contains streetwall heights that respect the scale and built form character of the existing context through design, articulation, and use of the ground floor;
e) a tower is defined as the storeys above the building base; and,
f) the tower top is defined as the uppermost floors of the building including rooftop mechanical or telecommunications equipment, signage and amenity space. This portion of the building shall have a distinctive presence in Hamilton’s skyline by employing interesting architectural features and roof treatments.
If you want to build above the height of the Escarpment, you require an amendment to the DTSP provisions within the UHOP as well as an amendment to the zoning by-law.
You just confirmed what I stated.
Developers can go above the escarpment, they have to meet negotiated conditions.
Developers can go above the escarpment, they have to meet negotiated conditions.
No. You stated that they can go above the 30 storey limit if they meet conditions contained within the DTSP. That is not the same as exceeding the height of the escarpment.
There are zero provisions that address potential height in excess of the escarpment. Not a single one. There is no mechanism for allowing heights higher than the escarpment that would negate the need for an official plan amendment, nor is there any reference that even *suggests* the City will entertain the possibility of heights in excess of the escarpment.
Through a UHOPA and ZBLA you can propose any height you want, but there are zero policies on the books that give any indication as to how those proposals will be evaluated with regard to height in excess of the escarpment. In the absence of any provisions that give criteria or guidance as to what the City would look for in tower heights above the escarpment, the policies that are closest are critical to determining how such developments will be evaluated.
Given that the closest policies all state that the height of the escarpment is not ever to be exceeded, and given that this is repeated throughout, and given that there are no policies that address surpassing the height of the escarpment, it can and will be argued that the City, and the plans, do not envision new towers with height in excess of the escarpment as a part of downtown development whatsoever.
The combination of all of these factors, policies, and omissions ultimately results in making it extraordinarily difficult and uncertain as to whether taller towers can be built. There is simply no starting point for "negotiated conditions" — a developer would have to shoot in total blindness, with only the knowledge that the way in which the policies are written, the City has an unduly strong ability to oppose, both in good faith or bad faith, any proposal with height in excess of the escarpment.
All of hamilton originally was a marsh and looked like cootes paradise. They laid down hay and then concreted over it. They also filled in a large majority of the bay - from an environmental perspective none of the city within the "crater" should exist.
Proof please.
You keep trotting this out, but from what I've read the lower city was largely forested, crossed by a few trails (one of which became King St., hence its odd path across the city that tends to be diagonal to the street grid at certain parts) with many streams that were covered over or relegated to being sewers.
The harbour was filled in. Majority? Not sure about that one... between a quarter and a third, based on what I've seen in historical references. It's unfortunate, but also a big reason why Hamilton is as important as it is today.
What you say may have happened in specific places, but "all of"? I don't think so.
No. You stated that they can go above the 30 storey limit if they meet conditions contained within the DTSP. That is not the same as exceeding the height of the escarpment.
There are zero provisions that address potential height in excess of the escarpment. Not a single one. There is no mechanism for allowing heights higher than the escarpment that would negate the need for an official plan amendment, nor is there any reference that even *suggests* the City will entertain the possibility of heights in excess of the escarpment.
Through a UHOPA and ZBLA you can propose any height you want, but there are zero policies on the books that give any indication as to how those proposals will be evaluated with regard to height in excess of the escarpment. In the absence of any provisions that give criteria or guidance as to what the City would look for in tower heights above the escarpment, the policies that are closest are critical to determining how such developments will be evaluated.
Given that the closest policies all state that the height of the escarpment is not ever to be exceeded, and given that this is repeated throughout, and given that there are no policies that address surpassing the height of the escarpment, it can and will be argued that the City, and the plans, do not envision new towers with height in excess of the escarpment as a part of downtown development whatsoever.
The combination of all of these factors, policies, and omissions ultimately results in making it extraordinarily difficult and uncertain as to whether taller towers can be built. There is simply no starting point for "negotiated conditions" — a developer would have to shoot in total blindness, with only the knowledge that the way in which the policies are written, the City has an unduly strong ability to oppose, both in good faith or bad faith, any proposal with height in excess of the escarpment.
Regardless of the fine print, it feels to me like developers would (and will) find little argument against what they propose from here on in. So height limits be damned.
Basically it means that you may start to see developers start to apply for rezonings in some cases for taller buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50+ storeys soon. It seems like most municipalities in the 905 seem to have at least 1 50+ storey application right now, and many have 60+ storey applications (Pickering, Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill all have 50+ floor applications).
You keep trotting this out, but from what I've read the lower city was largely forested, crossed by a few trails (one of which became King St., hence its odd path across the city that tends to be diagonal to the street grid at certain parts) with many streams that were covered over or relegated to being sewers.
The harbour was filled in. Majority? Not sure about that one... between a quarter and a third, based on what I've seen in historical references. It's unfortunate, but also a big reason why Hamilton is as important as it is today.
What you say may have happened in specific places, but "all of"? I don't think so.
The images for marshland for hamilton would predate any photography unfortunately. And yes there were trails as well - it wasn't say marsh all the way up to the escarpment but would have been along the rivers that cut their way through before they were concreted over.
And perhaps majority is an exaggeration - but if they hadn't stepped in the majority of it WOULD have been - it was a big scandal involving the city and some unscrupulous people and good ol pierre trudeau himself if memory serves correctly.. they said if they had developed any more of the harbour its ability to renew itself would have been permanently destroyed and would have resulted in stagnant water. Whether that has already happened is a matter for debate I suppose..
even the maps themselves are hard to find ones from the 1700s or 1800s, most are from the 1900s.. either way we have transformed the area quite a bit over the past 200-300 years.
I get the impression this just greases the wheels at the OLT- sure there are a bunch of rules in/outside of the DTSP and the city doesn’t want anything to go taller. But the OLT now has more authority and a potential new justification to allow developers to go taller. There’s probably a couple projects waiting for this opportunity, perhaps projects that have been chopped and aren’t u/c yet. Television City comes to mind. They might apply for an increase now, and if they get it approved by the time they’ve reached the 30th floor, they’ll just keep going. Obviously others are right in that this doesn’t address the various legitimate challenges being thrown in to stop anything from breaking the limit. I think it’s just an excuse to allow the province to bypass those, by removing the the most important part as some kindof play on the diction. In any case, the PCs aren’t acting exactly clean and thorough, and there was definetely a reason for all this.
Thanks for the clarifying discussion on the height limit - yes, the change is to remove the city-wide 30 storey height limit, of which I wasn't aware the City had even tried to implement.
It would appear that the downtown limit remains, at least for now.
I took a more detailed look at the changes made, and two things of note stuck out.
1. The City can no longer enforce neighborhood plans, which are mostly ancient planning documents that are completely useless in the modern planning environment but which the City still forces reviews and enforcement of anyway.
2. The province removed the city's ability to place lower-densities and height maximums on community nodes. This is specifically aimed at Downtown Ancaster, where the City is trying to continue to enforce the 3 (or is it 4? I can't remember) storey height limit. The province has instead instituted a 6-storey limit, or up to 8 storeys provided certain conditions are met.
Concern over ‘vertical sprawl’ after province nixes Hamilton’s 30-storey height limit
Municipal officials had hoped to enshrine the 30-storey cap across the city
The province has struck a 30-storey height limit from Hamilton’s guiding land-use plan, sparking concerns among city officials over the spectre of “vertical sprawl.”
That cap — meant to preserve vistas of the Niagara Escarpment — was already in place for buildings downtown, and municipal planners had hoped to export the policy across the city in its new official plan.
Glad that's gone. I always got the sense Robichaud and Thorne were the ones driving it. And I suppose some random Durand neighbourhood association members.
Now the province needs to delete the downtown limit with their new ability to unilaterally modify municipal OPs. It's absurd downtown has a 30-storey height limit while the suburbs can build 40+ floors.
Prev
Linear Mode
