2900 King St E | 68.37m + 59.77m | 20 fl+ 18 fl | Proposed

[Innsertnamehere]

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...-tribunal.html



Off to the OLT this goes.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...-tribunal.html



Off to the OLT this goes.

“It’s crazy,” said area Coun. Matt Francis, adding constituents were “loud and clear” in opposing the plan when he went door to door during last fall’s election, worrying it will set a bad precedent for other developments in downtown Stoney Creek.

Yet the same people scream that we need more housing.

[Berklon]

So what issues do they have with this development?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Berklon

So what issues do they have with this development?

From the article, it sounds like the usual stuff:

“It’s crazy,” said area Coun. Matt Francis, adding constituents were “loud and clear” in opposing the plan when he went door to door during last fall’s election, worrying it will set a bad precedent for other developments in downtown Stoney Creek.

He said apart from the visual impacts on nearby “sensitivities” like Battlefield park and the escarpment, the development is too intensive for “an already incredibly busy intersection.”

“When you’re putting over 500 units — over 1,000 people, I’m assuming — how do you accommodate that for traffic?” he asked.

...

Not everyone in the area opposes the plan. Lifelong resident Dave Long said he welcomes something happening at the corner property after watching it sit vacant for nearly 25 years.

The proponent is filing because the city didn't decide on the proposal within 120 days.

[TheRitsman]

I've emailed to register to offer support when the time comes.

[Berklon]

I really don't see how this will have a visual impact on Battlefield Park... it's across a big high traffic street. And it definitely wont do anything for the escarpment view since there really isn't even a view as it is now - there are just a bunch of trees behind the empty lot that's currently killing any view of the escarpment.

There are barely any houses in the immediate area that would even be effected. Is the traffic a concern? Well there's already a shitload of traffic in that area now - no one's going to notice the small increase in traffic this development will add.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I really don't see how this will have a visual impact on Battlefield Park... it's across a big high traffic street. And it definitely wont do anything for the escarpment view since there really isn't even a view as it is now - there are just a bunch of trees behind the empty lot that's currently killing any view of the escarpment.

There are barely any houses in the immediate area that would even be effected. Is the traffic a concern? Well there's already a shitload of traffic in that area now - no one's going to notice the small increase in traffic this development will add.

I honestly just think it's ugly. One of the worst examples of pictureframe-esque architecture to date. I think people like the feeling that this area is still pre-confederation - between the 2 houses on battlefield park lot, and the 2 old traditional buildings and cemetery on the other side of this proposed lot - it's just jarring to suddenly have this modern soviet block of a condo erupt out here - kinda ruins the illusion - maybe they could change the style a bit and it would feel better - or gradually step it back.

I also think traffic would be a concern here as it is quite possibly one of THE busiest intersections, although pretty much any intersection along centennial is pretty busy - I feel it may cause a huge bottleneck and start to feel like james st up on the escarpment - where it just feels impossible to get in or out of it in a timely manner - but we really won't know until it happens. Personally I just don't feel like this kind of style of build belongs on that spot.

I PERSONALLY would prefer to see another restaurant go back on this spot, where it's still parking, but not a huge influx - I mean we already have a restaurant kiddie-corner to it. Why does everything have to be GIANT ugly condos now.. centennial does NOT have a shortage of people living along it - the area tucked away behind the old food basics on centennial and barton has a massive amt of people back there, and endless suburbia sprawls everywhere else in this area.

We don't need more housing - what we NEED is to stop the endless immigration into our country to gobble up more land simply to keep the economy going - like an ever increasing need to shovel more and more coal into a furnace - we need to learn to be sustainable population wise without having to constantly grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger..

We need to bring less people IN, and focus on helping the people already here FIRST.

[TheRitsman]

Wow, I can't believe this thread turned into an anti-immigration direction. Just to be clear, with respect, I significantly disagree and think you're way off the mark, straddling a line that is nearly, if not definitely racist and xenophobic. The idea that far off people's are taking what is rightfully ours is both hilarious and disparaging toward those people, and completely missing the fact that these immigrants keep our economy going and growing. So far our economy isn't built to stagnate or shrink, we would essentially collapse. We also do absolutely need housing.

You can disagree, but I just wanted to respectfully point out that I think you are dead wrong, and this is one of your worst takes on this forum.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I honestly just think it's ugly. One of the worst examples of pictureframe-esque architecture to date. I think people like the feeling that this area is still pre-confederation - between the 2 houses on battlefield park lot, and the 2 old traditional buildings and cemetery on the other side of this proposed lot - it's just jarring to suddenly have this modern soviet block of a condo erupt out here - kinda ruins the illusion - maybe they could change the style a bit and it would feel better - or gradually step it back.

I also think traffic would be a concern here as it is quite possibly one of THE busiest intersections, although pretty much any intersection along centennial is pretty busy - I feel it may cause a huge bottleneck and start to feel like james st up on the escarpment - where it just feels impossible to get in or out of it in a timely manner - but we really won't know until it happens. Personally I just don't feel like this kind of style of build belongs on that spot.

I PERSONALLY would prefer to see another restaurant go back on this spot, where it's still parking, but not a huge influx - I mean we already have a restaurant kiddie-corner to it. Why does everything have to be GIANT ugly condos now.. centennial does NOT have a shortage of people living along it - the area tucked away behind the old food basics on centennial and barton has a massive amt of people back there, and endless suburbia sprawls everywhere else in this area.

We don't need more housing - what we NEED is to stop the endless immigration into our country to gobble up more land simply to keep the economy going - like an ever increasing need to shovel more and more coal into a furnace - we need to learn to be sustainable population wise without having to constantly grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger..

We need to bring less people IN, and focus on helping the people already here FIRST.

We very much need more housing. Regardless of immigration levels, there's a huge shortage in housing availability.

[PaperSun]

The intersection of King and Centennial is very busy, I am curious how the proposed development will impact the vehicle operations here.... I can see a lot of additional collisions occurring here.

Also with the cemetery right next door I can see that holding up development for a long time.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Wow, I can't believe this thread turned into an anti-immigration direction. Just to be clear, with respect, I significantly disagree and think you're way off the mark, straddling a line that is nearly, if not definitely racist and xenophobic. The idea that far off people's are taking what is rightfully ours is both hilarious and disparaging toward those people, and completely missing the fact that these immigrants keep our economy going and growing. So far our economy isn't built to stagnate or shrink, we would essentially collapse. We also do absolutely need housing.

You can disagree, but I just wanted to respectfully point out that I think you are dead wrong, and this is one of your worst takes on this forum.

Ironically, this is your worst take on this forum — you admit immigrants are being used as means to an end which is to keep the economy growing. It’s a shame you view immigrants as pawns for the economy.

Nothing he said straddles xenophobia or racism. Don’t twist his words. His comments about immigration was pretty benign, please let us know how one can be critical of immigration levels without “straddling a line that is nearly, if not definitely racist and xenophobic.”

This writer is more educated on the matter than you, please let us know if his opinion is racist or xenophobic:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...g-the-economy/

[johnnyhamont]

Getting to solutions here will require us to avoid personalizing immigrants as the problem since no immigrant deserves blame for any of our housing issues; and avoid dismissing identification of the role of immigration in our housing crisis as racist.
It's reasonable to say that developing any plan for population growth that isn't accompanied with a plan to provide housing to accommodate that population growth is unethical. It's also reasonable to say that population growth plans should be developed for economic reasons, though with less moral authority, and with limited scope when those planning conversations lead to invitations for more immigrants to come to land that was unceded by indigenous people who get excluded from the planning process.

It's important to have these conversations and very possible to have them in non-racist ways. See this fascinating recent Globe article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ssions-canada/

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by atnor

Ironically, this is your worst take on this forum — you admit immigrants are being used as means to an end which is to keep the economy growing. It’s a shame you view immigrants as pawns for the economy.

Nothing he said straddles xenophobia or racism. Don’t twist his words. His comments about immigration was pretty benign, please let us know how one can be critical of immigration levels without “straddling a line that is nearly, if not definitely racist and xenophobic.”

This writer is more educated on the matter than you, please let us know if his opinion is racist or xenophobic:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...g-the-economy/

I agree completely. Nothing said was racist or xenophobic at all. And calling people racist and xenophobic because they have some legitimate concerns about the level of immigration is the exact reason why we're in the current mess. Canadians need to be able to have an open an honest conversation about the benefit and harms of high levels of immigration.

Bringing in a million plus per year (yes, it really is that high when you include international students) is not at all sustainable, and is a major part of the reason why housing is so expensive here. The other half is low interest rates of course, but that's another conversation.

Although I completely disagree with TheRitsman's take, and quite frankly find his take offensive. He does have a point that our entire pension system would literally collapse if we had a population decline. But I am sure there is other ways we can solve that problem, without massive levels of immigration.

[SteelTown]

And let's stay on topic, for example, discuss how the proposed 2900 King St E podium is hideous.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

And let's stay on topic, for example, discuss how the proposed 2900 King St E podium is hideous.

I don't love it either, but it's not terrible. The colour is a little strange.

To play devil's advocate though. I do kinda agree that high rise condos don't realllllly belong beside the Battlefield Park. I always found it kinda odd looking around Fort York in Toronto. Where you have a historic site from the 1700s surrounded by massive modern condo towers. It looks out of place.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

And let's stay on topic, for example, discuss how the proposed 2900 King St E podium is hideous.

Fair enough, I just don’t like it when people baselessly call others racist or xenophobic in attempt to belittle them. It’s simply rude and disrespectful.

Back on topic, having grown up in the surrounding area, I don’t think the size is appropriate for the area. Scale it back a few floors and it will have my support. I’m not confident in the design either.

[TheRitsman]

Saying immigrants are "gobbling up housing" is a xenophobic take that pits external factors against domestic residents. Suggesting immigrants add value to our economy is not disparaging them to a simple means to an end.

Arguing that immigration is the issue is the ultimate pull the ladder up behind you move. Majority of us are immigrants and wouldn't be here if those ahead of us had an issue with said immigrants.

The thing is we can do both. We can have immigrants, and sound housing policies that don't negatively affect the market. Suggesting it's immigrants and not the objectively bad housing policy is where the comment leans too heavily on it being an othering issue.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Saying immigrants are "gobbling up housing" is a xenophobic take that pits external factors against domestic residents. Suggesting immigrants add value to our economy is not disparaging them to a simple means to an end.

Arguing that immigration is the issue is the ultimate pull the ladder up behind you move. Majority of us are immigrants and wouldn't be here if those ahead of us had an issue with said immigrants.

The thing is we can do both. We can have immigrants, and sound housing policies that don't negatively affect the market. Suggesting it's immigrants and not the objectively bad housing policy is where the comment leans too heavily on it being an othering issue.

OR it can be both too many people immigrating and bad housing policy it's not xenophobic to suggest we do not currently have the infrastructure/resources to take in so many people. It's uncomfortable to admit, but you can't be denial that is plays a role and fully dismiss it. There is a legitimate conversation to be made

Either way, hopefully this gets approved - especially with some design changes

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

To play devil's advocate though. I do kinda agree that high rise condos don't realllllly belong beside the Battlefield Park. I always found it kinda odd looking around Fort York in Toronto. Where you have a historic site from the 1700s surrounded by massive modern condo towers. It looks out of place.

But a highway beside it belongs? Or a gas station/donut shop kitty corner to it is good? Or the numerous apartment buildings and condos at the front/right of it is fine? Does that mean the development that's supposed to go where the gas station/donut shop is will also be a problem?

Everything around Battlefield is already a huge contrast/contradiction to it.. in fact, if anything - Battlefield is the thing that looks out of place as everything else is around it is modern. I don't see now adding a condo is going to make a difference.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Berklon

But a highway beside it belongs? Or a gas station/donut shop kitty corner to it is good? Or the numerous apartment buildings and condos at the front/right of it is fine? Does that mean the development that's supposed to go where the gas station/donut shop is will also be a problem?

Everything around Battlefield is already a huge contrast/contradiction to it.. in fact, if anything - Battlefield is the thing that looks out of place as everything else is around it is modern. I don't see now adding a condo is going to make a difference.

Much of east Hamilton is like this. Contrasts. I grew up off Mt. Albion Rd., not far from Greenhill Ave. The area is largely SFHs and townhouses, with a few 10+ storey apartment buildings here and there mostly on the main streets. They've all co-existed peacefully for decades.

Other areas of the city are the same. West mountain. West lower city. Parts of the east end and Stoney Creek. Waterdown. More.

Maybe this proposal can be a bit shorter and better looking, but I don't think it would be an oddball.