Downtown Update

[Corktowner]

That all makes sense and is reasonable. I guess my thinking is that if there's a demand for parking downtown someone will step in to meet that demand. I don't think it's something the municipal government needs to deal with, and it's absolutely not something we should be subsidizing or incentivizing.

There are so many things Hamilton needs to work on if we want a thriving downtown. We need to build a lot more housing (including affordable housing to help address the out-of-control homelessness). We need to invest in our crappy transit system, which has not kept up with other transit systems in the region. We need to improve the public realm and pedestrian experience. I just really don't think parking is even in the top 10 of issues we need to be concerned about.

[TheHonestMaple]

As a european, I can say for sure, Hamilton is not a walkable city. I'm sorry, it's just not. Sure, one of the better Canadian cities for walkability. But absolutely terrible compared to London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna, etc etc. Comparing Hamilton to any of those is just not accurate. Even comparable European cities, like maybe Bonn or Utrecht are far far far more walkable. For many aspects of life here, you need a car to get around. Sure, there's an area of a few blocks in the downtown centre that are 'walkable', but outside of that you very much need a car.

It's changing though, rapidly. Which I love to see.

[SFUVancouver]

Oh dear. It's like I stepped through a time machine and am seeing the same arguments that I was debating in the Vancouver section almost 20 years ago.

Very, very succinctly:

-density works as advertised (e.g. reducing demand for car trips while increasing demand for walking, transit, and cycling; it is cheaper for cities to provide services and maintain infrastructure and it generates a net-positive for the public purse; it reduces per capita energy consumption; it lets more people live in desirable areas; per capita, it is far more affordable to rent and own than lower-density options; etc.

-nobody actually believes that all trips of all types can be made by transit/walking/bikes. This is an ancient straw-man argument and I still don't believe anyone actually believes this is the goal. It would sound absurd to argue that "not all goods can be delivered by freight trains" when CN wants to upgrade a level crossing or widen a train bridge. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to rhetorically argue that "the motorcycle lobby" wants to make everyone use a sport-bike to take their kids to school, just because motorbike advocates point out that it's dangerous out there for bikers and maybe big trucks should have better mirrors and blind-spot cameras.

-downtown commercial parking lots are generally replaced with some amount of paid underground parking (rarely one-for-one, but also rarely zero replacement; developers and parking lot operators know the market better than anyone).

-the 'network effect' of transit expansion is a real thing and works (e.g. adding a new rapid transit line or upgrading frequency of an existing service yields system-wide benefits [ridership, reduced trip time, enhanced connections, more efficient operations, etc.]).

-building more dense development in station areas and along transit corridors increases transit ridership.

-induced demand works for all modes of travel (i.e. make it easier to drive by adding highway lanes, free parking, re-timing signals, etc., and people will respond by driving more; make it easier to take transit by adding service, increasing frequency and hours of operation, simplifying routes and improving wayfinding and system legibility, etc., and people will respond by taking transit more; make it easier to walk and bike by repairing sidewalks, adding crosswalks and signalized intersections, creating safe bike lanes, etc., and people will walk and bike more).

-Not everyone wants to live in a condo and not everyone wants to live in a house. Not everyone can afford to buy a condo and not everyone can afford to buy a house. Rents are unaffordable for many and buying housing is unaffordable for many. We need more of everything, everywhere. No neighbourhood should be off-limits, no area should take all the growth. No type of housing should be banned and no type of housing should be all that is functionally allowed.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. A thousand pardons, but this is a Wendy's restaurant, Sire.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

-downtown commercial parking lots are generally replaced with some amount of paid underground parking (rarely one-for-one, but also rarely zero replacement; developers and parking lot operators know the market better than anyone).

Except this isn't happening. Hamilton doesn't require visitor parking for new apartments downtown (which is often operated commercially in Toronto, for example) - so most new developments downtown have gated parking garages for residents only with no commercial component.

The Marquee has commercial parking, but Vrancor is converting it for the residential building now under construction next door.

Cobalt has a commercial garage as I've mentioned, where they dug 2 extra levels to provide space for it.

Otherwise - every development proposal I am aware of provides only private residential parking with no commercial lots at all.

That's the concern.

[Corktowner]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Except this isn't happening. Hamilton doesn't require visitor parking for new apartments downtown (which is often operated commercially in Toronto, for example) - so most new developments downtown have gated parking garages for residents only with no commercial component.

The Marquee has commercial parking, but Vrancor is converting it for the residential building now under construction next door.

Cobalt has a commercial garage as I've mentioned, where they dug 2 extra levels to provide space for it.

Otherwise - every development proposal I am aware of provides only private residential parking with no commercial lots at all.

That's the concern.

Sure. But I think the reason no one is building new parking lots is precisely because there's still a —-ton of surface parking and on-street parking that sits empty much of the time. The York Blvd parkade is almost never full, in my experience. When/if downtown gets to a point where parking supply is dwindling, I'm quite confident that someone will step in and build something. Commercial parking lots are profitable, and developers and parking lot operators know their market better than anyone else, as SFUVancouver put it. I really don't understand why anyone is even a little bit worried about this.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

That's it. It's about finding balance. We absolutely want to encourage other modes, but we need to acknowledge that Hamilton as a mid-sized city in the North American context will need some level of commercial parking availability. That doesn't mean we want everyone to drive downtown, that doesn't mean we should be offering dirt cheap parking in the city, it just means that we need to ensure that some level of parking is actually available for people. Like it or not businesses make decisions on this kind of thing, companies don't move offices to locations they don't think staff can access, etc.

In my office, located in downtown Hamilton, about 30% of staff do not live in the City of Hamilton and do not have the ability to take transit to the office, for example. No matter how much we make transit good in Hamilton, no matter how many bike lanes we put in, etc. - these people simply cannot and will never be able to access downtown without a car. That's a reality. We don't need people driving from the Delta, or even perhaps from Stoney Creek, but we can't realistically expect people who live in Guelph, Brantford, Caledonia, etc. to be accessing the downtown with non-automotive forms.

Simple solution that will please everyone - we make a parking garage skyscraper - as high as possible - those that want a tall building are happy and you have all the downtown parking you could ever dream of - it seems silly but it would be an awesome solution - make the whole thing look like a skyscraper but the entire thing is JUST parking. Like 50 stories - the new central attraction of the city, Imagine how cool that would look. Just take the city parking area that connects to the city center, demolish it and build it much much taller. Skyscraper parking garages could become a new thing! Put it in the core and then literally build up every other parking lot.

[King&James]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Simple solution that will please everyone - we make a parking garage skyscraper - as high as possible - those that want a tall building are happy and you have all the downtown parking you could ever dream of - it seems silly but it would be an awesome solution - make the whole thing look like a skyscraper but the entire thing is JUST parking. Like 50 stories - the new central attraction of the city, Imagine how cool that would look. Just take the city parking area that connects to the city center, demolish it and build it much much taller. Skyscraper parking garages could become a new thing! Put it in the core and then literally build up every other parking lot.

what a silly idea, you know that would break the 30 storey limit

[Innsertnamehere]

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

If we look at some parking structures in Kitchener we could take a few pointers ... they use outdoor winding Ramos and colours and look decent

[urban_planner]

Build it and call it the Durand.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Simple solution that will please everyone - we make a parking garage skyscraper - as high as possible - those that want a tall building are happy and you have all the downtown parking you could ever dream of - it seems silly but it would be an awesome solution - make the whole thing look like a skyscraper but the entire thing is JUST parking. Like 50 stories - the new central attraction of the city, Imagine how cool that would look. Just take the city parking area that connects to the city center, demolish it and build it much much taller. Skyscraper parking garages could become a new thing! Put it in the core and then literally build up every other parking lot.

but honestly, Hamiltonians. Please try to not sound so parochial about parking. Is Hamilton a city of 250-300k, or a rapidly growing city approaching 600k with numerous 15-30-ish buildings having been constructed or under construction in the past 5 years, infill occurring in numerous spots, and set to build an actual LRT line.

Hamilton and Buffalo have the same types of worries, the people just have different accents (for the record, 45% or so of downtown Buffalo was leveled for surface parking. So much parking that there's not as many places for people to even patronize as there otherwise would be!)

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by King&James

what a silly idea, you know that would break the 30 storey limit

not if you also dig down 30 stories

[ScreamingViking]

I remember the big arena debate from the early 1980s. I was pretty young, but I was reading the newspaper every day. City councilors were worried about how many parking spots were within so many minutes' walk of the proposed site downtown, and a few were arguing for suburban locations amid seas of parking from what I recall (I can't remember where, specifically).

Now, much of that was predicated on getting an NHL team drawing 17,000+ fans at least 41 nights and afternoons per year, plus the occasional concert drawing that many people. But even when there's been a big show at the arena I don't think parking has been an issue. All that hand-wringing was for naught.

Daily-use parking is a different market, but I don't think we need worry about that just yet. Some forward-thinking on the part of the city would be nice though... and that would be a refreshing change from the way many things operate in this town. Hopefully the redeveloped City Centre site will have a bunch of public spaces (I can't recall offhand what was proposed) -- you'd think HUPEG would plan for that itself given its interests in running an upgraded arena that turns a profit for them.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

not if you also dig down 30 stories

but but but... underground rivers!

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

but but but... underground rivers!

Here we go again...

[Innsertnamehere]

City Centre redevelopment has a lot of parking but it's entirely residential from what I recall. Like 1,000+ residential spaces to support the 1,800 units in the development.

[ScreamingViking]

Hmmm... I wonder if the city staff who manage parking policy have some "family/friends" pulling strings with respect to public parking requirements in privately-built downtown condos?

The article is mostly about procurement for capital projects, but it's not a big leap to think city policies could be subject to the same kind of issue.


City audit reveals tens of millions of dollars worth of business given to companies with close ties to staffers
Manager who oversaw major capital projects had relatives on firms that landed $95 million in city business.

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/2023/02/16/hamilton-fraud-waste-report.html

[Innsertnamehere]

A few interesting new FC applications (these are not official development applications, more so meetings to discuss a potential application with staff):

FC-23-020 - 676 KING ST W and 4 BREADALBANE ST - To redevelop the lands with a 7.5 storey multiple dwelling with 73 units. 26 parking spaces - 23 within one level of underground and 3 surface spaces. (this is at the northeast corner of King and Breadalbane by the 403)

FC-23-022 - 46 Ferguson Avenue South - To develop one 29 storey multiple dwelling and one 12 storey multiple dwelling connected via a 1-storey podium with setbacks at 6 and 12 storeys. 390 residential units and 278 vehicle parking spaces are proposed. ((this is beside Vrancor's Walnut and main project)

FC-23-027 - 325 BARTON ST E - To construct a 6 storey, 13-unit residential building.

FC-23-029 - 460 MAIN ST W - To develop a 6 storey mixed use building with 50 dwelling units with 400m2 of ground floor commercial space. (this is the Cash Money at Dundurn and Main)

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

FC-23-027 - 325 BARTON ST E - To construct a 6 storey, 13-unit residential building.

That's in my neck of the woods. Should it go ahead, I can keep the forum updated with photos.

Weirdly low unit count. I'm curious to learn more. What's the best to go about this? The City's development application map doesn't include a link to the project documents.

Streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/9bY2wFd7z8xfpxZ76

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

FC-23-029 - 460 MAIN ST W - To develop a 6 storey mixed use building with 50 dwelling units with 400m2 of ground floor commercial space. (this is the Cash Money at Dundurn and Main)

YES!! YES! Another Payday loan bites the dust. This was the former Taco Bell, and they literally just painted it. It still looks like a Taco Bell franchise building.

Er...wait this has commercial space, does this mean Cash Money will stay as a tenant?