HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2008, 9:24 PM
MsMe MsMe is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,267
I agree too. I don't know why they didn't build some box stores in the northwest corner of the mall. That is big wasted space on the lot. It is even ilegal to park in that area. So what good is that space then. And they could have done something else in the corner that they tore down where Kmart was. And they could have torn down the old movie theatre building and put some box stores there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 5:21 AM
the dude the dude is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,812
heaven for fend we be viewed as anti-development!

ya, cooke is blowing my mind. it just doesn't make sense...but i fully support his seemingly 180 degree turn. bravo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 11:57 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
he knows all about the 'anti-development' arguement.
He was one who would regularly make it when he was on council.
Now the media has taken up the torch and they use it any chance they get.
They go interview some politician in a lame spot like Brantford and have him agree that, yup, Hamilton is anti-development.
Yea, and Brantford is the cat's meow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 6:27 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Have you noticed the Braneida Business Park? They've made some serious scores in that area--logistics businesses, Dana, Adidas, IAWS, etc. Brantford may have it's challenges downtown, but it has been successful at attracting business park tenants.

And yes, to be seen as anti-development IS the kiss of death.

That doesn't. however, translate into me saying the redevelopment of the Centre is appealing. If the City believed it would have lost at the OMB, it would seem to me they might the right decision under the circumstances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 6:32 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
no, the city did the wrong thing.
they should have demanded proper urban design and a Barton streetwall as Cooke mentions.
This crap is bad enough in the burbs...it's much worse in a dense, walkable urban environment.
This could have been a great development to spur other great developments in the east/central part of the city.
It's the city's job to ensure that is what happens. Not just be a butt kisser for every friggin developer who shows up with another trashy piece of crap plan to ruin another corner of our fine city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2008, 7:21 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I think the Centre redevelopment is a missed opportunity, at least in part--I'm not defending the concept put forth by Redcliffe. Nonetheless, the original Centre is--well--a mid-century, suburban-oritented shopping centre--it is not as if Redcliffe is tearing out something decidely urban and replacing it with the new development. Had Redcliffe gone the OMB route, it would seem they'd be likely to win--or, perhaps they could've left the Centre in it's benign state of terminal illness and simply left the city with a large greyfield. I too would've liked to have seen something different built on the site (hell, it'd be nice if it was still a horse track)--but the demographics of the neighborhood have driven the scale and nature of the development as much as anything.

Nonetheless, if you think you're going to lose at OMB, going that route in 'principle' is a frivilous use of funds...take the saved legal funds and invest them in proper cladding for city hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2008, 7:53 PM
waughste3 waughste3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 32
Has anybody visited the former Centre Mall redevelopment site recently? Also, I don't know when the first phase is scheduled to open.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 11:57 PM
hammergirl hammergirl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 159
I was at the Centre again tonight.

Sears last day there is September 9th. They open at Eastgate on Sept 12th.

The Food Court is closing on September 13th.

The new TD Canada Trust Building is the most complete looking and they are scheduled to open there in November. I think the sign said either Nov 12th or 21st.

There is another building at the front that is at least partially enclosed. It's almost in front of where Sears is now but more towards the mall side than Kenilworth if that makes sense. I saw it from the TD/Shoppers mall entrance. It's in from Barton, closer to the mall.

The arches are gone from the mall parking lot.

Kids are still climbing the slanted sides of the fountains. One was doing his impression of Tony Hawk. (his words not mine). I didn't climb but I did put my foot on the side of the fountain/planter in front of Sears for old times sake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 12:02 AM
hammergirl hammergirl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 159
Oh, the repaved Kenilworth Access is quite nice. New ashphalt and new barriers from the bottom, all the way up to Mountain Brow and Upper Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 3:45 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
drove by today....this site looks brutal!! wow. not many words to describe how bad this will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 3:38 PM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
Let me guess, once its done, if someone blindfolded you and took you to the middle of the development and then removed the blindfold you wouldn't know if you were in a power centre in
A. Burlington,
B. Mississauga, or
C. Centre Mall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 3:44 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
^^ well no, you'll still see the smock stacks popping up from behind!

Worst development ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 8:31 PM
hammergirl hammergirl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 159
I was just told by one of the guys that I work with that once the mall is empty, they're going to film a movie in the mall and then blow it up.

I'm thinking yes to the movie but no to the blowing up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 8:35 PM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
not building it would save a lot of effort
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 11:39 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Fair enough the replacement will be generic. As opposed to what exists now, a mall with a department store at each end...how uniquely Hamilton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 3:59 AM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
I guess it was a real bummer with the old model... you had to actually walk from 1 end of the mall to the other... we are way smarter now! Now with the new big box store model, you can just start up your car and drive from 1 box store to a different kind of box
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 4:33 AM
MsMe MsMe is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,267
Is it smarter when we will have to use our cars more causing more pollution?

And getting less excersice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 11:20 AM
BCTed BCTed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMe View Post
Is it smarter when we will have to use our cars more causing more pollution?

And getting less excersice.
adam was being sarcastic.

I guess senior citizens who go to the Centre in winter or on poor weather days for some mall walking will no longer have such an option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 12:13 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is online now
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,713
Plenty of people in that part of town don't have cars, but hey, big box stores don't want you wasting space if you don't have your own car to haul away loads of merchandise.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 12:58 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
once again, city hall craps all over east/central Hamilton.
No Innovation District here. No innovation or planning or concern or care about anything from city hall east of Wellington St.
Residents need to fill up barrels of water from their basements the next time it rains and dump it all over council chamber desks during the next city hall meeting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.