Television city condos | 109 m | 32 & 32 fl | Under Construction

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by scootaround

Generic and uninspiring but arguably the nicest new build in Hamilton in years.

What does that say about hamilton...

[davidcappi]

Idk, the royal Connaught tower, city square, and the oxford are all way more generic looking in my opinion. All three would feel right at home in some mid sized midwestern city. Tv city looks like it won’t really shine until it’s built. ArchitectsAlliance buildings tend to be really simple but the detailing is often top notch.

[King&James]

Next story on this one would welcomed if it started off with "TV City condo first Tower sold out, construction starting imminently "

[LRTfan]

Nothing like this has ever been built in Hamilton IMO.
Hopefully city hall doesn't throw gobs of red tape at the builder forcing them to cut some corners.

[Chronamut]

I wonder how they are going to prevent this from eventually happening to it - staining.. my advice, silicon spray the whole thing.. adds a microscopic layer of silica which nothing can adhere to so everything just drips and washes right off, kinda like waterproofing work boots - needs yearly treatments though.

[King&James]

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/sta...31006664220673

The headline was "Last Chance to Purchase at Television City!" ... perhaps a bit misleading

[Skully2001]

It says their Sales Centre is closing on December 10 - for good? Or just for the holidays? Seems a bit early to be closing the Sales Centre permanently, doesn't it?

[markbarbera]

I'm getting the feeling that we could very well have another shyster at play in Hamilton

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-condo-project

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I'm getting the feeling that we could very well have another shyster at play in Hamilton

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-condo-project

that's a bit of a different scenario though:

"(We) felt that holding buyers to contracts signed in excess of three years ago was an act of poor faith."

That doesn't seem to be the case with this one.

[durandy]

Paul Wilson is a nice guy. So when he titles an article "Tiny Hamilton Neighbourhood in the Shadow of Television City" that's his equivalent of a beatdown:

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-stor...levision-city/

Not a lot of good press (or positive economic stats) for Lamb recently.

[matt602]

I'm kinda wondering if this project might even get killed by the bad press before it even happens. Can't say I would really care, this is probably my least favorite thing going on downtown right now.

[Sehnsucht]

Originally Posted by matt602

I'm kinda wondering if this project might even get killed by the bad press before it even happens. Can't say I would really care, this is probably my least favorite thing going on downtown right now.

I love Wilson's columns, but this is the kind of absurdity that has held this city back for decades. The neighbourhood has ten houses in it and is already ringed with highrise apartment buildings. So what? It still remains a quaint neighbourhood enclave, but that doesn't mean that towers cannot ring it.

Downtown cannot have tall towers because of a few houses? Again, smacks of NIMBYism. Progressive cities intensify. Period. That is the city's mandate. That is the province's mandate. Tall towers are coming, so people need to deal with it. These are fine designs that will work very well.

I would be tremendously disheartened if a quality developer like BL left town--like he did in Edmonton--because of our backward provincialism.

[matt602]

There's intensifying, and then there's just smacking a 40 story building where it shouldn't be. There are TONS of empty lots closer to the downtown core along Main, King, King William, Rebecca, John, Catherine which would be much more suitable for a 40 story building. I don't see this as NIMBY'ism or a war against development/intensification downtown. It's a push for smart intensification in areas that compliment it.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by matt602

There's intensifying, and then there's just smacking a 40 story building where it shouldn't be. There are TONS of empty lots closer to the downtown core along Main, King, King William, Rebecca, John, Catherine which would be much more suitable for a 40 story building. I don't see this as NIMBY'ism or a war against development/intensification downtown. It's a push for smart intensification in areas that compliment it.

It is one block from city hall and two blocks from the Vranich developments. It is hardly out of place. If they can't build towers at this location then we might as well put the closed for business sign out. This ridiculous Nimbyism is going to stall this city once again.

[Sehnsucht]

Originally Posted by matt602

There's intensifying, and then there's just smacking a 40 story building where it shouldn't be. There are TONS of empty lots closer to the downtown core along Main, King, King William, Rebecca, John, Catherine which would be much more suitable for a 40 story building. I don't see this as NIMBY'ism or a war against development/intensification downtown. It's a push for smart intensification in areas that compliment it.

Of course there are empty lots to develop, but this private developer chose this one, which is also idle. He clearly did his research when selecting the site--towers all over that area (just nothing contemporary).

Let's not forget that he's incorporating a heritage building into the plan, which is also a bonus.

Again, we cannot let ten cottages dictate surrounding development and intensification, especially considering the precedent established of multiple tall towers all around that area, as well as city hall and the Vrannich towers, as bigguy1231 has rightly observed.

The most perplexing thing for me in this whole discussion of height is how the Landmark/Century 21 building never comes up. It is very tall, with nothing remotely close to its height in that area, and is about the same distance to the epicentre of downtown as the proposed Lamb condos.

So what's the difference? Why the height allergy?

[LRTfan]

what an embarrassment this city can be sometimes.
I love how we automatically default to the lowest land-use, least dense, most suburban fabric in a neighbourhood being the fabric that matters.

So in an area FILLED with towers, now we're going to pretend that 10 suburban homes should be driving decisions?

In that case, I'd like to see the same logic applied to the sprawl-mess along Rymal near Upper Wentworth....

It's nothing but cul-de-sacs like Wesanford and low rise suburbia. EXCEPT for this 10-storey building....

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Upp...9!4d-79.873235

If 10 suburban homes in the middle of downtown can dictate what is built in the core, I want this single building to dictate all future developments south of Rymal. No more single family homes....they don't fit in a neighbourhood with a 10-storey building.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by Sehnsucht

Of course there are empty lots to develop, but this private developer chose this one, which is also idle. He clearly did his research when selecting the site--towers all over that area (just nothing contemporary).

Let's not forget that he's incorporating a heritage building into the plan, which is also a bonus.

Again, we cannot let ten cottages dictate surrounding development and intensification, especially considering the precedent established of multiple tall towers all around that area, as well as city hall and the Vrannich towers, as bigguy1231 has rightly observed.

The most perplexing thing for me in this whole discussion of height is how the Landmark/Century 21 building never comes up. It is very tall, with nothing remotely close to its height in that area, and is about the same distance to the epicentre of downtown as the proposed Lamb condos.

So what's the difference? Why the height allergy?

We've become a city of NIMBY's and social media warriors who are happy to maintain the depressed, boarded-up status quo. We used to be ambitious back when Century 21 was built.

[davidcappi]

Sent an email today in support of this to the mayor & council. Recommend anyone who supports this to do the same! The NIMBY's are out in full force on this one.

[drpgq]

"The neighbourhood has ten houses in it and is already ringed with highrise apartment buildings."

Yeah the graphic in the article already shows how hemmed these buildings are by highrises. This is ridiculous. It is right by the LRT, really close to city hall and there's a ton of apartment buildings in the area already anyways (Bay 200 isn't the tallest, but it is a massive building). The downtown core needs more people living down there to support the relatively moribund commercial and office space we have existing.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by drpgq

"The neighbourhood has ten houses in it and is already ringed with highrise apartment buildings."

Yeah the graphic in the article already shows how hemmed these buildings are by highrises. This is ridiculous. It is right by the LRT, really close to city hall and there's a ton of apartment buildings in the area already anyways (Bay 200 isn't the tallest, but it is a massive building). The downtown core needs more people living down there to support the relatively moribund commercial and office space we have existing.

Stats are rarely used by NIMBY groups, and sadly, by our so called public servants at city hall.
Pull out pretty much any stat you can find, and you'll see that we need massive intensification downtown. Heck, I just read a report yesterday that stated TO is too sprawled out and not dense enough. Hamilton is embarrassing itself acting like it doesn't need urban residents. Here's my favourite stat:

Hamilton's lower city has 20,000 fewer people living in it now than it did 4 decades ago. Councillors and staffers should politely nod their heads at NIMBYs in public meetings, and then go back to work and do the complete opposite...we need people, business, construction, investment, feet on the street etc....in a BIG way downtown.