18-30 King St East | 106.9m | 32 fl | Proposed - Page 22

HillStreetBlues · #**421** Posted **Jul 14, 2015, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

In part because they give the suburban folks the privacy they're after by being good and distant from the street.

This can be a good argument against excessive height. In some cases, condo dwellers can wind up inhabited boxes twenty and thirty stories above street level, taking elevators down to their parking garages, and driving everywhere, never interacting with the streets around them.

In the case of Hamilton, building too-tall will work against curbing sprawl, not for it. If we hypothesize that there is current demand for (say) 2,000 units, you might accommodate that demand in five tall buildings built on five vacant lots (or, in this case, on the lots of irreplaceable heritage buildings). You'll get some retail on five different lots, and will by and large spare all of the precious surface parking which help enable dwellers of distant suburbs to cheaply access their jobs in the downtown core.

If you put those 2,000 units in thirty mid-rise buildings with retail under each and every one, you will have displaced a lot of low-value land uses, and provided for many more square feet of retail or commercial space for residents. That space, and the more human scale of the buildings, can create the kind of real street life that will spur on a virtuous cycle that attracts residents and in turn more services and in turn more residents, and eventually really leads to an alternative to the suburbs.

Beedok · #**422** Posted **Jul 14, 2015, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

This can be a good argument against excessive height. In some cases, condo dwellers can wind up inhabited boxes twenty and thirty stories above street level, taking elevators down to their parking garages, and driving everywhere, never interacting with the streets around them.

In the case of Hamilton, building too-tall will work against curbing sprawl, not for it. If we hypothesize that there is current demand for (say) 2,000 units, you might accommodate that demand in five tall buildings built on five vacant lots (or, in this case, on the lots of irreplaceable heritage buildings). You'll get some retail on five different lots, and will by and large spare all of the precious surface parking which help enable dwellers of distant suburbs to cheaply access their jobs in the downtown core.

If you put those 2,000 units in thirty mid-rise buildings with retail under each and every one, you will have displaced a lot of low-value land uses, and provided for many more square feet of retail or commercial space for residents. That space, and the more human scale of the buildings, can create the kind of real street life that will spur on a virtuous cycle that attracts residents and in turn more services and in turn more residents, and eventually really leads to an alternative to the suburbs.

Except Hamilton already has a serious glut of unused or underused retail space, so what we need it to add more people and only a bit of new retail. Also folks in midrises are just as likely to go down to the garage, hop in their car, and drive to walmart. A midrise isn't necessarily going to be a good development, and at least highrises in the urban area bury and/or stack their parking due to feasibility. I've seen plenty of downtown midrises in Ottawa with half the lot still covered in surface parking. Also if we have one fifth of those apartments provided by Blanchards then the highrises minimise the lost heritage.

Plus highrises create their own virtuous cycle of development by letting developers who are usually doing cheap suburban builds to realise they can get competitive profit margins downtown, something midrises don't give to the same degree. This is a free market with minimal regulation, the supplier decides what options the customer can chose from, so if we can convince the developers to build downtown then that's where people will end up.

lucasmascotto · #**423** Posted **Jul 14, 2015, 5:44 PM**

Just build anything at this point. I'm so frustrated with this.

Dr Awesomesauce · #**424** Posted **Jul 15, 2015, 12:37 AM**

^That's exactly what Blanchard wants to hear...

pigottsun · #**425** Posted **Jul 15, 2015, 6:33 PM**

It's a pity that two of Hamilton's finest heritage structures, the Bank of Montreal and Landed Bank buildings on two corners of James and Main Streets, are currently hidden from view. Sadly, visitors to our city during the Pan Am Games won't be able to admire them because Mr. Blanchard has unfortunately chosen this particular time to do some surface repairs and hide them behind screened scaffolding. You don't think he's doing that on purpose, do you?

durandy · #**426** Posted **Jul 15, 2015, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigottsun

It's a pity that two of Hamilton's finest heritage structures, the Bank of Montreal and Landed Bank buildings on two corners of James and Main Streets, are currently hidden from view. Sadly, visitors to our city during the Pan Am Games won't be able to admire them because Mr. Blanchard has unfortunately chosen this particular time to do some surface repairs and hide them behind screened scaffolding. You don't think he's doing that on purpose, do you?

The Pan-am games are a hilarious excuse for everything. As though hordes of pan-am visitors are thronging the downtown. For the $140 million we spent on the stadium I bet we could alternatively pay each visitor $1,000 and get better value.

mattgrande · #**427** Posted **Jul 15, 2015, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by durandy

The Pan-am games are a hilarious excuse for everything. As though hordes of pan-am visitors are thronging the downtown. For the $140 million we spent on the stadium I bet we could alternatively pay each visitor $1,000 and get better value.

You realise most of the men's games have been sold out, right? I don't think there's any tickets in the lower bowls available anymore. A lot of those people are coming from out of town.

davidcappi · #**428** Posted **Jul 16, 2015, 4:17 AM**

I'm currently bartending at the stadium, and the amount of people from out of town, let alone outside of the country has far surpassed my expectations.

HillStreetBlues · #**429** Posted **Jul 16, 2015, 12:25 PM**

I have several visitors coming to town to go to soccer games with me. I'm not defending this multi-billion-dollar exercise generally, but it would be as false to say it's a complete failure as it will be when the provincial government claims it's a complete success. There are some benefits.

king10 · #**430** Posted **Jul 16, 2015, 1:25 PM**

I know of quite a few ppl coming to games from Toronto. Very rarely do people from toronto come to Hamilton.

One other event that brings them to Hamilton is Super Crawl.

Hamilton lucked out with hosting soccer. Its one of the biggest draws. At least 5000 for every womens game, at least 10 000 for every mens game. And 20,000 for Canadian mens games opener and finals. For 15 days straight too.

The Gore · #**431** Posted **Jul 16, 2015, 3:30 PM**

I attended one men's soccer game on Monday (with a few Toronto friends). We caught the shuttle at Mac. The bus took Main Street then north on Gage. Any of the visitors I talked with (on bus and venue) were impressed with the city and thought the stadium was quite nice.

fizzle · #**432** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 2:22 PM**

If there is anywhere high rise buildings belong, it's in the heart of downtown. That whole row of buildings should turn into high rises if the demand is there for condos. The amount of people traffic generated would almost automatically make the downtown core vibrant again.

Not to mention it would go a long way towards forcing GO Transit to provide better service options at the train station. Hell, maybe even expand the station.

king10 · #**433** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizzle

If there is anywhere high rise buildings belong, it's in the heart of downtown. That whole row of buildings should turn into high rises if the demand is there for condos. The amount of people traffic generated would almost automatically make the downtown core vibrant again.

Not to mention it would go a long way towards forcing GO Transit to provide better service options at the train station. Hell, maybe even expand the station.

expand which station? Hunter?

more train service is scheduled for West Harbour in the next decade. And its going to be a substantial station when completed.

fizzle · #**434** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by king10

expand which station? Hunter?

more train service is scheduled for West Harbour in the next decade. And its going to be a substantial station when completed.

Yes, the Hunter station. It's a train station with no parking spaces- so it's ideally positioned as a commuter hub for people who can reach it by foot - aka condo dwellers nearby who might choose to live in Hamilton because it's cheaper and offers easy options to commute into the GTA where they work.

HillStreetBlues · #**435** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizzle

Yes, the Hunter station. It's a train station with no parking spaces- so it's ideally positioned as a commuter hub for people who can reach it by foot - aka condo dwellers nearby who might choose to live in Hamilton because it's cheaper and offers easy options to commute into the GTA where they work.

As much as I hate to say it (and I hope I'm wrong), I think the writing is on the wall for Hunter. I wouldn’t dare to try to predict timelines or anything, but it seems like the provincial government is going to focus on West Harbour.

I think that’s a real shame, personally- Hunter Street is a beautiful building with lots of history in a good location. Effort should have been invested in doing what needed to be done to widen the tunnel to allow it to accommodate the train frequency that Hamilton needs. It makes no sense to have two stations less than two kilometres apart.

On the topic of these buildings: there are plenty of vacant lots where buildings of forty or even fifty storeys can be erected. The buildings here on the Gore are irreplaceable.

Beedok · #**436** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

On the topic of these buildings: there are plenty of vacant lots where buildings of forty or even fifty storeys can be erected. The buildings here on the Gore are irreplaceable.

A) I think people are mostly saying if we've got to tear them down then let's make sure we replace them with something that's a strong improvement for the urban form.

B)Aren't they like the 3rd or 4th buildings on that lot mostly? What makes them more irreplaceable than what they replaced?

HillStreetBlues · #**437** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

A) I think people are mostly saying if we've got to tear them down then let's make sure we replace them with something that's a strong improvement for the urban form.

B)Aren't they like the 3rd or 4th buildings on that lot mostly? What makes them more irreplaceable than what they replaced?

A) We don't have to tear them down.

B) If they replaced other buildings on that lot, they are not more replaceable, but they still exist, so can be preserved. But my understanding was that several of these buildings were in excess of 120 years old.

Beedok · #**438** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

A) We don't have to tear them down.

B) If they replaced other buildings on that lot, they are not more replaceable, but they still exist, so can be preserved. But my understanding was that several of these buildings were in excess of 120 years old.

A) None of the people here seem to be saying we need to. Just saying if he does then he'd better do something good.

B) They can (and should) be preserved, but they're not irreplaceable.

HillStreetBlues · #**439** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

A) None of the people here seem to be saying we need to. Just saying if he does then he'd better do something good.

B) They can (and should) be preserved, but they're not irreplaceable.

They are by definition irreplaceable. Once knocked down, they can not be replaced.

The fellow who owns these buildings is being allowed to do a real number on this city. At this point, I think more and more people are saying "just build anything" rather than leave the buildings to deteriorate as they are. That was his tactic, and that's the kind of attitude we should resist. The buildings should be preserved.

markbarbera · #**440** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 8:07 PM**

It was the city that gave Blanchard's consortium permission to demolish these buildings back in 2013. Then, once demolition began, public outcry began. Once the outcry reached the ears of politicians, they revoked the demolition request mid-demolition, then placed a historical designation on buildings already being dismantled. The city is as much responsible for this current sorry state as is the developer.