75 James Street South | 108 m | 34 fl | Under Construction

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Sighs, even though they bricked the podium themselves, the lintel system they used still makes it looks like precast panels - just.. feels.. so.. AWKWARD looking...

are they no longer capable of making a multi-story building look like a seamless brick face? This seems to be the trend with all new builds.. I mean core urban does...

...just makes the end result sadly look much cheaper than it ever should have...

Seamless brick face happens on building that are structural brick. (multiple layers of brick that ARE the building).

We no longer build like that. The structure is wood, steel, or poured concrete, and the brick is just an attractive and durable cladding. But because different materials expand differently, the brick façade requires expansion joints. Most commonly this is at every floor, so that no floor has to carry an excessive load of brick. The brick sits on shelf angle that ties back to the structure.

[downtown_eddie_brown]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Seamless brick face happens on building that are structural brick. (multiple layers of brick that ARE the building).

We no longer build like that. The structure is wood, steel, or poured concrete, and the brick is just an attractive and durable cladding. But because different materials expand differently, the brick façade requires expansion joints. Most commonly this is at every floor, so that no floor has to carry an excessive load of brick. The brick sits on shelf angle that ties back to the structure.

I was about to post this, actually. It's less that people don't "know" how to build double-brick masonry anymore; The trades will learn how to build with whatever the market demands. It's that we have better and cheaper methods of construction than they did at the turn of the century.

Structural brick looks gorgeous and ages very well as long as it's maintained. If developers were willing to pay for it, we'd probably see some on new builds for aesthetic purposes, but unfortunately the goal is to make as much as possible and spend as little as necessary. With regards to the prefab brick cladding, at least it doesn't extend up beyond the second level. I've seen buildings where they'll cover 8 or 9 stories with the stuff and it looks incredibly ugly.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Seamless brick face happens on building that are structural brick. (multiple layers of brick that ARE the building).

We no longer build like that. The structure is wood, steel, or poured concrete, and the brick is just an attractive and durable cladding. But because different materials expand differently, the brick façade requires expansion joints. Most commonly this is at every floor, so that no floor has to carry an excessive load of brick. The brick sits on shelf angle that ties back to the structure.

The Augusta Block buildings have seamless brick faces that are not structural. It has nothing to do with whether the brick face is structural at all.

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...0/post-2076114

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

The Augusta Block buildings have seamless brick faces that are not structural. It has nothing to do with whether the brick face is structural at all.

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...0/post-2076114

Of course, nothing is impossible with enough budget. That seems to be a very notable exception to standard modern construction practices. I wonder how they did accommodate for movement over that height.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Seamless brick face happens on building that are structural brick. (multiple layers of brick that ARE the building).

We no longer build like that. The structure is wood, steel, or poured concrete, and the brick is just an attractive and durable cladding. But because different materials expand differently, the brick façade requires expansion joints. Most commonly this is at every floor, so that no floor has to carry an excessive load of brick. The brick sits on shelf angle that ties back to the structure.

Core urban does it seamlessly and theres is not "structural" brick. Their buildings all look like they have been there forever they blend in so seamlessly with that style.

One only has to look at their progress pics to see how they did it.

They have jutout notches from the concrete to help the brick.



and voila, seamless results.



It's simple, and it looks beautiful. Proof we can still do anything they did back then, and make it even better when we apply ourselves.

Core Urban has proven so many assumptions of things people assumed we couldn't do anymore wrong.

[TheRitsman]

Steve provided me a great response into my question about this:

"Brick ran continuously has to be supported quite frequently, as in the weight can’t continue to compound on its self. We put steel behind the brick regularly to alleviate the issue but in a way that is hidden. It requires a lot more labour because we need to think of ways to hide the steel and still keep even mortar joints. Sometimes the solution is to shave or cut the back of the brick to accept the steel and keep the facade consistent."

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Steve provided me a great response into my question about this:

"Brick ran continuously has to be supported quite frequently, as in the weight can’t continue to compound on its self. We put steel behind the brick regularly to alleviate the issue but in a way that is hidden. It requires a lot more labour because we need to think of ways to hide the steel and still keep even mortar joints. Sometimes the solution is to shave or cut the back of the brick to accept the steel and keep the facade consistent."

Thanks for that!

[zeroday]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Steve provided me a great response into my question about this:

"Brick ran continuously has to be supported quite frequently, as in the weight can’t continue to compound on its self. We put steel behind the brick regularly to alleviate the issue but in a way that is hidden. It requires a lot more labour because we need to think of ways to hide the steel and still keep even mortar joints. Sometimes the solution is to shave or cut the back of the brick to accept the steel and keep the facade consistent."

This is why I keep coming back to this forum...great question, great response!
Another win for Core Urban.

[LikeHamilton]

From the weekly Cekan newsletter

75 James Condos becomes Hamilton’s second tallest tower

Robert Cekan 21 February 2025

The brand new 34-storey condominium at 75 James has taken the title of being the second-tallest tower in Hamilton, dethroning Marquee Residence by mega-developer Vrancor which earned the title in 2020.

Having now reached its maximum height—a term known as ‘topping off’—75 James Condos proudly stands at 354 feet (108 metres).

The title of Hamilton’s tallest building still belongs to Landmark Place at 43 storeys—a title held since 1974. Since Landmark Place is a rental apartment building, 75 James can make the additional claim of being Hamilton’s tallest condominium.

75 James Condos is well under construction with an anticipated occupancy of January 2026.

The building will include over 16,000 feet of amenities including a tech lounge with co-working spaces, a gaming lounge, a theatre, a kids zone, event lounges with private dining areas, a fitness studio, and lots more.

https://cekan.ca/hamilton/75-james-c...tallest-tower/

[Chronamut]

Nothing will ever beat landmark lol..

[Werthers]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Nothing will ever beat landmark lol..

This is from wikipedia's page about Landmark Place:

"It was built by Al Frisina as a mixed use building; commercial, residential and retail. Original plans included adding a heliport and a revolving rooftop restaurant but those plans were scrapped. Frisina also believes that no other building will be built in Hamilton taller than Landmark Place because as he puts it; 'the demand's not there and nobody's crazy enough to do it."

Over half a century later and the guy's still right

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by Werthers

This is from wikipedia's page about Landmark Place:

"It was built by Al Frisina as a mixed use building; commercial, residential and retail. Original plans included adding a heliport and a revolving rooftop restaurant but those plans were scrapped. Frisina also believes that no other building will be built in Hamilton taller than Landmark Place because as he puts it; 'the demand's not there and nobody's crazy enough to do it."

Over half a century later and the guy's still right

The demand was there and people were definitely interested in doing it but they were blocked by a bunch of short sighted uninspired people who cried because the escarpment needed to be seen from every angle of the city ... we could've had a very interesting skyline by now if not for the height restrictions

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

The demand was there and people were definitely interested in doing it but they were blocked by a bunch of short sighted uninspired people who cried because the escarpment needed to be seen from every angle of the city ... we could've had a very interesting skyline by now if not for the height restrictions

I believe it's the site lines to the Bay. Burlington Bay has to be seen from the escarpment.

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

The demand was there and people were definitely interested in doing it but they were blocked by a bunch of short sighted uninspired people who cried because the escarpment needed to be seen from every angle of the city ... we could've had a very interesting skyline by now if not for the height restrictions

I believe it's the site lines to the Bay. Burlington Bay has to be seen from the escarpment.

[Werthers]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

I believe it's the site lines to the Bay. Burlington Bay has to be seen from the escarpment.

It sounds like the same kind of argument nimby's have used in Vancouver to prevent tall buildings being built so the city created sightlines where development is prohibited because it would impede the view of the precious Coast mountains as though human beings are catatonic and can't move around to get a view of the mountains if something is built in front of them

I think the more accurate term for "short sighted uninspired people" that HamiltonBoyInToronto referred to are "lefties" whose real motivation is the thought that developers are actually making money which they bristle at so they concoct any objection humanly imaginable to prevent them from doing so, the myriad benefits of developmemt be damned

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by Werthers

It sounds like the same kind of argument nimby's have used in Vancouver to prevent tall buildings being built so the city created sightlines where development is prohibited because it would impede the view of the precious Coast mountains as though human beings are catatonic and can't move around to get a view of the mountains if something is built in front of them

I think the more accurate term for "short sighted uninspired people" that HamiltonBoyInToronto referred to are "lefties" whose real motivation is the thought that developers are actually making money which they bristle at so they concoct any objection humanly imaginable to prevent them from doing so, the myriad benefits of developmemt be damned

It's actually nothing to do with being short sighted or uninspired. It's so people can continue to see the beautiful view of the Bay from the Hamilton mountain. Many of the homes on the edge of the mountain are the homes of well off people. People who are well off are often the inspired type, who have a lot of foresight and are visionary. I'm sure they don't want to have there view blocked by a bunch of buildings. Personally, I love the development going on in the city, but I also love the view from the escarpment. Once the view is blocked, you can't change your location to see it elsewhere. It'll be gone forever.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

It's actually nothing to do with being short sighted or uninspired. It's so people can continue to see the beautiful view of the Bay from the Hamilton mountain. Many of the homes on the edge of the mountain are the homes of well off people. People who are well off are often the inspired type, who have a lot of foresight and are visionary. I'm sure they don't want to have there view blocked by a bunch of buildings. Personally, I love the development going on in the city, but I also love the view from the escarpment. Once the view is blocked, you can't change your location to see it elsewhere. It'll be gone forever.

So we should limit the number of housing built (eg. Height limit), resulting in further housing crisis in order to make a handful of well-off people happy and feel "inspired" ? I'm sorry but that's an awful argument.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

It's actually nothing to do with being short sighted or uninspired. It's so people can continue to see the beautiful view of the Bay from the Hamilton mountain. Many of the homes on the edge of the mountain are the homes of well off people. People who are well off are often the inspired type, who have a lot of foresight and are visionary. I'm sure they don't want to have there view blocked by a bunch of buildings. Personally, I love the development going on in the city, but I also love the view from the escarpment. Once the view is blocked, you can't change your location to see it elsewhere. It'll be gone forever.

Rich people are usually rich because their parents were well off and they were vaguely competent, not because they're 'the inspired type'.

Also, though, cities are often seen as inspiration. Paris. New York. Those are seen as places that draw creatives in.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

It's actually nothing to do with being short sighted or uninspired. It's so people can continue to see the beautiful view of the Bay from the Hamilton mountain. Many of the homes on the edge of the mountain are the homes of well off people. People who are well off are often the inspired type, who have a lot of foresight and are visionary. I'm sure they don't want to have there view blocked by a bunch of buildings. Personally, I love the development going on in the city, but I also love the view from the escarpment. Once the view is blocked, you can't change your location to see it elsewhere. It'll be gone forever.

Hamilton will NEVER have enough skyscrapers to block the view of the Hamilton harbor (we would have to become NYC or Hong Kong to do that).. a few super tall builds would actually inspire the entire city and make us more visible from the QEW (beyond the smoke stacks) our city has such a unique and beautiful geographical setting and a few skyscrapers would look amazing from the top of the escarpment too

[King&James]

I find it a bit amusing that there is this perspective that a building built in the lower city has a maximum height of the escarpment to allow views of the harbour from the escarpment edge. Basic geometry would require much lower heights. To simplify, imaging if we just allowed a wall of 30 storey buildings the entire length of Burlington Street. While not exceeding the escarpment height, there would be no way someone trying to view the harbour from the escarpment edge would see the water.