Television city condos | 109 m | 32 & 32 fl | Under Construction - Page 29

Berklon · #**561** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:45 AM**

It's a bit disappointing, but it's far from a complete loss. In fact, overall it's a pretty big gain still.

More buildings, increased density downtown, more attractive core to entice more development. I'd be happy to take 10 more of these.

atnor · #**562** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 12:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

Television City revised to two 32 storey towers:

Read our article here.

Not sure if it’s my phone but I can’t enlarge most of the pictures in your article.

LRTfan · #**563** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 12:37 PM**

certainly still better than anything else built in the city, but as is usually the case - much worse than before the NIMBYs were allowed to mess with the design. It's almost as if paid professionals can design better buildings than height NIMBYs. Who knew.

The rooftop features are one of the biggest casualties of the new design. So, once again we end up with more flat top boxes....but all that said, we could really use the 32x2 floors of HOMES for HUMANS in our core. In fact, we could use another 50 buildings like this. Not as good as it could have been, but still very good and very necessary. Build em

Davis137 · #**564** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 1:49 PM**

I actually don't hate them...it's cool to get some more taller buildings, and at least they don't look like some 80's or 90's blunder like some projects on the go in this province...

HamiltonBoyInToronto · #**565** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 2:14 PM**

It's not that they're bad ....it's just uninteresting.... Why not make one taller than the other ?! Why do we need this and the ones on long being twin squat towers

drpgq · #**566** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I think this proves Hamilton is dumb as fuck. They got him to reduce the height by a few floors, lost half the cycling spots, nearly 100 parking spots, barely lost any units and significantly reduced 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units. All while the hulking double 32 storey condo is still there. Outside the view from a few wealthy escarpment houses, there is barely any change, save for terrible affects on unit sizes and bdrm counts.

I agree with this loss of the 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units being unfortunate. I'm glad we are getting the supply, but this just shows the stupidity of the arbitrary escarpment limit for a contested aesthetic reason that we end up losing the two and three bedroom units that I think almost everyone can agree would be great to have. I'll take people having homes over a few grumpy detached home owners on the Durand and Corktown BIA boards.

LRTfan · #**567** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

I agree with this loss of the 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units being unfortunate. I'm glad we are getting the supply, but this just shows the stupidity of the arbitrary escarpment limit for a contested aesthetic reason that we end up losing the two and three bedroom units that I think almost everyone can agree would be great to have. I'll take people having homes over a few grumpy detached home owners on the Durand and Corktown BIA boards.

yea this is the absolute worst way to plan a city....it's no fluke that Hamilton's lower city has lost population for 45 straight years. A few dozen whiners call all the shots.

Do we know if city hall is accepting this compromise? If not, I hope Lamb wins and gets 40+30 built.

mikevbar1 · #**568** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 8:35 PM**

If I'm reading the article correctly... this is the revision Lamb's team made themselves? ie he just compromised BEFORE it even went to the OMB hearing which is next week. He sounded very gung ho about bringing the full 40+30 last we heard of him so that's very disappointing. I'm confident the OMB (or whatever it is now) would allow the project in its previous state, and maybe even the city given some other kind of negotiations/concessions. The article makes it seem there's still a chance for the 40+30 version, but I don't know if that'll even happen if they're so ready to concede. I suppose there's still hope, but this might end up being the final design.

Side note, even if one tower is ~5m shorter, it adds some variety to the proposal and makes it look less bland and depressing.

Hawrylyshyn · #**569** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 8:36 PM**

Perhaps he wants to stay on good terms with the city to make future developments easier?

lachlanholmes · #**570** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

If I'm reading the article correctly... this is the revision Lamb's team made themselves? ie he just compromised BEFORE it even went to the OMB hearing which is next week. He sounded very gung ho about bringing the full 40+30 last we heard of him so that's very disappointing. I'm confident the OMB (or whatever it is now) would allow the project in its previous state, and maybe even the city given some other kind of negotiations/concessions. The article makes it seem there's still a chance for the 40+30 version, but I don't know if that'll even happen if they're so ready to concede. I suppose there's still hope, but this might end up being the final design.

Side note, even if one tower is ~5m shorter, it adds some variety to the proposal and makes it look less bland and depressing.

Yes, these were revisions made by the Lamb side, in response to concerns from the City and residents. Likely as the settlement offer, which would prevent them from having to go through the hearing next week, and waiting for the official ruling (which could take months).

It is possible that the 40+30 project continues but if the City has worked with Lamb on the settlement offer (as some of the OMB documentation/evidence heavily suggests), and council agreed to it, it (previous plan) is almost certainly dead. Unless the third party, Jennifer Balshaw chooses to continue the case, which is unlikely because if the City makes a settlement she could be held liable for Lamb's legal costs.

realcity · #**571** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 4:52 PM**

I'm at least glad twin 32s are going still.

SteelTown · #**572** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 5:32 PM**

Glad this is moving forward, however, I despise two towers at identical height. We already got that with CIBC towers.

I wish one was 33 fl or make one go down to 31 fl and the other 32 fl.

lachlanholmes · #**573** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 5:38 PM**

City council rejected the offer, so the OMB hearing is continuing on.

Hope to have more news to share with you this evening.

TheRitsman · #**574** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

City council rejected the offer, so the OMB hearing is continuing on.

Hope to have more news to share with you this evening.

I'm actually glad to hear this. The sacrifice of a few floors was too hurtful to the quality of the project. I've said before I don't have a huge problem with height limits, but if projects aren't given special process depending on what's being offered, then I don't want it for sure.

drpgq · #**575** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

City council rejected the offer, so the OMB hearing is continuing on.

Hope to have more news to share with you this evening.

Wow. I wish taxpayers would pay attention to the waste of money on legal fees this ridiculousness is costing the city, not to mention how much property tax we are losing out on compared to when the building could have been built.

king10 · #**576** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

Wow. I wish taxpayers would pay attention to the waste of money on legal fees this ridiculousness is costing the city, not to mention how much property tax we are losing out on compared to when the building could have been built.

Didn't the shorter proposal have more units so more property tax?

lachlanholmes · #**577** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm actually glad to hear this. The sacrifice of a few floors was too hurtful to the quality of the project. I've said before I don't have a huge problem with height limits, but if projects aren't given special process depending on what's being offered, then I don't want it for sure.

40 and 30 is dead. The plan being debated at the OMB is the 32 and 32.

TheRitsman · #**578** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

40 and 30 is dead. The plan being debated at the OMB is the 32 and 32.

Well... That sucks

LRTfan · #**579** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 9:53 PM**

Hamilton is good at one thing and one thing only - opposing business and economic growth. We've turned it into an art form.

LRTfan · #**580** Posted **Mar 25, 2019, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

40 and 30 is dead. The plan being debated at the OMB is the 32 and 32.

32 is actually brilliant by Lamb - 2 blocks away the condo on George is 32 and was approved AFTER the TV City plans were submitted to city hall. I hope the OMB judge tells the city to pull their heads out of their backside