Jamesville Social Housing Redevelopment | ? | 3 to 20 fl | Halted

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by itputsthelotionon

I Understand what you are saying here- but then how are other places doing this? How is it in European countries like Netherlands, Denmark, Germany we have social and low income housing that looks interesting? Is their budget much more then ours? Is our budget so low that this is all we can make? or is it a lack of creativity and risk tasking? Often times things do not have to be over the top expensive to look interesting, but too many new buildings in this city take the easy way out. We take zero risks in Hamilton. Often times there are too many voices and opinions and we go with what is safe too often.

To be fair, yes, they have more funding. We separate things like art and architecture. Both have value. The government will find millions of dollars in art projects, but when it comes to building designs that impact the built environment they are required to be as cheap as possible because they are social housing. Europe doesn't believe anything should be ugly along with an excuse that it should be because of who it's for.

I can also understand where people are coming from. I'd rather more housing over beauty. But I also think Europe can make those decisions because of relatively better tax usage, and reduced suburban sprawl causing much more stable and sustainable tax base. Hamilton will be in a much better position in 20 years after we stop suburban sprawl, attract employment and stop allowing single family housing, and build proper transit. But it will take decades and political will since so few people want to see this happen.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I can also understand where people are coming from. I'd rather more housing over beauty. But I also think Europe can make those decisions because of relatively better tax usage, and reduced suburban sprawl causing much more stable and sustainable tax base. Hamilton will be in a much better position in 20 years after we stop suburban sprawl, attract employment and stop allowing single family housing, and build proper transit. But it will take decades and political will since so few people want to see this happen.

Ah good so in 20 years we can tear these down and build something prettier then

Also let's not forget that one of the main reasons people film in hamilton is BECAUSE of hamiltons architectural beauty in its older architecture - where other cities have just bulldozed it all down. Beauty is still a great selling feature. Almost nothing we have built in the past.. I dunno.. 50 years will ever be considered a heritage element? (restorations notwithstanding)

I miss the era when we thought similarly as europe - where it didn't matter whether you were rich or poor, everyone deserved a beautiful dwelling. I mean to be an architect is to want to build beautiful things. Makes you die a bit inside to have to settle for generic.

[Innsertnamehere]

Yes it’s that low. Toronto’s finally getting good design since housing is now expensive enough to pay for it.

Hamilton’s market is very affordable comparatively which means it’s got less to work with. That doesn’t mean you can’t have better and worse quality projects within that limited budget, but don’t expect a Bjarke Ingel or Zaha Hadid here.

The reality is that 80% of what makes a project look good is it’s material selection and construction details, which Hamilton isnt the greatest at generally. Comments on Stubbes Concrete products in other threads is a great example - a terrible product for which there are better alternatives at a similar cost.

Indwell keeps designs simple but they execute well, meaning their projects are usually fairly attractive as a whole, even if they aren’t eye catching.

[ScreamingViking]

Didn't know where else to put this, but as it's related to the Jamesville development it fits this thread.

And of course the unofficial 'mayor of the north end' will be getting into it...


Residents plan to appeal townhouse plan for North End green space

Matthew Van Dongen
The Hamilton Spectator
Tue., July 13, 2021

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...een-space.html





The city will sell a North End road allowance that forms part of a community garden site despite renewed opposition from neighbours who still hope to save the green space from development.

North End lawyer Herman Turkstra said he has been asked to help neighbours appeal any zoning change needed to build on the corner of Bay and Strachan streets that is currently home to the Sunset Cultural Garden.

“You don’t sell parkland to finance affordable housing. It just doesn’t make sense,” said Turkstra. He noted the city’s online zoning map still shows the contested corner as open space despite a 2012 secondary plan update that earmarked the area for low-density housing.

...

North Ender Bill Curran, an architect whose firm is designing an affordable housing building at Jamesville, urged the city to not “cave to a few NIMBY activists” and abandon the “much needed” intensification project.

full story here

[ScreamingViking]

Here's the other story from July 8 about the "renewed fight" to save the garden, which Farr maintains was always meant to be temporary.

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...al-garden.html

[atnor]

Bayfront offers plenty of green space. This little parkette and garden can go.

There’s a tent community in this area whose members can benefit from increased housing but a group of people want to stall development for a garden that looks unkempt.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by atnor

Bayfront offers plenty of green space. This little parkette and garden can go.

There’s a tent community in this area whose members can benefit from increased housing but a group of people want to stall development for a garden that looks unkempt.

Sounds to me like it's a small but vocal group who have a direct stake in the garden that are putting up the fuss.

It can be moved. I don't understand the objection to that, other than the work involved in doing so. The part of Bayfront where it would go, adjacent to Bay St., really doesn't seem to be used much anyway and would have a better view of the landscape, harbour and "sunsets".

The people redeveloping Jamesville have said they'll keep some open space on that corner anyway.

One of Turkstra's arguments from that second article ("Turkstra argued Bayfront Park exists “to bring people to the waterfront” rather than serve local residents") is a seeming flip-flop on an opinion he shared before in a piece The Spec published re: development in this area... which was something to the effect that Hamilton's waterfront is on Lake Ontario, not the west harbour, and the city should therefore leave the neighbourhood as is...

And his comment from the other story about not selling parkland doesn't hold any water -- this isn't a formal city park!

[TheRitsman]

You know, maybe if they made a real development proposal with some public space at the actual Jamesville housing development instead of this sadsack 1960s regent park proposal, there would be room for a parkette there.

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by atnor

Bayfront offers plenty of green space. This little parkette and garden can go.

There’s a tent community in this area whose members can benefit from increased housing but a group of people want to stall development for a garden that looks unkempt.

I like it. It's basically an extension of Bayfront Park and makes for a nice entrance to it and the neighbourhood.
And the garden is not "unkempt". It's full of natural plants and wildflowers that attract pollinators. Just because it's not a neat, sterile environment without much life other than the plants, doesn't mean it's "unkempt".

[Innsertnamehere]

Going to the DRP on November 11:

https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/defaul...er-11-2021.pdf

[TheRitsman]

Docs are up:

[Innsertnamehere]

ugh. Only a token retail space at the base of the Indwell building. The whole James North frontage should have retail, including fronting onto the corner plaza.

Also should just generally be much denser of a development given it's proximity to West Harbour GO.

[davidcappi]

Yeah the density here is very unambitious - going for a little bit more could have allowed for all of the parking to be underground. Retail along James should have been a mandatory. Also kind of bummed that the only market options here are townhouses, which are likely to be out of reach for many folks who earn too much for subsidized housing, but don't have the cashflow to purchase a townhome. Some market rental / condo would have really been nice to see here to help diversify things.

[ScreamingViking]

It does need more retail along James.

This is a huge increase in density of the site. Could they have gone for more? Probably, on the James St. side especially (those 3-storey buildings could be 5 or 6) but that would likely get criticized as being out of character with the neighbourhood.

Developments with buildings of this scale are what the city will need on parking lots and underutilized properties all over the existing urban area, to eliminate or seriously reduce the need for boundary expansion.

[Innsertnamehere]

they are stacked townhouses, which tend to be only slightly more expensive, and slightly larger, than apartment building units.

If we really want to eliminate the urban boundary, we would need a couple of 20-30 storey towers here. Which is exactly why the urban boundary can't realistically be eliminated.

[davidcappi]

Hmm I'd argue that stacked towns though technically (slightly) larger in square footage often have less usable floor plans compared to similarly sized units in apartments, since so much of the space is dedicated to stairs. Many folks who are downsizing also don't want stairs (my folks are like this. They are old and don't want to climb haha), but for me it's more about the tenure than the built form. They'll likely be for purchase, which is fine, it's just that many folks just don't have the down payment or ability to put the money down on precon but make enough money to rent something higher end (laundry, a.c, dishwasher)

This plan just strikes me as very suburban and car oriented considering its location. No need for towers or anything like that here, but something similar in scale to what's happening at Alexandra Park would have been a good place to start.

[StEC]

What a travesty on the density front and lack of commercial on James! With the proximity to the GO station and the current housing crisis this is a fucking joke IMO...

[TheRitsman]

I meant to put in my post that I was hoping for commercial along James. It's a travesty that there isn't. If this city had any ambition it would push the James St N commercial corridor north of the CN tracks to the bayfront. The density for townhouses would be great on the first floors with flats above for those middle income folks. David is right about the style of development that would have worked here, especially the ability to push all the parking underground.

Still much better than the ultra low density suburban garbage that was proposed before.

[Berklon]

So that's close to 500 units, which will probably bring in about 750+ people to the area I'm assuming.

That doesn't sound too bad.

[Beedok]

It could be better, but if it looks like the renders, I’d be pretty happy. The parking is hidden, there’s decent density.