117 Jackson Street East | 126.47 & 96m | 39 & 30 fl | Approved

[TheRitsman]

I think there's justification for continued commercial along Jackson St, seeing as the building at Walnut has commercial space and across the street, the south side of Jackson is all commercial.

Furthermore, I hate the 1st floor parking which takes up a ton of space leading to small commercial units. While I'm a big fan of smaller fine grained retail units that facilitate smaller and more local entities, larger units would be great for things like a Pharmacy, small grocer or something more in line with the needs of downtowner that meet essential needs.

[King&James]

Originally Posted by spaghettisam

From this image it looks as if this build is slightly taller than landmark

Where is this image from ....4 towers and a building crane on Jackson to the right?

[spaghettisam]

Originally Posted by King&James

Where is this image from ....4 towers and a building crane on Jackson to the right?

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...corazza.32787/

here is the link

not sure what that crane to the right is for...but the "4" towers you see are the ones from this thread I think its an interesting piece of design. I think they'll look better if they are dark like this. Similar to cobalt

[urban_planner]

The original picture is older and the crane to the right is the crane from the main walnut tower.

[King&James]

Originally Posted by spaghettisam

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...corazza.32787/

here is the link

not sure what that crane to the right is for...but the "4" towers you see are the ones from this thread I think its an interesting piece of design. I think they'll look better if they are dark like this. Similar to cobalt

Thanks, guess the multiple heights in the two towers threw me off.


Thanks as well urbanplanner - guess that crane was up for a while on the main/walnut build

[lachlanholmes]

Take a guess whether or not the Planning Department Staff support this application - it's going to the Planning Committee on October 3rd.

Denial Report

[urban_planner]

Hamilton just denies everything so it will go to OLT and get approval there. This way they look innocent. Meanwhile they are wasting tax payers dollars at OLT.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by urban_planner

Hamilton just denies everything so it will go to OLT and get approval there. This way they look innocent. Meanwhile they are wasting tax payers dollars at OLT.

This isn't Burlington, that just isn't true. Hamilton has been approving the vast majority of recent developments.

[Innsertnamehere]

Most developments downtown are as of right and don’t even need “approval”, just site plan which is technical. But yes, city staff are generally pretty reasonable with the small number of zoning applications they actually get.

This one is pushing the height limit and that’s why staff rejected it. The downtown height limit is foolish if you ask me but staff continue to hold onto this magical 30-storey number for some reason (even trying to apply it citywide before the MMAH told them no).

This is going to go to a hearing on the height limit and will be a critical project to determine if the limit will stand or not.

[urban_planner]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

This isn't Burlington, that just isn't true. Hamilton has been approving the vast majority of recent developments.

This must be a recent trend.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Most developments downtown are as of right and don’t even need “approval”, just site plan which is technical. But yes, city staff are generally pretty reasonable with the small number of zoning applications they actually get.

This one is pushing the height limit and that’s why staff rejected it. The downtown height limit is foolish if you ask me but staff continue to hold onto this magical 30-storey number for some reason (even trying to apply it citywide before the MMAH told them no).

This is going to go to a hearing on the height limit and will be a critical project to determine if the limit will stand or not.

This is truly the make or break question. And with the way the OLT has been trending the last couple years, I find it hard to think this won't go, and if it does, the rest is a foregone conclusion.

[ScreamingViking]

I don't really care either way, whether the 39-storey tower is shortened.

But a taller version would, from certain angles, block from view more of that concrete phallus at Main and Catharine.

[TheHonestMaple]

Can someone with a greater knowledge in these applications please explain what will happen with this one now? I understand it will now go to the OLT. What do you think will happen with it there? Approval? How long a delay? When should we expect shovels in the ground?

Disappointing that our city staff would deny something like this.

[Innsertnamehere]

It will go to the OLT for a hearing, delay of 1-2 years depending if they settle with the city or not.

Shovels in the ground is years away still.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

This is truly the make or break question. And with the way the OLT has been trending the last couple years, I find it hard to think this won't go, and if it does, the rest is a foregone conclusion.

Across the province there's way taller buildings going up, not just in the city of Toronto. Considering the dire rental situation in Hamilton, it is frustrating when the city is continually arguing for less units.

[Hawrylyshyn]

It's truly mind boggling that it wasn't approved -- still wouldn't be the tallest city, and in the face of all the outcries of urban sprawl and building on the greenbelt, the only alternative is to increase density, including build tall in downtowns.

If you can't build out, build up. The idiots running this city want neither.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by drpgq

Across the province there's way taller buildings going up, not just in the city of Toronto. Considering the dire rental situation in Hamilton, it is frustrating when the city is continually arguing for less units.

I agree that the height limit is silly. But the city has its reasons, which I recently found out is twofold. Not only does a height limit help encourage more development citywide (by not concentrating it on a few lots) it also reduces speculation because the maximum returns are fixed. Speculation does very little for actually getting things built, and only makes things more expensive most of the time- so I can sympathize with the city there.

However, I really am not sure this is best practice, as the policy’s efficacy is TBD and the degree to which it COULD be effective is unclear going forward. I’m inclined to think that reducing speculation, and even “spreading” development by limiting high concentrations of units is not something a height limit alone can do. At the very least, I don’t think Hamilton has the concrete data to back this up.

BUT, if the City has to go to the OLT and fight, then their case will have to be very strong- it’s essentially the make or break moment for the height limit. Either the OLT is convinced that the limit is a net good, or the height limit is rendered truly dead. This is the moment of truth; we now have a project banging at the gates that is willing to do more than ask the city nicely for more height.

I do think a reasonable reaction from the city is to reassess the height limit. The whole precedent is the escarpment which is clearly not allowing enough height for most builders to maximize their returns. It should be instead dictated by what kind of structures are feasible, and as has been discussed plenty, developers can easily go from 30 to 50 storeys, but beyond not so much. Hamilton has seen lots of 40 storey proposals, but nothing (serious) at 60+. So placing the ceiling in the same “construction category” means taller projects aren’t going to require disproportionate (ie, unrealistic) returns- it’ll be the same market environment, just with more units in any given place. With the way the city is now growing, I don’t think there will be too few lots getting developed as a result.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

I agree that the height limit is silly. But the city has its reasons, which I recently found out is twofold. Not only does a height limit help encourage more development citywide (by not concentrating it on a few lots) it also reduces speculation because the maximum returns are fixed. Speculation does very little for actually getting things built, and only makes things more expensive most of the time- so I can sympathize with the city there.

However, I really am not sure this is best practice, as the policy’s efficacy is TBD and the degree to which it COULD be effective is unclear going forward. I’m inclined to think that reducing speculation, and even “spreading” development by limiting high concentrations of units is not something a height limit alone can do. At the very least, I don’t think Hamilton has the concrete data to back this up.

BUT, if the City has to go to the OLT and fight, then their case will have to be very strong- it’s essentially the make or break moment for the height limit. Either the OLT is convinced that the limit is a net good, or the height limit is rendered truly dead. This is the moment of truth; we now have a project banging at the gates that is willing to do more than ask the city nicely for more height.

I do think a reasonable reaction from the city is to reassess the height limit. The whole precedent is the escarpment which is clearly not allowing enough height for most builders to maximize their returns. It should be instead dictated by what kind of structures are feasible, and as has been discussed plenty, developers can easily go from 30 to 50 storeys, but beyond not so much. Hamilton has seen lots of 40 storey proposals, but nothing (serious) at 60+. So placing the ceiling in the same “construction category” means taller projects aren’t going to require disproportionate (ie, unrealistic) returns- it’ll be the same market environment, just with more units in any given place. With the way the city is now growing, I don’t think there will be too few lots getting developed as a result.

I actually think a decent way to limit speculation of property would be to include a mandatory elevator count per unit count above a certain height. As it stands there's pretty much no minimum that is reasonable, and having a set elevator minimum would cause buildings to be limited in height depending on the property because the elevator shafts would take up too much of the floorplate.

This is one issue Hamilton ha largely avoided that has plagued many Toronto highrises and something rarely discussed when height is mentioned, but some developments with far too few elevators cause severe crowding, discomfort and lack of enjoyment of units. It can also pose health and safety issues.

If a Height limit is removed, I think reviewing the building bylaws on elevators is both beneficial to owners/renters in taller buildings and will act to reduce height of buildings and speculation more naturally than an arbitrary height cap.

[Innsertnamehere]

unfortunately elevators cannot be regulated municipally. It would have to be a building code item, and good luck with that with the PCs.

[Innsertnamehere]

watching the council recording of the meeting now - Kroetsch went on about how nobody showed up at the community consultation (well, only 1 person did) and therefor it shouldn't count, despite the applicant claiming that they hand-delivered notices to a 200m radius around the application, which exceeds the 120m required in the planning act..

Not sure why an application should be delayed or rejected because nobody in the community seems concerned with the application.. It's not like the public wasn't notified or given a chance to provide input - they simply chose not to.

Kroetsch: "the applicant has done nothing to consult with the community" - yea, you know, ignoring the public meeting they held...

Danko luckily called Kroetsch out on it - saying that the applicant had met their obligations and that clearly the public was not generally concerned about the application.

Interestingly, Danko seems quite supportive of blowing the height limit up. I'd be interested to see other councillors opinions on it. City Staff certainly seem to be holding on to it for dear life still.