City of Hamilton General Discussion Thread - Page 30

JoeyColeman · #**581** Posted **Aug 24, 2021, 3:51 AM**

Part of St. Mary's Church, it was at one time the housing for the priests.
St Mary's was the cathedral for Hamilton from 1860 to 1921, likely this was the bishop's residence as well for that time period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattgrande

Not sure where else to ask, but does anyone know anything about 56 Mulberry? What is it, what was it, etc?

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/56+...!4d-79.8691584

Bubba9000 · #**582** Posted **Aug 24, 2021, 9:47 PM**

The main floor is a large and busy banquet hall that has been quiet since the start of covid. upstairs are former residential units, now used as art studios and offices.

SantaClo · #**583** Posted **Sep 2, 2021, 5:43 PM**

Hamilton’s Downtown Tall Building Escarpment Height Limit is No More

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2021/...it-is-no-more/

Beedok · #**584** Posted **Sep 2, 2021, 7:22 PM**

Huh. Wonder if any developers will get excited and propose something massive now.

HamiltonBoyInToronto · #**585** Posted **Sep 2, 2021, 10:56 PM**

Maybe television city can revert back to their original height??

TheHonestMaple · #**586** Posted **Sep 2, 2021, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

Maybe television city can revert back to their original height??

I'm sure he has that in the works

StEC · #**587** Posted **Sep 2, 2021, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SantaClo

Hamilton’s Downtown Tall Building Escarpment Height Limit is No More

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2021/...it-is-no-more/

Best news all year!

ScreamingViking · #**588** Posted **Sep 3, 2021, 2:00 PM**

Would it be fairer to say that the "limit" is still there... developers just have better opportunity to appeal?

I.e., they can accept the as-of-right zoning and build within the assigned limit, or extend the process and take their proposed height addition to the Committee of Adjustment?

Innsertnamehere · #**589** Posted **Sep 3, 2021, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

Maybe television city can revert back to their original height??

Television City as approved already exceeds the height limit to a similar extent as 75 James.

Beedok · #**590** Posted **Sep 4, 2021, 1:30 PM**

Time to wait for the more important development: seeing some height built on the escarpment.

ScreamingViking · #**591** Posted **Sep 5, 2021, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Time to wait for the more important development: seeing some height built on the escarpment.

There probably will be more ~20+ storey apartment buildings and condos erected in places all across the mountain.

I'd rather just see a push for more intensification along the arterial streets though. It doesn't have to be towers, but dense townhouse developments and 4-6 floor buildings with 8-10 at major intersections would do a heck of a lot to reduce any need to expand our urban boundary.

Beedok · #**592** Posted **Sep 5, 2021, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

There probably will be more ~20+ storey apartment buildings and condos erected in places all across the mountain.

I'd rather just see a push for more intensification along the arterial streets though. It doesn't have to be towers, but dense townhouse developments and 4-6 floor buildings with 8-10 at major intersections would do a heck of a lot to reduce any need to expand our urban boundary.

For the Mountain I'd definitely count 8-10 floors as height. But a few high rises here and there for people who like to live a bit higher sounds good. Some folks like their views. (I am some folks.)

ScreamingViking · #**593** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 5:36 PM**

Just received an email update with the results for the survey about urban boundary expansion.

The city received 18,387 responses by mail and email:
Option 1 – ‘Ambitious Density’ scenario: 1,088 responses (5.9%)
Option 2 – ‘No Urban Boundary Expansion’ scenario: 16,636 responses (90.4%)
Option 3 – Other Suggestions: 663 responses (3.6%)

It will be going to the General Issues Committee on Oct 25 (agenda)

GRIDS 2 / MCR Urban Growth Survey webpage

ShavedParmesanCheese · #**594** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 6:17 PM**

Those statistics aren't conclusive, they need further study.

- GIC, probably.

Innsertnamehere · #**595** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 6:21 PM**

I mean there is the issue of the province telling the city to expand the urban boundary or they will do it for them as well..

Even if council does select the "no expansion" option, the MMAH has indicated that they will override them and force an urban boundary expansion.

ScreamingViking · #**596** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

Those statistics aren't conclusive, they need further study.

- GIC, probably.

The majority of responses must have been activists
-- suburban city councillors.

ScreamingViking · #**597** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean there is the issue of the province telling the city to expand the urban boundary or they will do it for them as well..

Even if council does select the "no expansion" option, the MMAH has indicated that they will override them and force an urban boundary expansion.

It will be interesting to see if the pendulum on smart growth swings back, if the government changes next year.

If the boundary does get expanded by provincial decree, the development approvals process will be the only way to manage urban growth in a sustainable manner. But we know how that's been working under Ford.

TheRitsman · #**598** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

It will be interesting to see if the pendulum on smart growth swings back, if the government changes next year.

If the boundary does get expanded by provincial decree, the development approvals process will be the only way to manage urban growth in a sustainable manner. But we know how that's been working under Ford.

The other thing to remember is this may all be a delay tactic. Staff and councillors (mostly) know that no urban boundary expansion is a good thing. It will increase shouting prices which is good for real estate investment downtown (bad for housing for people, but that's another fish to fry). Expansion will also mean more assets that need to be repaired longer term. Even if boundary expansion is allowed, it won't happen for years, and that means we may get a liberal or NDP provincial government that says "nevermind, no urban boundary expansion"

StEC · #**599** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

The other thing to remember is this may all be a delay tactic. Staff and councillors (mostly) know that no urban boundary expansion is a good thing. It will increase shouting prices which is good for real estate investment downtown (bad for housing for people, but that's another fish to fry). Expansion will also mean more assets that need to be repaired longer term. Even if boundary expansion is allowed, it won't happen for years, and that means we may get a liberal or NDP provincial government that says "nevermind, no urban boundary expansion"

EXACTLY THIS!!! I'm okay if they stall on this, Ford will be voted out on his ass before any farmland paving can happen and I'm confident both the Libs and NDP will put an end to that!

cooke442 · #**600** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 10:06 PM**

How does the Airport Employment Growth District factor into the no urban boundary. Especially with purposed warehouses at Garner rd and 6 in Ancaster. The AEGD was already approved some time ago.