HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 6:18 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 7,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by King&James View Post
I like the plan to build kitty corner to FOC , do 10,000 sq ft and convert FOC into an expanded convention centre. Not sure what happens to EF building, sell it and convert to hotel, move provincial office space to somewhere in JS.
What do you mean by "EF building"? The diagonal block has the former SJAM school and a small co-generation power plant (which should be compatible with an arena)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 7:13 PM
Gurnett71 Gurnett71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
What do you mean by "EF building"?
Think they mean the Ellen Fairclough Building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 8:31 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 7,397
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking spaces only related to an arena move.

Re: the tower, the province does need local offices for various activities but perhaps they'd see savings in a move out and sale of the asset or reduction in their leased space if the city owns the building.

The existing convention centre could be sold and repurposed, but it could also remain as some kind of a private event facility; I think those spaces are in demand even if a larger new building comes on-line downtown. Much of it lies to the side of Fairclough though... so it may also be possible to demolish a large portion and build new on that site: https://goo.gl/maps/fdssSnhKENC9nEDs9
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 12:58 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
Re: the tower, the province does need local offices for various activities but perhaps they'd see savings in a move out and sale of the asset or reduction in their leased space if the city owns the building.
That site, entering off of what is essentially a subterranean tunnel, might be a hard sell. Government services are less sensitive to aesthetic considerations.

The municipality could amalgamate various downtown resources to within a block of City Hall.

It has a substantial footprint in the City Centre: Audit Services, By-Law, Budget & Taxes, Forestry, Horticulture, Licensing & Permits, Municipal Law Enforcement, Roads & Maintenance, & Waste Management all call 77 James North home.

If that building sells to be redeveloped, the City may be looking for somewhere new to hang their hat.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 1:21 AM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurnett71 View Post
Think they mean the Ellen Fairclough Building.
Yes, thanks sorry for short form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 8:40 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,321
It's a bit of a dog's breakfast, but with some imagination and brick removal, the king street frontage could become animated again.

If FOC were converted to new convention centre, some great opportunities to introduce some residential to that footprint. JS needs a resident population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2019, 5:10 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 7,397
Opening up the AGH to King made a big difference (nevermind the total makeover... she became a completely new building!)

As much as I appreciate many of Garwood-Jones' designs in the city, I really don't understand his penchant for hiding the entryways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2019, 12:31 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
.

Last edited by Dr Awesomesauce; Oct 11, 2019 at 12:32 AM. Reason: double-post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2019, 12:31 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
Opening up the AGH to King made a big difference (nevermind the total makeover... she became a completely new building!)

As much as I appreciate many of Garwood-Jones' designs in the city, I really don't understand his penchant for hiding the entryways.
Some things are inexplicable. I does seem to have been a design trend, though. I believe it was Wright, many decades before, who first started placing the entrance to homes, in particular, off to the side as opposed to facing the road. Perhaps the post-modern type buildings are a continuation of this trend.

I'd love to see a re-imagining of that area ie Commonwealth Square, the EF building, etc. I really don't think it's that hard to imagine Summers Lane being a more inviting little street. A seven-year-old could manage that!

Summers Lane: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2562...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2019, 1:11 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce View Post
Some things are inexplicable. I does seem to have been a design trend, though. I believe it was Wright, many decades before, who first started placing the entrance to homes, in particular, off to the side as opposed to facing the road. Perhaps the post-modern type buildings are a continuation of this trend.

I'd love to see a re-imagining of that area ie Commonwealth Square, the EF building, etc. I really don't think it's that hard to imagine Summers Lane being a more inviting little street. A seven-year-old could manage that!

Summers Lane: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2562...7i16384!8i8192
Pretty sure the City is starting on a big reno of Summers Lane in short order.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2019, 11:40 PM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
Hopefully they intend to open it up somewhat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2019, 10:59 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
I like Summer's Lane the way it is. I use it as a shortcut to JS instead of walking along Bay St.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:19 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.