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

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

watching the council recording of the meeting now - Kroetsch went on about how nobody showed up at the community consultation 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...

Typical pontification by Kroetsch. He is the one leading the charge on the greenbelt development stuff, but he also doesn't want development in the downtown. I'm not sure what this guy wants.

I'm not surprised no one showed up to that meeting either. For one, not many people actually live around that area that would be opposed to it. It's mostly located in a parking lot wasteland. Most people probably welcome the development, and therefore chose not to go. Another knucklehead move my council and city hall.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by 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.

To be clear this would be the same height as Landmark Place.

I completely agree that the City's height limit was implemented before the city began pushing for no urban boundary expansion, and in that light it needs to be reviewed.

If this application does really refuse to negotiate on height, it will be an interesting precedent. I really think that the City does not have a great policy basis on the 30 storey limit and do not think that it would stand up to an OLT hearing. The only reason the limit has stood for so long is that the city also brought in as-of-right zoning along with it so it hasn't generally been worth it for developers to push back against it with an application, at least until now.

The entire idea of the limit is to "preserve views from the escarpment" - while in reality making buildings the same height as the escarpment means that they block the view of everything below the horizon anyway. There is often discussion here that the policy is intended to spread development around, but the actual policies make no mention of that whatsoever. The opposing planner at the hearing will have lots to back them up saying it should be abolished relating to intensifying around good transit and existing services, minimizing automotive use, etc.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[urban_planner]

Sorry, but the only reason the height limit exists is that the planning department caved to The DNA. This whole height limit policy came into play when TV city was first brought to light. Nobody batted an eye when the 36 floor Connaught tower was announced and approved.

This is exactly why saying its to preserve views of the escarpment makes no sense. Once our wall of 30 floor towers is complete you won't see the escarpment and if your are in the core you won't see it if you're standing infront of a 8 foot tall fence.


It's all bull sh*t

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by urban_planner

This is exactly why saying its to preserve views of the escarpment makes no sense. Once our wall of 30 floor towers is complete you won't see the escarpment and if your are in the core you won't see it if you're standing infront of a 8 foot tall fence.

I thought it was to preserve the views FROM the escarpment. As in, people on the escarpment will lose the view of the lake, harbor, downtown streets, etc.
We could barely see the escarpment from downtown long before any of these new buildings were built.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I thought it was to preserve the views FROM the escarpment. As in, people on the escarpment will lose the view of the lake, harbor, downtown streets, etc.
We could barely see the escarpment from downtown long before any of these new buildings were built.

This is the stated intent yes.

However - as approved right now, the buildings will block everything below the horizon line from the escarpment view. So all of those will still be blocked from the edge of the escarpment. You would be looking at a 15-20 storey limit to preserve views of the harbour and lake from the Escarpment edge.

As it stands right now, the height limit will have buildings block the view of everything except the sky from the escarpment edge.

Besides - a view from a singular park and private residences along the escarpment edge is an awfully small thing to sacrifice arguably thousands of units in a central, very well serviced area for.

[ScreamingViking]

Much of the harbour will remain visible from Sam Lawrence Park and other places to its east along the brow anyway. The downtown buildings already block the view of the western end of the bay for the most part.

They will cover up more of the distant section of escarpment adjacent to Waterdown. I enjoy seeing that, but just because it's an interesting backdrop to the skyline. Is it worth preserving? I don't think so, and it would take a hell of a lot of tall new buildings to block it completely.

West of Sam Lawrence the public viewpoints are fewer until you get to Scenic Drive (Southam Park, places along the Keddy Trail not blocked by foliage, the top of the Dundurn stairs, maybe a couple others that aren't all that easy to find). Tall buildings would block the view of the harbour and lake in the background from many angles, but are those views worth preserving as-is? They're dramatic but less accessible.

[BCTed]

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.

Vaughan has a ton of super-talls. As does Mississauga. As will Pickering. Kitchener and London will build up. As will other places. Hamilton will continue to limit heights and tax revenue for no good reason.

[Innsertnamehere]

London approved a 53 storey building this week.

[TheHonestMaple]

Although I agree with TheRitsman's argument that shorter buildings create more livable streets. No question there, it's true. But it's a free market, and developers will simply take their business to cities that will approve their proposals. There is no getting around simple economics, tall buildings are more profitable. Our city council and city staff can put their head in the sand all they want, but they're doing our city a disservice by driving away these developers.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Although I agree with TheRitsman's argument that shorter buildings create more livable streets. No question there, it's true. But it's a free market, and developers will simply take their business to cities that will approve their proposals. There is no getting around simple economics, tall buildings are more profitable. Our city council and city staff can put their head in the sand all they want, but they're doing our city a disservice by driving away these developers.

I do think taller buildings work well in an urban setting, but I worry that too many buildings too tall creates livability issues. When I travel to Toronto there are really beautiful areas with tall buildings and places where the tall buildings negatively affect the living and existing on the ground.

It's all about where, how, and the context of other buildings. I am fine with buildings taller than 30 storeys in some areas, but not others. I'd be fine with the entire secondary plan for the downtown being increased by 50%. And in some spots a building hitting 60 is fine by me, but Hamilton lacks appropriate plots for buildings of that height. This specific spot I think is actually optimal for a very tall building. I fully support this LPAT application after denial.

[ScreamingViking]

I don't think we need a bunch of 50-, 60-, 70-, or 80-storey condos to stay relevant amongst Ontario's growing urban centres. We just don't need to be prohibiting them if a developer comes calling with a solid business case for a tall tower and a nice design.

[SteelTown]

Developer appeals 39-storey highrise pitch for downtown Hamilton parking lot to tribunal
Councillor says city needs that kind of intensification in core

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...834d8589b.html

A pitch to build a 39-storey highrise on the site of a downtown Hamilton parking lot is heading to the province’s planning dispute adjudicator.

The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) appeal is a shame because the proposal is exactly the kind of high-density project Hamilton needs as the city aims to avoid residential sprawl, Coun. John-Paul Danko says.

[TheHonestMaple]

Surely one of the most idiotic decisions out city has made in recent years, especially when viewed in the context of all that greenbelt stuff.

Love Kroetsch's comments in council the other day. "No one showed up to the public consultation in opposition! The developer needs to try harder to find some opposition to it!"

[drpgq]

Wilson's comments were frankly stupid as well given the location.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Surely one of the most idiotic decisions out city has made in recent years, especially when viewed in the context of all that greenbelt stuff.

Love Kroetsch's comments in council the other day. "No one showed up to the public consultation in opposition! The developer needs to try harder to find some opposition to it!"

Perhaps ritsman can tell him to stop shooting from the hip, they seem to have a good rapport on Twitter.

[StEC]

Who, where and how do we voice our anger at the city's decision? I'm livid over this, we all agreed to nor build on the greenbelt thankfully but we still need housing and to deny a building IN THE DOWNTOWN OF A MAJOR CITY WHERE IT BELONGS because it's TOO TALL in the middle of a literal fucking housing crisis is fucking asinine!

I voted for Cameron I'll happily let him know he won't get my vote again with shit like this!

[atnor]

Wilson and Kroetsch are only serious about advancing their own political careers. How can anyone think they care about housing if they are publicly fighting this proposal? Zero tact, zero vision.

The GO Station is a block away ffs!

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by StEC

Who, where and how do we voice our anger at the city's decision? I'm livid over this, we all agreed to nor build on the greenbelt thankfully but we still need housing and to deny a building IN THE DOWNTOWN OF A MAJOR CITY WHERE IT BELONGS because it's TOO TALL in the middle of a literal fucking housing crisis is fucking asinine!

I voted for Cameron I'll happily let him know he won't get my vote again with shit like this!

Email or call your local councillor and Cameron if you want - their emails are are available on the cities website.

@Ritsma has already had a discussion with Kroetsch on this one on Twitter - thanks. I think this entire board is in relatively rare agreement on this one.

I posted the Spec Article on this on Reddit as well and the response there was basically universal support.

I think almost everyone thinks the city made a mistake on the decision here. I hope council can get enough feedback to change directions and direct staff to support the application at the OLT, not oppose it, as they directed.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Email or call your local councillor and Cameron if you want - their emails are are available on the cities website.

@Ritsma has already had a discussion with Kroetsch on this one on Twitter - thanks. I think this entire board is in relatively rare agreement on this one.

I posted the Spec Article on this on Reddit as well and the response there was basically universal support.

I think almost everyone thinks the city made a mistake on the decision here. I hope council can get enough feedback to change directions and direct staff to support the application at the OLT, not oppose it, as they directed.

Kroestch is trying to play both sides with his and ritsmans dialogue.

[ScreamingViking]

Seems the perfect property for more height - it's been a long term poor use of space in a parking lot wasteland, near a busy street, with good city transit and several regional bus routes nearby with peak-period regional rail transit (at least in one direction for each), next to a building of virtually the same height that has been tallest in the city for almost 5 decades.

The city's opposition is probably based on this setting a precedent for future proposals, IMO.