[Stoney Creek] 310 Frances Ave | ? | 44fl, 37fl, 34fl | Approved - Page 8

King&James · #**141** Posted **May 11, 2019, 12:28 PM**

Read through the site plan docs (thanks Hamilton Forward), can really see all the tools in the chest coming out to stall or stop the development - everything from a bird study, to minor variances, to the need for hundreds of more parking spaces and "incompatible" height step-downs.

johnnyhamont · #**142** Posted **May 11, 2019, 7:43 PM**

Is this a revised/ updated plan for this project? None of those towers appear to be over 50 stories.

EDIT: Sorry, I spoke before reading the panning document. It stills lists the originally proposed heights. Not sure why this rendering doesn't add up for me...
Anyway, given the conformity to the zoning requirements, what does planning committee have to do with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

lachlanholmes · #**143** Posted **May 11, 2019, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Is this a revised/ updated plan for this project? None of those towers appear to be over 50 stories.

EDIT: Sorry, I spoke before reading the panning document. It stills lists the originally proposed heights. Not sure why this rendering doesn't add up for me...
Anyway, given the conformity to the zoning requirements, what does planning committee have to do with this?

City Council voted to remove delegated authority on this file. Usually, site plan approvals are given without a council vote. But given the size of this application, and the political realities, city council will have to eventually vote on whether or not they give site plan approval.

Of course, I’m sure legal will flesh out the repercussions of denying the application - straight to LPAT where they can get their permit.

Edit: I believe this is an older rendering. I am not sure though. Just interesting to see the variation of renders and plans.

SteelTown · #**144** Posted **Nov 14, 2019, 1:00 AM**

https://twitter.com/TehraniCyrus/sta...39785467924480

Looks like the city has made 3D models of these towers to the 3D model of Hamilton. It starts at 0:04.

lachlanholmes · #**145** Posted **Jun 19, 2020, 6:08 PM**

Major Stoney Creek Tower Proposal Updated in Second Submission

Innsertnamehere · #**146** Posted **Jun 19, 2020, 8:27 PM**

1,836 units. Holy crap. Talk about density!

Also 2,445 vehicle parking spaces!

This thing is nuts all around. I would love to see it built just because, well why the hell not.

It is a little disappointing not to see this density downtown though.

StEC · #**147** Posted **Jun 21, 2020, 1:01 PM**

The new design is much more elegant almost One Bloor like just with balconies. Much better podium and green space and the entry/exit to the parking garage is vastly improved. I'm a little shocked they chopped so many 2 bedroom units though, they don't think families would like to live here? They must be targeting singles or couples with no kids that will live here and commute.

Innsertnamehere · #**148** Posted **Jun 21, 2020, 2:04 PM**

You’d probably end up with about 3,000 people living in the complex.

ccheck7 · #**149** Posted **Jun 22, 2020, 1:42 PM**

Wow, love that they're sticking to the same proposed height and density! Hopefully this is the catalyst for improved transit service along the waterfront. As someone who lives almost across the street I'm looking forward to the commercial and restaurant space in the podium.

Have they moved to underground as well as above-ground for parking? Seems like the parking structure was significantly reduced in size.

Innsertnamehere · #**150** Posted **Jun 22, 2020, 4:13 PM**

I think the footprint is smaller but also taller. It's 6 levels now while it used to be 4 I believe.

Three levels of underground by the looks of it.

ScreamingViking · #**151** Posted **Jun 22, 2020, 9:05 PM**

The podium change is a huge improvement. Tower designs too.

I'm less critical of the height and location of these now... whatever happened in the planning dept. to miss the overlooked zoning issue (vis-a-vis the city's building height limit policy) is water that has flowed way, way under the bridge.

The opportunity now is better transit along the lake shore and around the eastern Stoney Creek urban area, and perhaps some improvements to the service roads and city arterial streets that connect with them.

I too wish these could be downtown. But at some point the city will have to relax its standards if downtown development takes off like it's proposed to. Will it, is the question.

Rg2016 · #**152** Posted **Dec 26, 2020, 8:21 AM**

Keep me updated pls, any news on this one?

Beedok · #**153** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 1:14 PM**

Apologies for the bump, but, I was poking around on elevations to see if anything had a chance of dethroning El Mirador as the tallest roof in the city, and... apparently with El Mirador’s ~70m at 192m above sea level, and 10 Francis Ave being 76m above sea level and the height estimate given on the diagrams page, the odds that the tallest tower here will have a near identical roof height to El Mirador.

StEC · #**154** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Apologies for the bump, but, I was poking around on elevations to see if anything had a chance of dethroning El Mirador as the tallest roof in the city, and... apparently with El Mirador’s ~70m at 192m above sea level, and 10 Francis Ave being 76m above sea level and the height estimate given on the diagrams page, the odds that the tallest tower here will have a near identical roof height to El Mirador.

El Mirador?

Tallest roof in the city currently is Landmark Place and this will top it.

ScreamingViking · #**155** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StEC

El Mirador?

Tallest roof in the city currently is Landmark Place and this will top it.

He meant tallest roof above sea level. That apartment building at Fennel and Upper Gage is likely the highest roof in the city when you count it strictly from an elevation standpoint.

But I believe the city's topography rises to the northwest, in Flamborough, so is it possible something there is higher???

The tallest point, human-made, would probably be the CHCH tower. 357.5 metres, and above the escarpment.

Innsertnamehere · #**156** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 10:50 PM**

Trend condos in Waterdown may beat it now. It looks huge from the escarpment across the bay.

Innsertnamehere · #**157** Posted **Jul 7, 2021, 12:35 PM**

Spec article with an update on this project. Looks like it's been scaled back a bit.

https://outline.com/Abxtrc

Quote:

Developer Jeff Paikin’s firm has massive plans for a property near the Stoney Creek lakeshore. An earlier plan for towers of 48, 54 and 59 storeys at 310 Frances Ave., has been “muted” in a revised version but is still tall, Paikin says.

bigguy1231 · #**158** Posted **Jul 11, 2021, 1:31 PM**

It looks like the city has really screwed up on this one. It has gone from 1800 much needed rental units down to 1000 condo units. Probably in non descript ugly buildings like are going up in the downtown.

Innsertnamehere · #**159** Posted **Jul 11, 2021, 3:51 PM**

I had heard the 1,800 unit version was causing issues - I believe it identified the need to widen North Service Road to 4 lanes over to Centennial. I wouldn’t be surprised if the developer downsized to avoid that trigger and having to pay for that which would have been quite expensive.

King&James · #**160** Posted **Jul 11, 2021, 4:43 PM**

The same people will complain about whatever downscaled version is created this round. Horizon should have stuck to their guns and pushed ahead regardless. Also if the variance was 1800 units vs 1000 for adding a lane to an overpass, that is a lot of incremental re-occurring revenue to pay for it. Honestly if the City didn't want that much density, it should not have created a (or left in place), zoning that allowed unlimited height etc. Horizon could play it smart by hitting the city up for a density transfer to a key site in perhaps a more desirable area (say an LRT stop).