HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2020, 12:44 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
Municipal policy around mixed-use and mixed-income would be helpful to manage that. I'm not counting on it to happen though. I'm not even expecting it to be done well for the City Housing redevelopments where there is more municipal control (like the one in Jamesville, and in the east end along Reid)

Seems, anecdotally at least, that people who get priced out end up moving to places like Brantford, or St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. Or staying local, there are neighbourhoods on the mountain that seem to be relatively more affordable.
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners. The good news is that they already know which ones are screwing its citizens. The bad news is they don't care because they benefit directly from them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2020, 4:22 AM
TheRitsman TheRitsman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce View Post
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners. The good news is that they already know which ones are screwing its citizens. The bad news is they don't care because they benefit directly from them.
Some people think no policy or less policy would always be better, but I don't agree. Some policies, like development charges are good and bad. Ultimately they can be used to essentially fine a development into submission when they become unreasonable, but otherwise those costs should be handled by property taxes.

I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine
__________________
McMaster University Graduate Political Science, Minor in Geography.

My goal is to improve my community, the transit we use to get around it, and the health and happiness of everyone in it, and I realize these are all interconnected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2020, 6:49 AM
Chronamut's Avatar
Chronamut Chronamut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRitsman View Post
Some people think no policy or less policy would always be better, but I don't agree. Some policies, like development charges are good and bad. Ultimately they can be used to essentially fine a development into submission when they become unreasonable, but otherwise those costs should be handled by property taxes.

I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine
Sounds reasonable - I could get behind that
__________________
Hamilton Artist: http://ShawnDall.com
FOLLOW MY MUSIC ON SPOTIFY: Chronamut: Greatest Hits (2003 - Now)
East Coast Ormus: http://east-coast-ormuseco.myshopify.com
Chron Online Riddle: http://www.chronriddles.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2020, 12:08 PM
StEC's Avatar
StEC StEC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRitsman View Post
I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine
I would definitely support these requirements as well! Seems like good initiatives to spur development.
__________________
Living in and loving Hamilton since Jan. 2014!
Follow me on Instagram
Follow me on Twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 8:00 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce View Post
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners.
There may be limitations based on what's allowed in the Municipal Act or other provincial legislation, but in addition to many of the things suggested by TheRitsman (especially requirements for blending in commercial uses) I was thinking about ensuring that a percentage of units is "affordable", and mandating that there is a portion that are multi-bedroom units to make it easier for families to purchase or rent... or perhaps rather than impose rules, incentivize them by giving developers a break on charges or property taxes for providing such things.

I don't know if blanket policy would be the way to do it, or if it's best done using zoning, or establishing corridors along certain streets where the requirements would apply.

I agree with you though that there are existing policies and regulations that probably make things difficult for people with less financial means... that deserves a thorough review with an eye to making changes.

The market for development of multi-residential buildings in Hamilton is still at an emergent stage though, so making it too hard for developers isn't a good thing either. But I think there's a balance. The province could (and probably should) create a more level playing field as well by mandating some of these things for all municipalities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.