Future Hamilton Skyline Renderings

[Crapht]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Also quite frankly I don't hate the height limit. It's allowing the growth to spread out a bit more into more projects, rather than focus in a few 45 storey towers. It'll let the city "fill out" faster.

I think with a property the size of City Centre with multiple high rises proposed, "filling out" is a bit redundant. As it is proposed there are 4 towers consisting of 114 storeys. It doesn't fill out anything more than the plot it sits on so a 55 fl tower and and 45 fl tower and a 14 fl midrise does the same thing. Jason Thorne has already said there can be exceptions to the height limit for exceptional proposals. City Centre could easily be an incredible proposal. As could Royal Connaught, Liuna Cobalt. I'm not saying they should all be huge but this 30 floor limit is just lame.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Crapht

I think with a property the size of City Centre with multiple high rises proposed, "filling out" is a bit redundant. As it is proposed there are 4 towers consisting of 114 storeys. It doesn't fill out anything more than the plot it sits on so a 55 fl tower and and 45 fl tower and a 14 fl midrise does the same thing. Jason Thorne has already said there can be exceptions to the height limit for exceptional proposals. City Centre could easily be an incredible proposal. As could Royal Connaught, Liuna Cobalt. I'm not saying they should all be huge but this 30 floor limit is just lame.

I honestly think this development should be the TALLEST in the entire city. It is the core of the city, like it or not. When you come from out of town the city should remind you of toronto in that the center is the highest and everything else peters away from that.

And as you all know, I am not a huge advocator for breaking height restrictions - but this is such an iconic GIANT piece of land, it DESERVES something substantial.

Something to make up for the amt of street blocks they originally leveled to "revitalize" this part of the city anyways..

[mikevbar1]

After giving it some thought, maybe this height limit Isnt the worst thing for this city. Sure, it stifles some fantastic projects, and comes from a place of NIMBYism rather than actual concern for an urban fabric. But by forcing buildings to be 30 floors or less, we get far more projects spread throughout the city that create plenty of infill. Perhaps if we had a taller height limit, the number of projects and lots filled would be lower. While it would be a win for most of us here as skyscraper enthusiasts, it really doesnt improve the generally very poor urban fabric of downtown as a whole. If we continue to get shorter but more spread out projects, then Hamilton's core will become far more livable as a result. Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Ya that's an excellent point you made! Filling out the downtown is very important. However I think we should still be more open to allowing some variance above the 30 (eg. Television City and City Center would be much better if allowed above the 30). But limiting the amount of these large projects will be beneficial in the end

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

After giving it some thought, maybe this height limit Isnt the worst thing for this city. Sure, it stifles some fantastic projects, and comes from a place of NIMBYism rather than actual concern for an urban fabric. But by forcing buildings to be 30 floors or less, we get far more projects spread throughout the city that create plenty of infill. Perhaps if we had a taller height limit, the number of projects and lots filled would be lower. While it would be a win for most of us here as skyscraper enthusiasts, it really doesnt improve the generally very poor urban fabric of downtown as a whole. If we continue to get shorter but more spread out projects, then Hamilton's core will become far more livable as a result. Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

After looking more into the economics of things too, I've become a fan of it as well. Your point is a great one. Having spoken with Jason Thorne about this policy, I became a supporter of it. His point is that there is a certain level of demand for Hamilton, and if it is all met downtown with skyscrapers, other areas of city won't get that same new growth.


The big issue is our idiot city council not incentivizing (cough LRT) development and outright denying them in many areas.

The other benefit is the effect on speculation. By setting a limit, there is a known profitability for properties, and therefore land can't be sold as if it could fetch a 50 storey height and it's profitability, which keeps land prices lower. Again, this is highly dependent on how council welds this power, and they do it terribly, but the on paper goal is sound from an economics perspective.

As we can see, there is enough demand for 30 storey buildings that a city that has had no condo development in 30 years has tons of towers proposed and being built, as well as new hotels and even some proposed office. Hamilton will be a completely different city in 10 years, and I'm doubtful as to the arguments against the building height limit, limiting that change.

Again, this is a forum for "skyscrapers" but I feel there is a bit of fetishism about tall building here that is simply around taller=better. As if the sky is the limit. I come here because new developments mean the city is progressing, and new people downtown will significantly alter the cities economics. People here also don't seem to have spoken with many developers, because higher =/= more profit in all cases, sometimes there is a profit margin at a lower height that is better.

Criticism of height, and support for the height limit gets attacked here though. Burlington does it all wrong, with it's inability to reign in development, whether you agree it should be done or not, but Hamilton's height limit is actually utilized and seems to be working. I would have been fine with a 20 storey limit if the city could properly wield the power to push medium density developments out to Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale along the LRT corridor.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

After looking more into the economics of things too, I've become a fan of it as well. Your point is a great one. Having spoken with Jason Thorne about this policy, I became a supporter of it. His point is that there is a certain level of demand for Hamilton, and if it is all met downtown with skyscrapers, other areas of city won't get that same new growth.


The big issue is our idiot city council not incentivizing (cough LRT) development and outright denying them in many areas.

The other benefit is the effect on speculation. By setting a limit, there is a known profitability for properties, and therefore land can't be sold as if it could fetch a 50 storey height and it's profitability, which keeps land prices lower. Again, this is highly dependent on how council welds this power, and they do it terribly, but the on paper goal is sound from an economics perspective.

As we can see, there is enough demand for 30 storey buildings that a city that has had no condo development in 30 years has tons of towers proposed and being built, as well as new hotels and even some proposed office. Hamilton will be a completely different city in 10 years, and I'm doubtful as to the arguments against the building height limit, limiting that change.

Again, this is a forum for "skyscrapers" but I feel there is a bit of fetishism about tall building here that is simply around taller=better. As if the sky is the limit. I come here because new developments mean the city is progressing, and new people downtown will significantly alter the cities economics. People here also don't seem to have spoken with many developers, because higher =/= more profit in all cases, sometimes there is a profit margin at a lower height that is better.

Criticism of height, and support for the height limit gets attacked here though. Burlington does it all wrong, with it's inability to reign in development, whether you agree it should be done or not, but Hamilton's height limit is actually utilized and seems to be working. I would have been fine with a 20 storey limit if the city could properly wield the power to push medium density developments out to Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale along the LRT corridor.

Im gonna use your points here to rant a little bit. Ultimately I believe the issues with the lack of development in Hamilton fall completely on our city council. The benefits we both mention feel like a silver lining of what is really a long running anti development/NIMBY mindset. While the ramifications of a 30 floor height limit aren't as bad as we thought, and can be beneficial like I originally said, theres still benefit for allowing buildings of taller heights like the old television city proposal. A 30 floor height limit is great as a guideline for dispersing development, but with Television city we didn't see a third tower or larger building to replace the 40 floor one- instead we got two 32 story buildings (vs 40+30). The development was chopped, rather than dispersed.

The effect of any development on our city at this point is beneficial. Imagine being a city and having the issue of too much development. Maybe someone could argue that's Toronto, but not here. We have hundreds of prime empty or underused lots. The ideal solution for most of these is mid-rise projects, while some (downtown) could easily be filled by true skyscrapers. The butterfly effect of a truly healthy downtown, where the number of empty surface lots is near zero cannot be underestated. Hamilton doesnt have to worry about an ugly highway tearing through the core; we just need good zoning policies and investment in transit to make this city really great.

I suppose Its nitpicking, but Hamilton really has the potential to be great, and I honestly cannot think of a city more inept at spurring growth that is in such an advantageous position. We are within close proximity to one of the fastest growing cities in North America. Hamilton has somehow managed to barely capitalize on this. We are a city that is more in league with American rust belt cities than many Canadian cities, so one would think our city would be grateful for such an economic blessing. This really doesnt seem to be the case. Im not suggesting Hamilton become the next Mississauga, but I do think it is completely within the cities power to attract medium scale projects to revitalize and rejuvinate the city. The Hamilton city centre redevelopment could theoretically be the tallest, most ambitious development in the city if we wanted to really consider whats possible. Not something thats 70+ stories, but anywhere from 50-65 floors could make for a landmark that also doesnt completely shut down demand in the city for new residential. This is all just me wanting a tall building in Hamilton; tall buildings are not necessary as we discussed, this city just needs some real vigor.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

im gonna use your points here to rant a little bit. Ultimately i believe the issues with the lack of development in hamilton fall completely on our city council. The benefits we both mention feel like a silver lining of what is really a long running anti development/nimby mindset. While the ramifications of a 30 floor height limit aren't as bad as we thought, and can be beneficial like i originally said, theres still benefit for allowing buildings of taller heights like the old television city proposal. A 30 floor height limit is great as a guideline for dispersing development, but with television city we didn't see a third tower or larger building to replace the 40 floor one- instead we got two 32 story buildings (vs 40+30). The development was chopped, rather than dispersed.

The effect of any development on our city at this point is beneficial. Imagine being a city and having the issue of too much development. Maybe someone could argue that's toronto, but not here. We have hundreds of prime empty or underused lots. The ideal solution for most of these is mid-rise projects, while some (downtown) could easily be filled by true skyscrapers. The butterfly effect of a truly healthy downtown, where the number of empty surface lots is near zero cannot be underestated. Hamilton doesnt have to worry about an ugly highway tearing through the core; we just need good zoning policies and investment in transit to make this city really great.

I suppose its nitpicking, but hamilton really has the potential to be great, and i honestly cannot think of a city more inept at spurring growth that is in such an advantageous position. We are within close proximity to one of the fastest growing cities in north america. Hamilton has somehow managed to barely capitalize on this. We are a city that is more in league with american rust belt cities than many canadian cities, so one would think our city would be grateful for such an economic blessing. This really doesnt seem to be the case. Im not suggesting hamilton become the next mississauga, but i do think it is completely within the cities power to attract medium scale projects to revitalize and rejuvinate the city. The hamilton city centre redevelopment could theoretically be the tallest, most ambitious development in the city if we wanted to really consider whats possible. Not something thats 70+ stories, but anywhere from 50-65 floors could make for a landmark that also doesnt completely shut down demand in the city for new residential. This is all just me wanting a tall building in hamilton; tall buildings are not necessary as we discussed, this city just needs some real vigor.

all of this !!!!! ✓✓✓✓ soooo true !!!

[ChildishGavino]

Well said. It shows where each councilor's priorities lie when they would rather appeal to their NIMBY voters instead of capitalizing on the biggest period of growth in the city for 50 years. What power they have! What power they squander...

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

The list so far (by addresses and number of towers):

1 Jarvis (1)
15 Queen South (1)
22 Bay South (1)
22 George (1)
43 King East (2)
57 Discovery (1)
61 Wilson (3)
71 Rebecca (1)
75 James South (1)
77 James North (4)
80 Hunter West (3)
98 James South (1)
112 King East (4)
154 Main (1)
163 Jackson (2)
200 Market (4)
212 King William (1)
213 King West (1)
221 John South (2)
235 Main West (1)
299 John South (3)
354 King West (2)

ericmacm these are amazing! Have you tried, or would it be straightforward to try, colour-coding each building in the model by status (proposed v approved v construction)?

[craftbeerdad]

We do have a highway through the middle of our city, it's called Main Street. This might be one of the single worse things past council members approved, but the whole idea was to get through the city as quickly as possible (race for the burbs). In fact when it first was pitched, the idea was to make it through the city of Hamilton in 12 minutes!

I'd love to work on a project (if it's even doable with our city councilors) to dead end some streets off of Main. It's terribly dangerous for cars trying to turn off Main at high speeds onto small basically one way streets in residential neighbourhoods (minus major through-ways). Not every street in Stinson, St. Clair, Corktown, etc., needs to be open to Main St. for an exit/entry. All the business other than major plazas are non-existent along Main and set-up for failure. Not to mention the congregation of people looking for trouble between Main and King between Wellington & Wentworth.

Jason Thorne talks about making our city more walkable. This would be a great start to this idea. Main St needs to be revamped for current times not a fast lane through the city.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by craftbeerdad

We do have a highway through the middle of our city, it's called Main Street. This might be one of the single worse things past council members approved, but the whole idea was to get through the city as quickly as possible (race for the burbs). In fact when it first was pitched, the idea was to make it through the city of Hamilton in 12 minutes!

I'd love to work on a project (if it's even doable with our city councilors) to dead end some streets off of Main. It's terribly dangerous for cars trying to turn off Main at high speeds onto small basically one way streets in residential neighbourhoods (minus major through-ways). Not every street in Stinson, St. Clair, Corktown, etc., needs to be open to Main St. for an exit/entry. All the business other than major plazas are non-existent along Main and set-up for failure. Not to mention the congregation of people looking for trouble between Main and King between Wellington & Wentworth.

Jason Thorne talks about making our city more walkable. This would be a great start to this idea. Main St needs to be revamped for current times not a fast lane through the city.

It's kind of crazy to me. Some people in Hamilton love Main and King, which I get if you are a driver who wants to get home asap. My problem is when people argue that fixing the highway that is main will ruin the city and downtown. Like guys, look at James, and look at Main. You really think Main streets desolate, vacant storefronts are going to get worse with slowing down Main st?


My other issue is with how it kills downtown. Again I get wanting to drive to your place from Toronto or Burlington or Oakville as fast as possible, but wouldn't it be great if our downtown had actual good employment in those vacant office towers so you don't need to drive 35-70 minutes for work??

People have been so used to Hamiltons downtown being a desolate wasteland in many parts with some great spots here and there that they've almost become proud to say they've traversed the Mad Max anarchy of downtown Hamilton.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

ericmacm these are amazing! Have you tried, or would it be straightforward to try, colour-coding each building in the model by status (proposed v approved v construction)?

It would be incredibly easy to do, and I have experimented with it. However, I really don't like how coloured massings show up in Google Earth in comparison to white.

[ericmacm]

Hey everyone, I'm back with the latest update. I had the new proposals complete for a while but I was sitting on it for a bit, waiting for more changes to happen so I could post them all at once. I have added the 3 towers at 190 Main West, the tower at 16 Cannon, and have updated the massing for 71 Rebecca.

The list so far (by addresses and number of towers):

1 Jarvis (1)
15 Queen South (1)
16 Cannon (1)
22 Bay South (1)
22 George (1)
43 King East (2)
57 Discovery (1)
61 Wilson (3)
71 Rebecca (1)
75 James South (1)
77 James North (4)
80 Hunter West (3)
98 James South (1)
112 King East (4)
154 Main (1)
163 Jackson (2)
190 Main West (3)
200 Market (4)
212 King William (1)
213 King West (1)
221 John South (2)
235 Main West (1)
299 John South (3)
354 King West (2)

Total # of new towers in skyline: 45

Hamilton Watermarked V6-1 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-2 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-3 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-4 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-5 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-6 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-7 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Hamilton Watermarked V6-8 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

[StEC]

Your watermark is making it very difficult to see many of the rendered proposals in a couple shots. I understand the need to have the watermark but would it be possible to get a little creative in the placement of the watermark to avoid covering the important parts?

I had some of my photos stolen from my instagram and shared on someone else's account as their own so I started putting watermarks but I try to place them strategically so not to ruin the photo.

Having said that we really appreciate the hard work you put into this, thank you! Our skyline will be pretty awesome in no time if not a little bit flat though.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by StEC

Your watermark is making it very difficult to see many of the rendered proposals in a couple shots. I understand the need to have the watermark but would it be possible to get a little creative in the placement of the watermark to avoid covering the important parts?

I had some of my photos stolen from my instagram and shared on someone else's account as their own so I started putting watermarks but I try to place them strategically so not to ruin the photo.

Having said that we really appreciate the hard work you put into this, thank you! Our skyline will be pretty awesome in no time if not a little bit flat though.

I apologize for that haha, I am going to redo at least one of the photos (the one where the watermark completely covers the skyline) from a different angle. I usually just do a batch operation in Lightroom to watermark all of my images at once so I don't really take the time to put a unique one in each image.

I regretfully had to start doing it because some real estate agents were stealing my images of Mississauga and re-watermarking them as their own. Unfortunately I'm doing it for all of my skylines now as a result.

Anytime! I've really enjoyed working on Hamilton, there's a lot going on and it's been an easy one to model in comparison to some other skylines. I'm excited to see it continue to grow in the future.

[johnnyhamont]

I'm not sure how much of a skyline impact 10-20fl buildings west of the 403 will have on a McMaster-area skyline, but I'd be curious to see if you don't mind adding proposals for that end of town to your model whenever you get a chance. By my count theres 7 towers in 5 projects planned all along Main St in that neighbourhood (From east to west: one two three four five).

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

I'm not sure how much of a skyline impact 10-20fl buildings west of the 403 will have on a McMaster-area skyline, but I'd be curious to see if you don't mind adding proposals for that end of town to your model whenever you get a chance. By my count theres 7 towers in 5 projects planned all along Main St in that neighbourhood (From east to west: one two three four five).

I can absolutely add them in for the next iteration. I appreciate you linking the project threads too, it should make it a much quicker process for me to do.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Hey everyone, I'm back with the latest update. I had the new proposals complete for a while but I was sitting on it for a bit, waiting for more changes to happen so I could post them all at once. I have added the 3 towers at 190 Main West, the tower at 16 Cannon, and have updated the massing for 71 Rebecca.

Hamilton Watermarked V6-1 by Eric MacMillan, on Flickr

Sorry for clogging up the thread, but I love how this aerial clearly shows those two wedge-shaped blocks bounded by Bay, Cannon, Queen and Napier.

As they stand now, very bad. It would be a fun experiment to play around with them and master plan every square inch...

[Chronamut]

I am surprised nothing has been built on that triangular green patch - it's a rather hefty chunk of land..

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I am surprised nothing has been built on that triangular green patch - it's a rather hefty chunk of land..

It's school board property. Formerly the Sir John A MacDonald HS playing field.