Hamilton Housing Policy

[TheRitsman]

I see people discuss housing policy on here quite a bit, and felt like sharing this survey, but couldn't find a thread it fit well into, in addition to other housing policy initiatives in general.

Here is our chance to comment on housing policy in Hamilton with regard to density, and SDUs (or more): https://engage.hamilton.ca/residentialzoningproject

I also wanted to share that I find the second dwelling unit policy to be a bit soft of a solution. It really just makes it a bit easier to create second dwelling units, but doesn't tackle housing policy issues and the housing crisis to the degree that I think older parts of the city should take on. Toronto for example has old Victorian neighbourhoods filled with multi-unit buildings, both purpose built and renovated houses, and I think that making this easier would allow for a housing shortage to be met, because turning your existing house into a triplex or quadplex or tearing something crappy down and making a 5 or 6 unit building from scratch would be cheaper and easier and would lead to more investors doing so. Take a look at what Portland is doing if you're interested: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/08/...ousing-Crisis/

[Markus83]

In regards to new affordable homeless shelters in the City. Talk more about that around the end of the article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...tain-1.5951652

[Innsertnamehere]

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/up...g-Permits.xlsx

Toronto issued $8.8 billion in permits in 2017, if that’s worth anything. That’s the same as Hamilton issuing $1.7 billion in permits per capita.

[BaconPoutine]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/up...g-Permits.xlsx

Toronto issued $8.8 billion in permits in 2017, if that’s worth anything. That’s the same as Hamilton issuing $1.7 billion in permits per capita.

Wrong thread my friend

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by BaconPoutine

Wrong thread my friend

Whoops!

[King&James]

Saw this tweet from J Thorne - thoughts on infill solutions (like/dislike)?

https://twitter.com/JasonThorne_RPP/...61097374003200





Here is the builder's site for 347 Charlton

http://www.geapartments.com/347-charlton-ave-west

[davidcappi]

Thorne giving that project any praise is total hypocrisy considering he and every city department fought that building to the very end, right down to the colour of brick used. The neighbours didn't want it and the city forced the builder to go through a full rezoning process making them pay the same in fees as a 30 storey tower. If they really want this kind of development they have to zone for it as of right, with reduced parking requirements. What you can't see from the front is the large parking lot out back the city forced them to build. The owner has fully leased the building but half of the parking spots are unused because most of the tenants don't drive.

This is typical of Hamilton though, to fight something and call it terrible until it's finished, then to take all of the credit for how great and innovative it is (which, sorry to the owner, it's nice but it's no architectural marvel)

The same builder proposed a small mid rise building on Pearl Street / George Street where those townhouses are currently proposed but staff fought the midrise and insisted on townhomes.

[Innsertnamehere]

great looking project - a shame that it took full site plan approval and a zoning by-law amendment to build though.

Ideally these should be given a streamlined SPA application at the very least with reduced fees and a quick 1 resubmission process to address minor issues. They don't need rigorous analysis and complex site plan agreements. At most it should be "fix these issues" - say the exact location of an accessibility ramp or how garbage would be stored, and issue the permit. No review of material selections, reduced parking requirements, permissive zoning.

If the city truly wants to eliminate the urban boundary expansion they are going to have to make these projects not only possible but easy to do, citywide.

If you want a developer to build a sixplex instead of a new mega sized SFH, you need to make the permitting process just as easy. There is no reason a developer will build like this if they need a 2 year approvals process if they can build a SFH simply by filing a building permit.


Just generally I'm weary of the City's push to eliminate the urban boundary expansion.. It's an honourable goal but I would be extremely surprised if they implement the policies needed to make infill development easy. Otherwise all it's going to do is restrict supply and making housing even more unaffordable.

[King&James]

I wonder what the outcomes would be if we put the NIMBY's , "Say no to +30 storeys", and "no urban boundary expansion" groups in one room with the "you must add 300,000 residents to your lands" - no one leaves without an agreement in place. Probably get a European city.

[Innsertnamehere]

You would get “6 storeys along main streets and no changes to residential areas”, maybe. Which would accommodate a whopping 30,000 people. And they wouldn’t care to suggest an alternative
Then those people will turn around and complain how their grandchildren can’t afford housing any more.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Thorne giving that project any praise is total hypocrisy considering he and every city department fought that building to the very end, right down to the colour of brick used. The neighbours didn't want it and the city forced the builder to go through a full rezoning process making them pay the same in fees as a 30 storey tower. If they really want this kind of development they have to zone for it as of right, with reduced parking requirements. What you can't see from the front is the large parking lot out back the city forced them to build. The owner has fully leased the building but half of the parking spots are unused because most of the tenants don't drive.

This is typical of Hamilton though, to fight something and call it terrible until it's finished, then to take all of the credit for how great and innovative it is (which, sorry to the owner, it's nice but it's no architectural marvel)

The same builder proposed a small mid rise building on Pearl Street / George Street where those townhouses are currently proposed but staff fought the midrise and insisted on townhomes.

This is too true. It is frustrating seeing city staff highlighting something like they were responsible when you know behind the scenes what a road block they are.

[Bubba9000]

Just generally I'm weary of the City's push to eliminate the urban boundary expansion..

Pretty sure the only push to hold the current boundary is coming from citizens who know expansion is not needed. The city only knows how to sprawl because they are instructed by the developers' lawyers and consultants.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Bubba9000

Pretty sure the only push to hold the current boundary is coming from citizens who know expansion is not needed. The city only knows how to sprawl because they are instructed by the developers' lawyers and consultants.

It's essentially a ponzi scheme that is baked into our zoning and urban planning, and it's difficult to move away from that. Municipalities that run out of room will be hurt earlier without progressive zoning before the suburban hellholes that still have room to expand. That's why the Green Belt was created.

This video does a decent job of introducing why it happens, and what the problem is caused by: https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0

[Bubba9000]

This video does a decent job of introducing why it happens, and what the problem is caused by: https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0

Fabulous video. If only the typical citizen was informed on the issue it could be stopped. Is it just boring and/or complex enough that people aren't interested?

Perhaps we need to force people to watch the video a la Clockwork Orange. Any better ideas?

[Hawrylyshyn]

Get mainstream media on board! If they can find a way to turn it into fear porn (which I'm sure they could) people will be all over it

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Bubba9000

Fabulous video. If only the typical citizen was informed on the issue it could be stopped. Is it just boring and/or complex enough that people aren't interested?

Perhaps we need to force people to watch the video a la Clockwork Orange. Any better ideas?

The issue I think is two fold:

1) Sprawl provides a type of housing that generations of people have come to expect as their right.

2) Urban boundary limiting raises prices, and creates the need to densify existing areas, which people think hurts their property values.

This all exacerbated by the fact that home owners are a huge voting bloc and have a lot of money and time to complain about zoning policy that isn't exactly to their liking.

[onetimetoomany]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

great looking project - a shame that it took full site plan approval and a zoning by-law amendment to build though.

Ideally these should be given a streamlined SPA application at the very least with reduced fees and a quick 1 resubmission process to address minor issues. They don't need rigorous analysis and complex site plan agreements. At most it should be "fix these issues" - say the exact location of an accessibility ramp or how garbage would be stored, and issue the permit. No review of material selections, reduced parking requirements, permissive zoning.

If the city truly wants to eliminate the urban boundary expansion they are going to have to make these projects not only possible but easy to do, citywide.

If you want a developer to build a sixplex instead of a new mega sized SFH, you need to make the permitting process just as easy. There is no reason a developer will build like this if they need a 2 year approvals process if they can build a SFH simply by filing a building permit.


Just generally I'm weary of the City's push to eliminate the urban boundary expansion.. It's an honourable goal but I would be extremely surprised if they implement the policies needed to make infill development easy. Otherwise all it's going to do is restrict supply and making housing even more unaffordable.

I can't get over this project taking four years. The process is unnecessarily arduous and I don't see how the city will produce any meaningful amount of housing with the way things are.

[Markus83]

Getting closer on this one, about bloody time too!

https://www.thespec.com/news/council...-approval.html

[johnnyhamont]

I thought Hamilton already did this? Or was it only for entire buildings before?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...lton-1.6090315

[craftbeerdad]

Councilor Nann's team conducted a study previously and yesterday she put forward a motion which was passed by city council. Tax rate should be higher than 1-2% though to really up the revenue and dissuade speculators.