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

[LRTfan]

only in Hamilton.... this type of development doesn't belong downtown like it does in every other city in the country.
This type of development doesn't belong along a major freeway like it does in every other city in the country.
We get it - some people want Hamilton to be a private gated community only for those rich enough to be able to afford detached homes and multiple cars in the middle of nowhere....

I say it's time for Hamilton to stop shrinking and grow up already.

[king10]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

This is exactly why a small city like Burlington continues to blow past Hamilton in nice development...and we are here with our heads up our asses telling developers that they are wrong and the nimbys are right ....

huh. Burlington is even in worse in curbing towers in their City.

They tried to annex Waterdown because their City was built on sprawl up to its existing borders and ran out of space to build. They weren't even close to meeting intensification targets.

Agree with the previous sentiments that this development does not belong on the shores of Stoney Creek. Should be downtown.

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

only in Hamilton.... this type of development doesn't belong downtown like it does in every other city in the country.
This type of development doesn't belong along a major freeway like it does in every other city in the country.
We get it - some people want Hamilton to be a private gated community only for those rich enough to be able to afford detached homes and multiple cars in the middle of nowhere....

I say it's time for Hamilton to stop shrinking and grow up already.

I feel you’re over exaggerating with the every other City in the country comment. The same sentiment on tall builds is shared in neighboring communities of Oakville and Burlington as well as others across the country.

The private gated community comment is off the mark IMO. The majority of people want smart growth which includes tall buildings in the appropriate areas(downtown). Not height for the sake of height in suburbs that lack the needed transit connections.

Also Hamilton isnt shrinking. Its population grew in the last census and is expected to continue to grow. And if the comment makes reference to grow up in terms of tall buildings, that is also happening as its top 10 tallest looks to be over 50% new builds in the next 5 years.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

New Horizon built the 22-storey Bridgewater that Jeff Paikin plans to call home, though they took that over when it was already in progress.

Aside from the 12-storey City Square, New Horizon also built the six-storey Sapphire At Waterfront Trails a stone's throw from this proposal.

Thanks! That definitely doesn't instill confidence even if it were to fly through City Hall. Hoping I get proven wrong!

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by king10

huh. Burlington is even in worse in curbing towers in their City.

They tried to annex Waterdown because their City was built on sprawl up to its existing borders and ran out of space to build. They weren't even close to meeting intensification targets.

Agree with the previous sentiments that this development does not belong on the shores of Stoney Creek. Should be downtown.

Burlington is definitely not the poster-child of accepting height for height's sake. Those wanting to make that argument need look to the Mrs. Aguas and Vaughans of Ontario. There is plenty of intensification happening in Btown, not as much as could be, but it's a start and it's really not all that bad in terms of scale (on balance)

But the annexation idea was one incumbent mayoral candidate's dying desperate measure to save his campaign. Keep the towers from downtown, but own more sprawl... boost our tax base... damn whatever compensation would be owed #HamOnt.

I still think this developer would be amenable to options that make more sense. Even if still in Stoney Creek, near the new GO station.

Wonder if someone really did ef-up by forgetting of this lakeshore zoning when the old Hamilton-Wentworth rules were combined into a single new City of Hamilton collective. Or did they do it knowingly?

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Burlington is definitely not the poster-child of accepting height for height's sake. Those wanting to make that argument need look to the Mrs. Aguas and Vaughans of Ontario. There is plenty of intensification happening in Btown, not as much as could be, but it's a start and it's really not all that bad in terms of scale (on balance)

But the annexation idea was one incumbent mayoral candidate's dying desperate measure to save his campaign. Keep the towers from downtown, but own more sprawl... boost our tax base... damn whatever compensation would be owed #HamOnt.

Agree that Burlington isn't a good model for height acceptance - a lot of their projects have happened thanks to the OMB favouring proper planning principles over NIMBYism. However I think the point HamiltonBoyInToronto was making was that Burlington has developed more tall towers in their downtown recently than Hamilton has, not that Burlington is more accepting or encouraging of height.

Long term, models like Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Mississauga are the ones we should follow IMO - they're all removing restrictions to tall and dense development. IIRC Mississauga in particular has no height or density limits in the Downtown and is only restricted by high parking ratios and shadow concerns.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

However I think the point HamiltonBoyInToronto was making was that Burlington has developed more tall towers in their downtown recently than Hamilton has, not that Burlington is more accepting or encouraging of height.

That doesn't hold water either. So far the Bridgewater is the only example that's "developed", and it and its approved brethren are less tall than Vranich's already built towers and the ones approved and good-to-go in downtown Hamilton.

I don't think the number of "tall" approvals is higher either.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

That doesn't hold water either. So far the Bridgewater is the only example that's "developed", and it and its approved brethren are less tall than Vranich's already built towers and the ones approved and good-to-go in downtown Hamilton.

I don't think the number of "tall" approvals is higher either.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with their point - just clarifying how I personally interpreted it.

[King&James]

What is the next hurdle for the Horizon development? And is there a timeline?

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

Long term, models like Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Mississauga are the ones we should follow IMO - they're all removing restrictions to tall and dense development. IIRC Mississauga in particular has no height or density limits in the Downtown and is only restricted by high parking ratios and shadow concerns.

I don't agree those should be the models aha, those cities suck to live in and are car paradise. There is no city I hate visiting than Vaugn or Sauga. Their downtowns have absolutely no walkabiliry when compared to Toronto or Hamilton's downtown. Cities aren't just height. New York would not be as desirable as it is if it's road were 6 lanes across and we're built like essentially a skyscraper suburb. I appreciate good design and tall buildings but I can't in good conscience support badly designed cities for the purposes of my personal desires.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by king10

I feel you’re over exaggerating with the every other City in the country comment. The same sentiment on tall builds is shared in neighboring communities of Oakville and Burlington as well as others across the country.

The private gated community comment is off the mark IMO. The majority of people want smart growth which includes tall buildings in the appropriate areas(downtown). Not height for the sake of height in suburbs that lack the needed transit connections.

Also Hamilton isnt shrinking. Its population grew in the last census and is expected to continue to grow. And if the comment makes reference to grow up in terms of tall buildings, that is also happening as its top 10 tallest looks to be over 50% new builds in the next 5 years.

I don't think Burlington and Oakville have ever once popped into my mind when I'm referring to the 'other cities' in Canada. I'm talking actual, real cities and their immediate suburbs.

Burnaby BC along Hwy 1:


Mississauga 81 storeys:


Laval, QC:


Vaughan, ON:


Freaking Grimsby:


Scarborough:



The list goes on and on where suburban regions in Canada, some with good transit, some that are mostly car-dependant are seeing high density living. Hamilton's do-nothing, small town mindset is to oppose density instead of improve transit. You get the city you plan for...and we continue to plan for 100% cars without a peep from all these whiny NIMBYs.
This Stoney Creek site is one of the easiest in the city to connect to the city's B-Line and GO Train network. It's all right there on the other side of the QEW. But instead of extend transit by a few thousand metres, we let the whiners keep everything car-dependant.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by king10

I feel you’re over exaggerating with the every other City in the country comment. The same sentiment on tall builds is shared in neighboring communities of Oakville and Burlington as well as others across the country.

The private gated community comment is off the mark IMO. The majority of people want smart growth which includes tall buildings in the appropriate areas(downtown). Not height for the sake of height in suburbs that lack the needed transit connections.

I dont think its an exaggeration at all. Hamilton is not, and should never see itself as, a suburb of Toronto like Burlington, Oakville or even Sauga/Vaughn. I mention the first two because we are a real city, with a real, tangible downtown that needs development. frankly, while every city holds a NIMBY presence, Hamilton has embraced their mindset and enabled them to dictate policies. What city in their right mind turns away meager 40fl buildings right in their downtown (especially cities needing urban revitalization, like Hamilton)? Oakville and Burlington have at least some merit to turn these developments away, as a far larger portion of people living there are true suburbanites for Toronto. But even that argument doesnt hold up, as the aforementioned Bridgewater project has gone forward, along with various others across the region.

If anything, the people in Hamilton who advocate against the taller buildings want them in suburbia, where they can't be seen. They frankly do not care about "smart growth", and would rather encourage suburban development as a whole. We see it all the time, and its frankly discouraging to see 40+ detached homes get approved without a hitch out on the east mountain on empty farmland while any given 20+ floor condo building has to go through a thousand hurdles to get approved on an empty lot. Of course, This project isn't in a good location. It doesn't make any sense when considering urban planning at all. But I see it as a big 'fuck you' to the city rather than a legitimate proposal. Hamilton is one of the largest cities in Canada, and the third largest (proper) city in Ontario (I dont count Mississauga since its so close to Toronto). It's time we act like it. Sadly this long-running anti-business, anti-development mindset runs deep in our city and has done so for almost 50 years now. These suburban skyscrapers here are just a symptom of a larger issue. I know I've deviated a bit from your original point, but I hope to just add some context to this whole project how I see it.

[king10]

LRT you just referenced Mississauga and Vaughn as real cities. That just makes it seem all you care about is height for the sake of height and not livability or walkability. I'm sure thats not the case but just because they build really tall doesn't make them real cities.

Sauga and Vaughn are horrible examples of City planning. Great that they have some tall buildings sprinkled among their swath of suburban build out and 6 lane car centric roadways running through downtown. Not something Hamilton should strive for IMO.

Good discussion and points from everyone in this thread though. Great to see so many people engaged and concerned about the Citys future!

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by king10

LRT you just referenced Mississauga and Vaughn as real cities. That just makes it seem all you care about is height for the sake of height and not livability or walkability. I'm sure thats not the case but just because they build really tall doesn't make them real cities.

Sauga and Vaughn are horrible examples of City planning. Great that they have some tall buildings sprinkled among their swath of suburban build out and 6 lane car centric roadways running through downtown. Not something Hamilton should strive for IMO.

Good discussion and points from everyone in this thread though. Great to see so many people engaged and concerned about the Citys future!

Here was my exact quote: "I don't think Burlington and Oakville have ever once popped into my mind when I'm referring to the 'other cities' in Canada. I'm talking actual, real cities and their immediate suburbs."

Mississauga and Vaughan are absolutely suburbs of TO. As is Laval to Montreal, Burnaby to VAN etc.....

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

I dont think its an exaggeration at all. Hamilton is not, and should never see itself as, a suburb of Toronto like Burlington, Oakville or even Sauga/Vaughn. I mention the first two because we are a real city, with a real, tangible downtown that needs development. frankly, while every city holds a NIMBY presence, Hamilton has embraced their mindset and enabled them to dictate policies. What city in their right mind turns away meager 40fl buildings right in their downtown (especially cities needing urban revitalization, like Hamilton)? Oakville and Burlington have at least some merit to turn these developments away, as a far larger portion of people living there are true suburbanites for Toronto. But even that argument doesnt hold up, as the aforementioned Bridgewater project has gone forward, along with various others across the region.

If anything, the people in Hamilton who advocate against the taller buildings want them in suburbia, where they can't be seen. They frankly do not care about "smart growth", and would rather encourage suburban development as a whole. We see it all the time, and its frankly discouraging to see 40+ detached homes get approved without a hitch out on the east mountain on empty farmland while any given 20+ floor condo building has to go through a thousand hurdles to get approved on an empty lot. Of course, This project isn't in a good location. It doesn't make any sense when considering urban planning at all. But I see it as a big 'fuck you' to the city rather than a legitimate proposal. Hamilton is one of the largest cities in Canada, and the third largest (proper) city in Ontario (I dont count Mississauga since its so close to Toronto). It's time we act like it. Sadly this long-running anti-business, anti-development mindset runs deep in our city and has done so for almost 50 years now. These suburban skyscrapers here are just a symptom of a larger issue. I know I've deviated a bit from your original point, but I hope to just add some context to this whole project how I see it.

> Sadly this long-running anti-business, anti-development mindset runs deep in our city and has done so for almost 50 years now. These suburban skyscrapers here are just a symptom of a larger issue


So on the money. Keep in mind, 50 years ago this land was zoned for EXACTLY this type of development. Hamilton was still being ambitious and looking at their own lake-side high density hood like Humber Shores was being planned for in TO. The only thing that has changed in 50 years is now we have zero ambition and zero leadership at city hall. Toronto continues to boom as does the rest of the GTA.

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

> Sadly this long-running anti-business, anti-development mindset runs deep in our city and has done so for almost 50 years now. These suburban skyscrapers here are just a symptom of a larger issue


So on the money. Keep in mind, 50 years ago this land was zoned for EXACTLY this type of development. Hamilton was still being ambitious and looking at their own lake-side high density hood like Humber Shores was being planned for in TO. The only thing that has changed in 50 years is now we have zero ambition and zero leadership at city hall. Toronto continues to boom as does the rest of the GTA.

Except for the fact that Hamilton didn't zone that land, Saltfleet Township did, which was amalgamated to Stoney Creek which was amalgamated to Hamilton, other than that no changes

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Here was my exact quote: "I don't think Burlington and Oakville have ever once popped into my mind when I'm referring to the 'other cities' in Canada. I'm talking actual, real cities and their immediate suburbs."

Mississauga and Vaughan are absolutely suburbs of TO. As is Laval to Montreal, Burnaby to VAN etc.....

I agree that they are suburbs of T.O. My point is more that they shouldn't be looked as examples for Hamilton to replicate just because they build really tall.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by king10

I agree that they are suburbs of T.O. My point is more that they shouldn't be looked as examples for Hamilton to replicate just because they build really tall.

Exactly. Tall buildings are like concept cars, fun to look at, but are they functional? If not they should not be approved, regardless of how they look. These are the new suburban 70s stalinist blocks we all hate.

I'll disagree with the city in many development denials, especially the two beside the Go station, but this is an incorrect location for this development from every single planning best practice.

[King&James]

So putting on their big boy pants, why didn't Thorne and troop proactively overwrite the existing zoning and cap all Hamilton to 30 storeys. Seems to me that they fully knew this area had no height / density restrictions and just left it out. Is it the only site in Hamilton with these attributes. New Horizon should use this as a bargaining chip for density and height transfer to other high impact locations where the City is welcoming density. Smart play on their part, and if the City says no to a swap, then bring on the towers as planned.

[Innsertnamehere]

That grimsby image is actually of a condo at Leslie and eglinton in Toronto.