Métro City Condos | ?m | 3 x 20 fl | Proposed

[thomax]

Spallacci Proposes Three Tall Buildings at John Street South and St. Joseph's Drive

By Joey Coleman // @JoeyColeman

May 7, 2017

Following quickly on the successful redevelopment of the Royal Connaught and 101 Locke condominium developments, Spallacci Homes is in the early stages of applying to the City to build three tall buildings across from St. Joseph's Hospital at 299-307 John Street S and 97 St. Joseph’s Drive.

City staff describe the proposal as:

- Applicant proposes to construct 3 residential towers from 23-31 storeys with 948 units.

Urban Solutions has been retained as the planning consultants on the project. The firm has a track record of publicly releasing all its planning materials once they are available as submitted to the City. https://urbanshare.info/

The application is currently receiving its first staff reviews.

As a point of comparison, the nearby Olympia Condos at 150 Charlton Avenue East is 98 metres tall (322 ft) with 33 storeys.

Site:

Google Street View | 299-307 John St. S. & 97 St. Joseph’s Dr., Hamilton, Ontario

[hamilton23]

Originally Posted by thomax

Site:

Google Street View | 299-307 John St. S. & 97 St. Joseph’s Dr., Hamilton, Ontario

[drpgq]

So is 299-307 John the parking lot at the corner of John and Charlton?

[NortheastWind]

That's what Google says.

[JoeyColeman]

It's the entire property, including the existing residential (former nursing home) building.

It's a very large property; I'm hoping to review the file in the coming weeks. The file is presently undergoing staff review; I like to wait until staff comments are complete before requesting to see the file.

[ScreamingViking]

We live in unprecedented times, my friends. At least where our generation is concerned in #HamOnt.

Still though, it's lots of proposals... most yet to be shovels in the ground, never mind cranes and girders... but

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

We live in unprecedented times, my friends. At least where our generation is concerned in #HamOnt.

Still though, it's lots of proposals... most yet to be shovels in the ground, never mind cranes and girders... but

I have many friends in the development biz, and I assure you, they would love your support in the form of emails to councillors when they develop these proposals. The NIMBY crowd in Hamilton is phenomenal. They don't want high density housing built anywhere.... can't do it in the low density suburbs...can't do it in high density Durand.... it's no wonder our tax base has shrunk so significantly when a smallish group in the city constantly has the ear of their councillors, killing all new development and halting progress every chance they get.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

I have many friends in the development biz, and I assure you, they would love your support in the form of emails to councillors when they develop these proposals. The NIMBY crowd in Hamilton is phenomenal. They don't want high density housing built anywhere.... can't do it in the low density suburbs...can't do it in high density Durand.... it's no wonder our tax base has shrunk so significantly when a smallish group in the city constantly has the ear of their councillors, killing all new development and halting progress every chance they get.

Don`t do this. Most bad decisions this city makes is from a Councilor not listening to staff or consultants. Development has to be well-thought and planned.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by atnor

Don`t do this. Most bad decisions this city makes is from a Councilor not listening to staff or consultants. Development has to be well-thought and planned.

You're correct...but often they don't listen to professional staff because some whiny resident complains incessantly.

[ScreamingViking]

The value of the vote trumps professional opinion. (though the staffers who live in Hamilton vote too... but I doubt that factors into the equation)

This is hardly unique to Hamilton's city council, but many of them paint themselves into corners on issues and stubbornly refuse to change those opinions, even in the face of logical, reasoned, compelling evidence. I get that they're probably concerned with being painted as a flip-flopper (which happens anyway), but they will never please all their constituents and may gain kudos from some to balance the jeers from others. And a truthful and clear explanation for the change of stance will be respected by many, even if they still disagree with the position.

[drpgq]

I hope they include some ground floor commercial in this project. Something at the corner of Charlton and John would be great for the neighbourhood.

[anactualalien]

I want to believe this will have implications for the Corktown plaza down the street in the not to distant future. (maybe they'll abandon those planned renovations..)

[King&James]

Originally Posted by anactualalien

I want to believe this will have implications for the Corktown plaza down the street in the not to distant future. (maybe they'll abandon those planned renovations..)

Imagine the day when municipalities dont allow their downtowns to have surface parking lots - or at least not aong main avenues. Lets save those gems for suburbia.

[davidcappi]

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE
APPLICATION NO. MM/A-17:246

IN THE MATTER OF The planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, as amended and of the
Zoning By-Law No. 6593, of the City of Hamilton, Sections 11, 11C and 18A.
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Premises known as Municipal number 299 John St. S., in
the City of Hamilton and in an ''E-3/S-1512 and E/S-1512 arid E" (Multiple Dwelling,
Lodges* Clubs and etc. and High Density Multiple Dwelling) (Amending By-law 04-
252) district;

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by the agent Weir Foulds LLP do Paul Chronis on behalf of the owner Spallacci Contracting Ltd., for relief from the provisions of the Zoning By-Law No. 6593, under Section 45 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, so as to permit the establishment of a temporary public parking lot for a period of a maximum pf three (3) years Within the existing parking area that is currently associated With the existing retirement home and multiple dwelling on the lot notwithstanding that;

1. A public parking lot is not permitted in the E-3/S-1552;

2. The public parking lot is located a distance of 1O5.0m from the boundary of a
commercial district whereas the By-law states that no part of a public parking lot shall be farther than 60.0m from the boundary of a commercial or industrial district.

Notes: Please note that a scaled and dimensioned site plan showing a parking layout was not provided to confirm compliance respecting all other provisions of the Zoning By-law
i.e. parking space sizes, manoeuvring, access driveways widths, landscaping etc.
Therefore, additional variances may be required.
The lands qte subject to Site Plan Control.
The commercial zoned property located within 105.0m of the proposed public parking lot
is municipally known as 225 John Street South, Hamilton.

[hamilton23]

looking forward to sharing more about this development as things progress.

[HamiltonPlanning]

Is there gonna be some sort of height restriction in this area especially with this development being proposed so close too the escarpment?

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by HamiltonPlanning

Is there gonna be some sort of height restriction in this area especially with this development being proposed so close too the escarpment?

because we can't have urban buildings being built anywhere near this, right?.....

https://raisethehammer.org/article/8...and_el_mirador

[HamiltonPlanning]

I was just wondering... I'm all for height and density, I'm just asking if there are restrictions in the particular location?

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by HamiltonPlanning

I was just wondering... I'm all for height and density, I'm just asking if there are restrictions in the particular location?

i'm assuming there are. There are restriction in the entire downtown.
But as we've seen, they don't hold up due to the precedence of buildings that have existed for 40+ years.

[drpgq]

I live in the Arkledun on St. Joseph's Drive, which is effectively part way up the escarpment and is around 20 stories, depending on which side you start counting. So in the past, including the Olympia things have been built there. I really, really doubt the Arkledun would be approved today and I kind of wonder about the Olympia.

I think some of the issues we are now having with really tall buildings in Hamilton is the history of when buildings have been built. There was obviously a lot of apartment buildings and a few office towers built in the 60s and 70s and then very little. The Bentley was built around what 1989? And then very little with any height until relevantly recently. So when people say nothing has been built taller than the escarpment since the 70s, that's true, but it is also true that almost nothing tall has been built since the 70s until basically 5, 6 or 7 years ago.