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

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by Loki123

Hello,

I am not sure everyone in this discussion is aware of all the developments that are currently being planned for this very small area.

Corktown Plaza

Main and Walnut https://mainandwalnut.urbanshare.info/

Forest and Catharine https://forestcatharine.urbanshare.info/updates-news/

Augusta and Walnut. https://augustayoung.urbanshare.info/

Charlton and Wellington.

You may be saying Nimby, but how many development can one small neighbourhood sustain?

Joey Coleman, can you please comment?

PS...every single one of those developments is on a parking lot, or piece of vacant land. Neither of those should exist anywhere in a proper downtown.

[realcity]

brilliant response LRTfan. If this is what Thorne wants - underused land use, parking lots downtown - everything is frigged for another generation. #itsthesmallthings is what Thorne thinks he will sleep at nite with. No, you got to build up and dense. #PlacestoGrowAct means nothing in #hamont.

[Katrillion]

This is a ridiculous overdevelopment of this site that comes off somewhat greedy. Sorry but there is no way is this ever going to be approved in our political climate in its current condition. I also doubt we have the demand for this kind of development so soon. Incremental/piecemeal development is where it's at (kudos to Dpai and CoreUrban)!

Does Hamilton have any tower separation minimums yet (in Toronto it's 25m)?

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by Katrillion

This is a ridiculous overdevelopment of this site that comes off somewhat greedy. Sorry but there is no way is this ever going to be approved in our political climate in its current condition. I also doubt we have the demand for this kind of development so soon. Incremental/piecemeal development is where it's at (kudos to Dpai and CoreUrban)!

Does Hamilton have any tower separation minimums yet (in Toronto it's 25m)?

Based on the obscene prices for housing in lower Hamilton one could easily argue that there is demand for more housing.
Also, if there is no demand for something, can we really call the developer of said product 'greedy'? You can't have it both ways...developers are evil and greedy...oh, and nobody wants anything they are providing.

Hamilton needs 10's of thousands of new urban housing units yesterday. All the social media warriors who like to pretend they care about our crazy rise in housing costs are always the same people opposing more supply into the market. Pure NIMBYism and elitism.

[LRTfan]

figured this would fit here with the talk of 'overdevelopment' in Hamilton (I can't help but laugh even while typing that)

Check out what downtown TO looked like in as recently as the 1980's when the Skydome was built....some cities have vision

https://twitter.com/blogTO/status/962792328376156160

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Based on the obscene prices for housing in lower Hamilton one could easily argue that there is demand for more housing.
Also, if there is no demand for something, can we really call the developer of said product 'greedy'? You can't have it both ways...developers are evil and greedy...oh, and nobody wants anything they are providing.

Hamilton needs 10's of thousands of new urban housing units yesterday. All the social media warriors who like to pretend they care about our crazy rise in housing costs are always the same people opposing more supply into the market. Pure NIMBYism and elitism.

lol

house pricing in Hamilton is still extremely affordable. You can easily pick up half decent detached houses for $300k.. That is like a $1,200 mortgage payment.

The condo market in Hamilton is still in the extremely affordable phase - current prices psf barely permit new construction. Population growth as a whole is also a lot, lot slower than Toronto. The reality is that Hamilton is not going to be completely transformed into a hugely dense city in 20 years like Toronto was. You have to be more careful where you are placing limited demand for new construction units.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

lol

house pricing in Hamilton is still extremely affordable. You can easily pick up half decent detached houses for $300k.. That is like a $1,200 mortgage payment.

The condo market in Hamilton is still in the extremely affordable phase - current prices psf barely permit new construction. Population growth as a whole is also a lot, lot slower than Toronto. The reality is that Hamilton is not going to be completely transformed into a hugely dense city in 20 years like Toronto was. You have to be more careful where you are placing limited demand for new construction units.

Where can i get a decent detached house for $300k ? Like in the east end?

[durandy]

Originally Posted by Loki123

Hello,

I am not sure everyone in this discussion is aware of all the developments that are currently being planned for this very small area.

Corktown Plaza

Main and Walnut https://mainandwalnut.urbanshare.info/

Forest and Catharine https://forestcatharine.urbanshare.info/updates-news/

Augusta and Walnut. https://augustayoung.urbanshare.info/

Charlton and Wellington.

You may be saying Nimby, but how many development can one small neighbourhood sustain?

Joey Coleman, can you please comment?

Sergio Manchia is busy!

[davidcappi]

Lol @ asking joey Coleman for reassurance. He's no more of an urban planner than anyone else on this forum, and will probably offer a slightly biased and jaded stance.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by king10

Where can i get a decent detached house for $300k ? Like in the east end?

Take a look at realtor.ca. There are very few listings at the $200 - $300k price point for a detached house anywhere in Hamilton.

[realcity]

WHY ARE YOU AGAINST DENSITY? Have you ever been to another city? A real city that has an Opera Co. pro hockey, a CBD with actual businesses? #HAMONT is never going to be something other than the shithole of Canada, Peace. fucking embarrassing.

[king10]

EDIT: found a more appropriate thread for the post

[Chronamut]

Basically you have the people who have lived in the decaying old hamilton, in sketchy areas, paying low prices now being upset when hamilton is being dragged up to a "normal" city with "normal" prices.

You drag that up, you get in the jobs that pay more, or offer commute to toronto jobs that pay more, and suddenly the higher prices doesn't seem so bad. It's when the price of living outweighs the price of earning, that is when the issue comes.

Currently I feel there is a clash with this. Some people are still making "old hamilton" wages, and are feeling the pinch, others are coming from toronto, and seing what to them is ridiculously low living expenses, and then you got the generational welfarers who want everything to remain terrible and sketchy so they can continue their *ahem* white (or coloured) trash lifestyles.

Personally, I just want to see hamilton return to its golden years, where stuff was expensive, but people had good jobs and could afford things. If that involves those who cannot afford hamilton to have to further move to the outlying regions, as they have already started to do, then so be it.

---

Personally I am a bit in the middle. Those in my place are paying 300 bucks more than me at least simply due to me being grandfathered in. I have dependencies, and myself to take care of. I recently got a pay hike, where before I was barely getting by on each paycheque, and now I am starting to be able to save, so I can understand how a bit of a living expenses hike can throw your entire life out of whack. It's easy to say "well just get a better paying job" but if it were that simple then we would all be millionaires. There is always two sides to the equation.

Do we want to remain basically a has-been detroit-like slum where people can afford to live but nothing is ever improved, or do we destroy everything and build up to get the population, and drive the poor people out?

As always it's somewhere in the middle.

You want change? Start running for positions in the city where you can directly do it. You might not find it so easy once you are in the drivers seat.

Also I love that time lapse of the skydome - the skydome and the CN tower are 2 iconic symbols of toronto - what are hamiltons?

I love seeing a citys ambition.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by realcity

WHY ARE YOU AGAINST DENSITY? Have you ever been to another city? A real city that has an Opera Co. pro hockey, a CBD with actual businesses? #HAMONT is never going to be something other than the shithole of Canada, Peace. fucking embarrassing.

You're doing good at demonstrating why you've been temp banned on here like, what, twice now? Seriously, why are you even here? You never seem to have anything useful to contribute. Just constant whining and insults. If the city doesn't meet your needs, move on. There's plenty of other subforums for other cities on here. Ones that do have opera companies, pro hockey teams and "actual businesses".

[JoeyColeman]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Lol @ asking joey Coleman for reassurance. He's no more of an urban planner than anyone else on this forum, and will probably offer a slightly biased and jaded stance.

Yeah, that absolute idiot who regularly attends professional development at the Ryerson's Centre for Urban Research and Land Development, UofT Scarborough, who attends the Ontario Municipal Board, Committee of Adjustment, the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences. That guy's a complete moron, how did he join this forum in 2006 in the first place. Clearly, the standards in this forum in 2006 were lacking!

David, you betray a lack of knowledge in planning and ability in civic discourse by your baseless personal attacks. That you resort to these attacks regularly diminishes your credibility, feel free to continue, but be aware that you cause no harm to me, but do cause harm to your own reputation.

[JoeyColeman]

Originally Posted by Loki123

You may be saying Nimby, but how many development can one small neighbourhood sustain?

Joey Coleman, can you please comment?

This particular initial application appears to be the developer creating the stage for a "compromise" which will give them what they actually seek to develop.

The escarpment height in this location is uniquely more sensitive than elsewhere because of the sightlines from Sam Lawrence Park to the harbour. One of the goals of increasing allowed heights in the Downtown to the level of the escarpment is to protect views of the harbour from the escarpment, and to maintain the integrity of the escarpments edge as viewed from a distance. One can debate the merits of the escarpment limit; nonetheless, this in the tall building guidelines. LiUNA accepted them, and with the Kresge site approval, the escarpment height is now a precedent.

In terms of the concentration of development, focused along John Street South, the location is good for development provided Council takes the advice of the Design Review Panel on creating a walkable street that connects to the GO, and to the LRT.

The owners of the Corktown Plaza are already thinking about great urban design, the interface with the street, and provided the other developments move forward, it will create the necessary demands for a great mixed-use redevelopment of that site that will enable people to take care of all their shopping and service needs in the neighbourhood.

In terms of density, I encourage watching the recent talk given by Ken Greenberg and Steve Robichaud on how to manage grow. This talk changed my view from one of let's just build to the sky, there is no such thing as too tall, into a more nuanced view of height and density that better reflects the collected knowledge of and examples from other cities like Hamilton.

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2017/...eve-robichaud/

Regarding the application on this specific project, I need to review it in much more detail, and will likely await the comments of the many professional staff at the City of Hamilton who have more expertise than I do.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by JoeyColeman

This particular initial application appears to be the developer creating the stage for a "compromise" which will give them what they actually seek to develop.

The escarpment height in this location is uniquely more sensitive than elsewhere because of the sightlines from Sam Lawrence Park to the harbour. One of the goals of increasing allowed heights in the Downtown to the level of the escarpment is to protect views of the harbour from the escarpment, and to maintain the integrity of the escarpments edge as viewed from a distance. One can debate the merits of the escarpment limit; nonetheless, this in the tall building guidelines. LiUNA accepted them, and with the Kresge site approval, the escarpment height is now a precedent.

In terms of the concentration of development, focused along John Street South, the location is good for development provided Council takes the advice of the Design Review Panel on creating a walkable street that connects to the GO, and to the LRT.

The owners of the Corktown Plaza are already thinking about great urban design, the interface with the street, and provided the other developments move forward, it will create the necessary demands for a great mixed-use redevelopment of that site that will enable people to take care of all their shopping and service needs in the neighbourhood.

In terms of density, I encourage watching the recent talk given by Ken Greenberg and Steve Robichaud on how to manage grow. This talk changed my view from one of let's just build to the sky, there is no such thing as too tall, into a more nuanced view of height and density that better reflects the collected knowledge of and examples from other cities like Hamilton.

https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2017/...eve-robichaud/

Regarding the application on this specific project, I need to review it in much more detail, and will likely await the comments of the many professional staff at the City of Hamilton who have more expertise than I do.

Well said Joey....imagine john south with new mixed use developments on this site, and Corktown Plaza...would be awesome to add new walkable streets in the core.

As for LIUNA site setting a precedent, not quite yet. The new height bylaw isn't in effect and city staff are fully expecting full OMB cases on a couple of these sites. Perhaps TV City, Medallion on Bold or this one. I fully expect the OMB to side with builders in light of current heights already existing downtown.

[JoeyColeman]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Well said Joey....imagine john south with new mixed use developments on this site, and Corktown Plaza...would be awesome to add new walkable streets in the core.

As for LIUNA site setting a precedent, not quite yet. The new height bylaw isn't in effect and city staff are fully expecting full OMB cases on a couple of these sites. Perhaps TV City, Medallion on Bold or this one. I fully expect the OMB to side with builders in light of current heights already existing downtown.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out at the OMB, and I'll have to check the OMB case list to see if any of these developers went to appeal for non-decision.

Politically, the LIUNA site is the precedent, they accepted 30 and 30 instead of 25 and 35.

If none of these are being heard under the old system, we'll have to see how LPAT plays out, but I would not expect them to get exceptions. The standard of review appears that it will be reasonableness, not correctness. Meaning that LPAT must look at if the City was reasonable in creating the new height limits, and tall building guidelines - not if LPAT agrees with them. The City has extensive documentation on why it created the 30 storey limit; it is up to developers to decide if they wish to pursue an OMB case for extra storeys, or accept 30 and save themselves the cost of that OMB fight.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by JoeyColeman

It will be interesting to see how it plays out at the OMB, and I'll have to check the OMB case list to see if any of these developers went to appeal for non-decision.

Politically, the LIUNA site is the precedent, they accepted 30 and 30 instead of 25 and 35.

If none of these are being heard under the old system, we'll have to see how LPAT plays out, but I would not expect them to get exceptions. The standard of review appears that it will be reasonableness, not correctness. Meaning that LPAT must look at if the City was reasonable in creating the new height limits, and tall building guidelines - not if LPAT agrees with them. The City has extensive documentation on why it created the 30 storey limit; it is up to developers to decide if they wish to pursue an OMB case for extra storeys, or accept 30 and save themselves the cost of that OMB fight.

I'm not certain if any will go to the OMB, although Brad Lamb has taken city council's to the OMB before for 'non-decision'.
Of note, Metro City Condos and TV City filed their OP amendments prior to December. So they do have access to the OMB should they choose.

[ScreamingViking]

Even with 30-storey towers sprinkled about you're going to block harbour views from the brow, and the view of the brow from the harbourfront. Plus, when considering Sam Lawrence Park, the view of downtown is on a westerly angle (more or less north northwest, by compass bearing) compared to the direct line of sight to the harbour which lies mostly along Ferguson/Wellington/Victoria and the angles eastward. West of the park you're largely preserving harbour views for the backyards and back windows of a handful of homeowners.

It just seems very arbitrary then, to me. If they really want to preserve the view, how about instituting a "view plane" where the max heights drop between the escarpment and harbour to keep things clear all the way down? And is there no concern for the aesthetics of developing a tabletop skyline?

On the other side of the argument, 30-storeys is still pretty tall comparatively speaking in most medium-sized cities. And there is still lots of space to build, so the gaps between buildings will be plentiful for a while, meaning the escarpment and harbour will be largely visible from their many respective viewpoints. Unless demand for condos skyrockets, the share of proposals that reach the limit will remain relatively small. And it may help develop a denser urban form, which is what I feel is driving this for the planners... Halifax and Victoria are two cities that have had height limits for a long time (Victoria recently extended theirs from 14 to 24 storeys, or 43m to 72m) and both are being lauded for the density and urban form in their cores.

I guess we'll have to see how it plays out, and how long such a limit will remain imposed (probably until there is lots of demand for taller towers). But I still feel each proposal should be evaluated on its own merits relative to the characteristics of its locale, rather than some strictly imposed across-the-board limit.

(and thanks for the link to that video Joey -- I'll have to watch it when I have more time, and hopefully better understand where the city's planners are coming from)