HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 2:57 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
They are doing crap like this because that's what people want. If there wasn't a demand then it wouldn't be built.

Sorry, that argument died years ago.
People want condos, yet that's not stopping NIMBY groups from opposing them.
Compare the sale price per sq foot in walkable urban hoods vs. sprawl hoods and you'll see what people actually want.

No 1980's sprawl development should ever be built again. All new greenfields should mimic Westdale Village or Downtown Dundas. Cities all over N America are building new suburbs like this. Hamilton is one of the last ones to cling to this sprawled out mess with 100% car dependancy and big box stores.
I'm all for new developments, but with improvements to design that are commonplace elsewhere.

If NIMBY groups are looking for a cause, they should focus on these car-dependent developments, not urban condo projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 3:03 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 773
Here's a brand new suburban greenfield project in Vaughan, ON

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...7471-95555.jpg

Here's a brand new 'downtown' being built in Markham:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/editorialhu...ro-960x540.jpg

Urban style 'suburb' built way back in the 1990's in Portland, Oregon:

http://www.urbanindy.com/wp-content/.../orenco_lg.jpg


New developments are needed and welcome in Hamilton....but the lowest common denominator is 1980's sprawl. People want mixed-use, walkability etc......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 3:51 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,380
Here's the three concept plans for the site...


Concept 1:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:


Concept 2:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:


Concept 3:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:



More Info: www.hamilton.ca/city-planning/planning-community/elfrida-growth-area-study




My preference is Concept 3, it has the potential for three new Westdale style neighborhoods. If they add the commercial/mixed-use central node from Concept 2, it'd be near perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 6:47 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 773
these always look good on a map, but the reality in Hamilton ends up being like Upper Stoney Creek or the Meadowlands. It's all our staff know.

I believe that every residential purchase in developments like this needs to have a clause included where the home-buyer understands that future complaining about how long their commute is, or how slow traffic has become will be ignored by the city. They're choosing to live far away from everything in a development designed to force multiple cars per home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 8:13 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRTfan View Post
Sorry, that argument died years ago.
People want condos, yet that's not stopping NIMBY groups from opposing them.
Compare the sale price per sq foot in walkable urban hoods vs. sprawl hoods and you'll see what people actually want.

No 1980's sprawl development should ever be built again. All new greenfields should mimic Westdale Village or Downtown Dundas. Cities all over N America are building new suburbs like this. Hamilton is one of the last ones to cling to this sprawled out mess with 100% car dependancy and big box stores.
I'm all for new developments, but with improvements to design that are commonplace elsewhere.

If NIMBY groups are looking for a cause, they should focus on these car-dependent developments, not urban condo projects.
You keep telling yourself that. In the meantime all of these greenfield developments are selling out and new ones are being planned. You are simply projecting what you want, not what the average person wants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 9:17 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
You keep telling yourself that. In the meantime all of these greenfield developments are selling out and new ones are being planned. You are simply projecting what you want, not what the average person wants.

Umm, I'm not telling myself anything. Numbers don't lie.
People pay more to live in a walkable hood. And there is zero reason to not build walkable hoods on greenfield developments.
Anything built, whether designed properly or designed like it's 1980 will sell. We have a massive housing shortage in this city.
Walkable communities served with great transit and cycling options save the taxpayers TONS of money annually compared with Upper Stoney Creek/Meadowlands/Waterdown style developments.
All taxpayers who want to complain about their tax rates have a duty to be vocal about the way in which our city develops.

30 years ago a developer could argue that people didn't want urban style housing, thus they built winding cul-de-sacs with 3 car garages.
In 2017 they know that people want an urban vibe even in their suburban developments. The only reason we don't see complete communities built in our suburbs is because city hall's zoning code was largely written in the 1950's.
And it's one of the main reasons our city is broke and digging deeper holes every year.
I'd be fine with 75 storey towers downtown and 100's of thousands of new housing units on greenfield lands but only if designed properly and not car-dependant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 12:38 AM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRTfan View Post
Umm, I'm not telling myself anything. Numbers don't lie.
People pay more to live in a walkable hood. And there is zero reason to not build walkable hoods on greenfield developments.
Anything built, whether designed properly or designed like it's 1980 will sell. We have a massive housing shortage in this city.
Walkable communities served with great transit and cycling options save the taxpayers TONS of money annually compared with Upper Stoney Creek/Meadowlands/Waterdown style developments.
All taxpayers who want to complain about their tax rates have a duty to be vocal about the way in which our city develops.

30 years ago a developer could argue that people didn't want urban style housing, thus they built winding cul-de-sacs with 3 car garages.
In 2017 they know that people want an urban vibe even in their suburban developments. The only reason we don't see complete communities built in our suburbs is because city hall's zoning code was largely written in the 1950's.
And it's one of the main reasons our city is broke and digging deeper holes every year.
I'd be fine with 75 storey towers downtown and 100's of thousands of new housing units on greenfield lands but only if designed properly and not car-dependant.
I am not saying we shouldn't have urban development, I am all for it. But we also need a variety of housing for people to choose from. Where I live on the mountain I have everything I need within walking distance and I walk to do much of my shopping. I like being able to do so.

As for those new developments in the area we are talking about, Elfrida have you actually seen those new developments. Most are townhouses with 1 car driveways or large single family homes on postage stamp sized lots with single car driveways. There are bike lanes and sidewalks with lower speed limits on the roads. There are a lot of people in a fairly small area. It is not your typical suburban area. Transit may not have caught up with development yet but they have and are upgrading the arterial roads, namely Rymal which is being urbanized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 8:24 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
I am not saying we shouldn't have urban development, I am all for it. But we also need a variety of housing for people to choose from. Where I live on the mountain I have everything I need within walking distance and I walk to do much of my shopping. I like being able to do so.

As for those new developments in the area we are talking about, Elfrida have you actually seen those new developments. Most are townhouses with 1 car driveways or large single family homes on postage stamp sized lots with single car driveways. There are bike lanes and sidewalks with lower speed limits on the roads. There are a lot of people in a fairly small area. It is not your typical suburban area. Transit may not have caught up with development yet but they have and are upgrading the arterial roads, namely Rymal which is being urbanized.
Totally agree. There are buyers out there for all housing types. Someone should inform the elites in Durand about this fact.

The description of your neighbourhood is what we need to be building in new suburbs, except with more robust neighbourhood retail districts like Westdale, Locke, Ottawa St, Concession etc..... Folks want to walk and cycle, but won't if it's not safe or convenient. Less car dependancy, the better for us all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 9:01 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
what the market wants is grade related housing - townhouses and detached. Detached especially. It isn't as picky in what form that comes. The problem is that developers build what they have always built - crappy suburban stuff. They need to change the game and build houses in a way that supports a more urban lifestyle. There is a bit of blame to go around - developers for doing the same product they ever have, zoning for being outdated, and buyers for demanding a product that doesn't exactly line up with urbanists dreams.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2017, 2:07 AM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomax View Post
Construction Update, viewed from Centennial Parkway...

my photo


my photo


my photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 8:29 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,380

Fallingwaters by Joe, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2020, 9:13 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,380
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 2:36 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 2:55 PM
PaperSun PaperSun is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Posts: 147
No chance the city extends services out here for this development. Wonder if the developer is willing to spend 50, 80, million to extend those services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 4:28 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,263
Also, talk about leap-frogging! So many other fringe areas I would rather have our municipal resources focussed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 4:40 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
I agree the urban expansion areas added to Mount Hope are unusual, but they are generally along a designated transit corridor (A line), close to the major employment areas coming to the AEGD, and will have freeway access soon with highway 6 having funding to be upgraded to a full freeway.

what surprises me about the plan the most is the almost complete lack of single detached units. The east parcel of the developers doesn't have a single SFH lot on it. This is very dense by new suburban development standards. You can also see how the suburban market in Hamilton has trended strongly towards townhouses lately.

With regards to servicing, the city will be legally required to extend servicing at some point. I imagine this would be their lowest priority area within the urban boundary to service though, with the other urban boundary expansion areas being more natural expansions of the existing urban area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 4:42 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperSun View Post
No chance the city extends services out here for this development. Wonder if the developer is willing to spend 50, 80, million to extend those services.
It is already serviced. Water and sewers extend up past this area. It is already fairly developed on the other side of Upper James.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 5:00 PM
TheHonestMaple's Avatar
TheHonestMaple TheHonestMaple is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,717
I feel like I remember seeing a while back a proposed Highway 6 extension east, connecting up with the RHV. Does anyone know about that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 5:10 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
It is already serviced. Water and sewers extend up past this area. It is already fairly developed on the other side of Upper James.
Serviced doesn't necessarily equate to adequate servicing capacity.

My two cents, if you're going to do greenfield development, this is generally how to do it. I would prefer to have seen the densest parts of the concept located adjacent/proximate to the A-Line bus route on Upper James St, because right now basically nothing is reasonably within walking distance of transit. I do, however, appreciate that this is a secondary plan concept, of which only the areas with red outline are subject to actual planning and consultation.

With that said, traditional greenfield suburban development is a net-negative to a city's financial picture. With such a gargantuan backlog of infrastructure capital spending required to bring the city up to a state of good repair, I genuinely hope that the many dozens of millions of dollars in capital projects that will be required to enable this development to proceed do not leap-frog other more critical projects. Even if development charges will fund most of the capital spending required to support the project, there's a finite capacity on the city's part to undertake infrastructure work (or monitor/inspect contractor work).

Traditional greenfield suburban development is a fiscal ticking time bomb to cities (i.e. the tax revenue from traditional suburbs cannot service the infrastructure they require and once repair/upgrades to the initial developer-built/funded infrastructure is required, the rest of the city subsidizes the cost). To ameliorate this, I think that a fiscal report should be part of the submission requirements for new planning applications. If a proponent can't show that the project won't represent a long-term net-deficit on the broader community, it should have to alter the proposal to make it pencil or the developer should have to contribute the difference or put up a bond to an infrastructure permanent fund. That will absolutely drive up the cost of housing in such a development, but it's (finally) reflecting the actual cost of such forms of growth to society.

It's no coincidence that periods of major suburban development and settlement area expansion in a city are followed 20, 30, 40+ years later by an immense infrastructure repair bill. We're living through the municipal finance crisis and infrastructure repair hangover that resulted from the suburban housing boom of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Let's not keep making the same mistake (and the proposed density of this project indicates we likely aren't).
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Mar 20, 2023 at 6:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2023, 7:51 PM
TheRitsman TheRitsman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,016
Are there other documents related to this proposal? What types of buildings and commercial property information?
__________________
Hamilton Downtown. Huge tabletop skyline fan. Typically viewing the city from the street, not a helicopter. Cycling, transit and active transportation advocate 🚲🚍🚋

Follow me on Twitter: https://x.com/ham_bicycleguy?t=T_fx3...SIZNGfD4A&s=09
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:15 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.