Bruce Kuwabara West Harbour tower | 147 m | 45 fl | Approved

[Berklon]

Is it just me or does that building design have an 80's feel to it?

[SteelTown]

45-storey tower proposal is newest chapter in the city's quest for a developed waterfront

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...reys-1.5580882

Hamilton city council has until later this year or early 2021 to decide if it wants a 45-storey "signature" tower on the city's waterfront — presumably the last round in a battle it's been fighting for 20 years.

Architect Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB, the designer of the upcoming Waterfront Shores development on Piers 7 and 8, has designed a sleek condo tower that would go where the parking lot for Williams Fresh Cafe and the Discovery Centre is now. In planning terms, the area is known as Block 16.

Right now, no one can build anything taller than eight storeys in the new development, which will include nine blocks of condos and a splashy, eye-catching boardwalk. But thanks to an agreement that came out of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) challenge in 2017, council will also consider the tower.

Originally, council would have voted this fall whether to amend the city's official plan to allow the tower, said Chris Phillips, the city's lead on the waterfront development project. But the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed that — including the much-needed public meetings.

Chad Collins, Ward 5 (Centennial) councillor, said it's early in the process, but a 45-storey tower isn't what the city had in mind when it comes to developing the waterfront. The vision, he said, was more Halifax, with medium-density development that ties in with the nearby downtown, than Toronto and its rows of condo towers.

"If you're asking me for my opinion at this point, it's not a concept or a proposal that I can support," he said.

"It runs completely contrary to everything we've talked about Pier 8 being. It goes against council's entire vision."

The plan to develop the waterfront dates back to 2000. That's when the city acquired Piers 7 and 8 as the result of a court battle with the federal government. But that settlement dictated the land stay in the hands of the Hamilton Port Authority.

The city tried for years to get its hands on the land, and approved the Setting Sail secondary plan. In 2013, the port authority agreed to terminate the leases early and give the city control of the piers, which were mostly sitting empty.

The city spent years laying the groundwork, including an urban design study, which will guide the look and feel of the space. Waterfront Shores will develop 1,292 condos, retail space, public parks and a promenade. Block 16 is currently zoned institutional.

The North End Neighbours Association (NENA) has met with the city twice over the proposed tower, including a meeting with the developer this week via video conference. That annoys Bill Curran, who heads up the Progressive North End Residents Association.

It seems, Curran said, like there are "secret meetings with a small group of citizens" over a skyline-changing project.

"I don't know why they would be having at least two meetings with the NENA group without anyone else in the neighbourhood."

Phillips said NENA reached out to the city first to meet, and the city plans to meet with Curran's group too. There will be more public meetings once the province's emergency order is lifted.

The city is "working on a strategy on how to reach the wider community," staff said in a report distributed to councillors Friday afternoon.

A report from NENA's planning committee shows the group has questions about the proposed tower, but is intrigued. According to the OMB settlement, a building with more than 31 storeys means the developer has to build more 150 more family-friendly units on the pier.

"The goal of the city and the developer is to ensure that the building becomes a signature building for the harbour with excellent design," the committee said in a May 12 report.

Collins said this is just another chapter in a decades-long project.

"It's hard to believe we're still talking about what's next for the waterfront," he said.

"But I'm still supportive of the plan we've had in place, and the vision we've had for almost 20 years now, and that is medium density."


The 45-storey tower would sit where the parking lot for Williams Fresh Cafe, the Discovery Centre and the outdoor skating rink is now. (KPMB)


The future deliberations impact only Block 16, not the rest of the planned development. (City of Hamilton)

[Chronamut]

From a structural design perspective- this isn't real land - its infill land - trying to build something that big on this location - I just don't see it happening.. you'd risk it sinking.. esp with the concerns that were originally had for the increase in traffic on this road originally alone.

Then again they did build the factories close to infill land - so who knows what new technology might be used. I just don't think this fits this beautiful pier 8 community they designed though where everything is uniform height - this just feels like it's high for the sake of being high, and would also set a precedent to build similar heights all along the waterfront, which is already flirted with in stoney creek and winona area, which would cause a toronto issue where the waterfront is blocked by giant buildings.. don't like this personally.

[SteelTown]

What should a (theoretical) tower look like on the Hamilton Harbour waterfront?

https://www.thespec.com/news/council...aterfront.html

Any future tower on Hamilton’s Pier 8 should be a harbourside “beacon” that lights up at night.

There should be “vertical greenway” of vegetation growing up the south side of the building.

And it should be no taller than 45 storeys, or the same 147-metre height (counting ground elevation) as the city’s current tallest building, Landmark Place downtown.

Those are a few of the guidelines consultants suggest council should adopt if it decides to change the pier’s mostly low-rise zoning and consider a 45-storey “signature tower” pitched by famed architect Bruce Kuwabara.

But that’s still an awfully big “if.”

The city agreed to consider zoning changes to allow tall buildings on one block of its planned Pier 8 residential development to settle a legal appeal of the project by a citizen group. The maximum now on the pier is eight storeys.

Council won’t debate any pier zoning changes until next year. For now, the city is just collecting feedback on tall building guidelines created by consultant Brook McIlroy and presented at a virtual public meeting Thursday.

Planner Victor Cheung told residents the consultant is “neutral” on the question of whether any tall building — mid-rise or skyscraper — belongs on the waterfront block next to the city’s Discovery Centre.

But he said the proposed guidelines focus on opportunities to create a “landmark building” with “innovative architectural design” — maybe a cylindrical rather than angular tower, for example.

The guidelines also pitch the idea of greenery growing up the side of a terraced tower, a max out at 45 storeys and a “prominent top” — maybe one that lights up? — given residents would be able to see it from as far away as the McQuesten high-level bridge.

Residents can offer feedback until Nov. 19 at engage.hamilton.ca. At Thursday’s meeting, some questioned why the city is considering a tower at all. Here’s a reminder:

What is the Pier 8 project?

In 2018, council approved a redevelopment bid by Waterfront Shores consortium to add up to 1,600 units on the former industrial pier near the end of James Street North. The current max height for those buildings is eight storeys.

So why are we suddenly talking about a skyscraper?

A citizen group, Harbour West Neighbours, appealed the city’s pier development plan and sought a commitment to add more “family-friendly” units to the development. A legal settlement reached last year obligates the city to consider a zoning amendment to allow taller buildings on a single pier block — and by extension, more two-bedroom units.

Where did the 45-storey tower come from?

It’s actually twin towers — 45 and 30 storeys! The proposal comes from Waterfront Shores via its architect, Bruce Kuwabara. The North End native pitched the idea of a “signature tower” to a community group in May as a “symbol of waterfront transformation.”

Is council considering this project?

Not yet — and maybe not ever. Council would first have to agree to change the zoning and official plan for “block 16” on the pier, which is currently zoned institutional with a four-storey height limit.

What happens next?

Council won’t vote on any pier zoning changes until next year. But construction is underway on the larger pier streetscape, as well as a wraparound public park and green space. Waterfront Shores is telling prospective condo buyers the “project launch” will happen by the end of 2021.

[Rg2016]

You can hardly see the Landmark place building at QEW/403 highway bridge in the morning or day time because of the escarpment/mountain behind it, so how possibly will this be any different? You'll need it to be at least 60 stories high to name it a "beacon" and be able to see at the highway..

[Innsertnamehere]

This building sits significantly closer to the bridge as it isn’t downtown. It would also be much taller than landmark place, by about 40% roughly depending on exact floor to ceiling heights.

[drpgq]

Well the tax assessment should be pretty solid on it, which the city sorely needs, plus the retail down will need people. I'm still amazed that this is the result from Turkstra's group.

[itputsthelotionon]

I think it would be really cool. Its modern and unlike anything we have. I look at these forums a lot - I am all for development- I want it because I know what it would bring to this city - but so many of the new proposals feel so uninspired. This feels different.

If you go onto Reddit, users talk about Hamilton like it is a major city, on par with b or c cities like Philadelphia, Buffalo, Detroit, Birmingham, Manchester but the fact is it just isn't. Not saying that a signature building will but Hamilton in the same orbit as these other cities however it could be something that will change the look and maybe the feel of the city.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

This building sits significantly closer to the bridge as it isn’t downtown. It would also be much taller than landmark place, by about 40% roughly depending on exact floor to ceiling heights.

I dunno - I read the specs and according to them they want it NO TALLER than landmark place - they even show elevation drawings showing it exactly as high.

I filled out the survey and offered my opinions on various things. I recommend everyone else do the same.

And I dunno, tbh I find the building design to be kinda meh - just reminds me of corrugated metal. Or like, a motorcycle exhaust pipe.

[craftbeerdad]

kind of reminds me of the GM tower in Detroit

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by craftbeerdad

kind of reminds me of the GM tower in Detroit

If the tower finish was like a chromatic iridescent pearl, or lit up in different colours at night I could see it looking really cool - esp. in the parts that curl as the light plays with it. Like many things it all boils down to finish.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

I dunno - I read the specs and according to them they want it NO TALLER than landmark place - they even show elevation drawings showing it exactly as high.

I filled out the survey and offered my opinions on various things. I recommend everyone else do the same.

And I dunno, tbh I find the building design to be kinda meh - just reminds me of corrugated metal. Or like, a motorcycle exhaust pipe.

Where is this info exactly? I can't seem to find it. Interesting if true.

The building based on a quick google earth measurement could be up to 146m tall to match the elevation of Landmark Place - 19m taller than Landmark Place, due to the lower elevation the ground is at here vs. downtown.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Where is this info exactly? I can't seem to find it. Interesting if true.

The building based on a quick google earth measurement could be up to 146m tall to match the elevation of Landmark Place - 19m taller than Landmark Place, due to the lower elevation the ground is at here vs. downtown.

You can find it HERE

page 21 - should not be more than 147 m (45 stories) - it shows it at the same height as the landmark building which is roughly 226 m

hmm thats odd - the image though shows the red selected building as 224 m (45 stories) but the actual criteria says it should be no more than 147 m (45 stories) so which is it?

Regardless of whether it's 147 or 224 though - it still places is as 2 meters shorter than landmark place due to the elevation difference - landmark place is only 43 stories.

Gotta keep that tabletop design - still, at least it allows it to be as high as that instead of the standard 30ish stories the others are capped at higher up on elevation grade..

[ScreamingViking]

The difference is geodetic height (i.e., elevation of the top above mean sea level) vs. building height. The waterfront tower would be taller in terms of building height -- 147m vs. 127m for Landmark Place per the SSP database -- but not crown above Landmark visually (at least when viewed from certain angles) due to its slightly shorter geodetic height -- 224m vs 226m.

Originally Posted by Chronamut

You can find it HERE

page 21 - should not be more than 147 m (45 stories) - it shows it at the same height as the landmark building which is roughly 226 m

hmm thats odd - the image though shows the red selected building as 224 m (45 stories) but the actual criteria says it should be no more than 147 m (45 stories) so which is it?

Regardless of whether it's 147 or 224 though - it still places is as 2 meters shorter than landmark place due to the elevation difference - landmark place is only 43 stories.

Gotta keep that tabletop design - still, at least it allows it to be as high as that instead of the standard 30ish stories the others are capped at higher up on elevation grade..

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The difference is geodetic height (i.e., elevation of the top above mean sea level) vs. building height. The waterfront tower would be taller in terms of building height -- 147m vs. 127 -- but not crown above Landmark due to its slightly shorter geodetic height -- 224m vs 226m.

Right that makes sense - so my point still stands - it will not be taller than landmark place geodetic height wise - nothing EVER will be in this city. Not even supposed "landmark quality" buildings

Landmark place is basically our cn tower standard - which is horrible haha..

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Right that makes sense - so my point still stands - it will not be taller than landmark place geodetic height wise - nothing EVER will be in this city. Not even supposed "landmark quality" buildings

Not in the older part of the lower city anyway, so long as the height limit is imposed. The ones proposed in Stoney Creek on Frances Ave. near the lake may all eclipse Landmark by both measures depending on their final heights, but they're so far away it really won't be apparent.

Based on geodetic elevation, one of the buildings on the mountain is likely our "tallest"... probably the El Mirador at Fennell and Upper Gage.

Edit: I wonder about Television City. 108.8m as currently proposed, and up on the ridge running through downtown. If that's more than 18.2m difference in elevation at the tower bases compared to Landmark's site, they may look taller from the horizon.

[craftbeerdad]

The crazy thing is prior to Landmark Place (which must have been something of an inspiration behind the Olympia Apartments (completed two years after LP), the height restriction was 6 storeys, 6!

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by craftbeerdad

The crazy thing is prior to Landmark Place (which must have been something of an inspiration behind the Olympia Apartments (completed two years after LP), the height restriction was 6 storeys, 6!

Was this a city-wide restriction?

I've always thought that many of the tall apartment blocks in the central city were built in the 1960s. Perhaps there was much bending of the rules, or many zoning variances.

[craftbeerdad]

In the early 60s Al Frisina challenged the 6-storey height limit but hiring a consultant group to say building up not out would save money on services and the city approved his design for the 18-storey Clarendon on Hunter near Bay, known as The Fontainebleu nowadays.

[ScreamingViking]

An argument that STILL has to be made to this day.

Perhaps if councilors gave the issue more (any?) respect during the development approval process, they would not have to put so much energy into finding cuts in future budgets.