282 MacNab North | 33 m | 10 fl | Approved

[CaptainKirk]

13 floors, 110 units.


http://www.gspgroup.ca/active-projec...-street-north/

[LRTfan]

wonderful....great architect too.
Build it

[davidcappi]

There are a lot of design motifs happening there... I'd like to see it simplified. The brick base is nice, and I enjoy the idea of the three ascending volumes to break the building up, but they don't feel coherent to me, especially the upper level. I think they'd be better off sticking to one kind of cladding for the entire building rather than having three distinct shifts in material (brick/metal/glass)

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

There are a lot of design motifs happening there... I'd like to see it simplified. The brick base is nice, and I enjoy the idea of the three ascending volumes to break the building up, but they don't feel coherent to me, especially the upper level. I think they'd be better off sticking to one kind of cladding for the entire building rather than having three distinct shifts in material (brick/metal/glass)

I like the difference personally - it helps break up a looming feel and makes it almost appear like a cluster of buildings.

[Jon Dalton]

From the link above:

Community Open House

Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Time: 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (brief presentation at 6:15 PM)
Location: Workers Arts and Heritage Centre, 51 Stuart Street, Hamilton

http://www.gspgroup.ca/wp-content/up...reet-North.pdf

As a neighbour I'm happy to see this former derelict property developed and plan to attend the public meeting. It looks like the kind of housing we want in the downtown and around the GO station. My concern is affordability - is this covered by the new inclusionary zoning and will it have a certain percentage of units priced for affordability?

[lachlanholmes]

Recommended for DENIAL at next Tuesday's planning meeting.

[realcity]

why? too dense near a go station. ridiculous. im telling my kids to leave hamilton for a future.

[Jon Dalton]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I skimmed through the report to the planning committee which mentions targets for density and efficient land use in Places to Grow etc., but notes opposition based on things like traffic and parking concerns. Where are the numbers for this? Are 300 new units actually going to cause a traffic jam on MacNab Street? I doubt it. It also gives a lot of credence to the existing built form of 2 storey houses in the area, but doesn't mention the adjacent James Street corridor which has been specifically designated for higher building heights. I know most people if offered the choice would rather not have an apartment building across the street from their house, but if we can't build something like this a stones throw from James St and next to the GO station, where will we actually allow it? We're in a housing crisis and people need places to live, and in light of that I think it's pretty selfish for people to oppose things like this.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I skimmed through the report to the planning committee which mentions targets for density and efficient land use in Places to Grow etc., but notes opposition based on things like traffic and parking concerns. Where are the numbers for this? Are 300 new units actually going to cause a traffic jam on MacNab Street? I doubt it. It also gives a lot of credence to the existing built form of 2 storey houses in the area, but doesn't mention the adjacent James Street corridor which has been specifically designated for higher building heights. I know most people if offered the choice would rather not have an apartment building across the street from their house, but if we can't build something like this a stones throw from James St and next to the GO station, where will we actually allow it? We're in a housing crisis and people need places to live, and in light of that I think it's pretty selfish for people to oppose things like this.

First: this city is insane. The city says "We want Go service and we want it now! But we don't want to build any housing walking distance to a Go Station..."

Second: why wouldn't you want a medium density condo near you? I wouldn't mind it personally. If I bought downtown, which I plan to, I don't mind medium and even high density buildings near me, it's expected and it means more people keeping stores I love open.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

This is actually the most insane thing I've ever heard !!! Not only should there be density in this particular spot but it should also be a high-rise and maybe even a few .... Why does Burlington get everything right and here in Hamilton we have a few loud residents controlling the city ?!?!?

[TheRitsman]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hamilton/co...ed_for_denial/

[Hawrylyshyn]

Can someone share contact information for the councilor or whoever would be best to contact to comment on the denial?

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Can someone share contact information for the councilor or whoever would be best to contact to comment on the denial?

It’s in Jason Farr’s ward, so you could send him an email at Jason.Farr@hamilton.ca.

My recommendation, though, would be to write an email to all members of the plannng committee (members found here), CC the clerk (clerk@hamilton.ca) and include a note that you want your comments to be included on the public record.

You can find all city councillor emails here.

[realcity]

thanks for that. also interesting you can have your comments on record. sounds like an an old tradition in democracy.

[TheRitsman]

I will be submitting comments to this. This is getting ridiculous.

[lachlanholmes]

Also to note, the 'Setting Sail' secondary plan, which has been used to stop so many north end applications, was created in part by one of the City's 'expert witnesses' against Television City (at this week's OMB hearing), Tim Smith of Urban Strategies Inc. Who also sits on Hamilton's Design Review Panel.

It runs deep.

[atnor]

Let’s not kid ourselves here. The parking to units ratio is horrible with less than 0.5 spots per unit and no visitor parking.

[Pipedreams]

Originally Posted by atnor

Let’s not kid ourselves here. The parking to units ratio is horrible with less than 0.5 spots per unit and no visitor parking.

The problem here is the city of Hamilton is incredibly inconsistent with it's approvals. The Connelly Project just got approved for a parking ratio of 0.36 and there are a dozen towers >13 floors within a 1.5k of this location.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by Pipedreams

The problem here is the city of Hamilton is incredibly inconsistent with it's approvals. The Connelly Project just got approved for a parking ratio of 0.36 and there are a dozen towers >13 floors within a 1.5k of this location.

I agree with you but in fairness the GO Centre is much more useful, with many bus routes all day long.

Besides, my hunch is that the City is more caught up on the height and density than they are with the parking ratio. Alas. I might carve time out on Tuesday to speak in favour but it’s demoralizing to put in this amount of time advocating only for the City’s policies to continue to get worse.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

I agree with you but in fairness the GO Centre is much more useful, with many bus routes all day long.

Besides, my hunch is that the City is more caught up on the height and density than they are with the parking ratio. Alas. I might carve time out on Tuesday to speak in favour but it’s demoralizing to put in this amount of time advocating only for the City’s policies to continue to get worse.

Would it be better to send my comment in, or give it to you?