Patios and pedestrian corridors need population density to be successful... If done correctly 23 floors is not a negative it's a positive... A nice 2-3 story podium with retail and condos stepped back ... Hess would flourish in a better direction ... Think distillery district
Oh absolutely, but I don't think Hamilton is yet at the point where great developments are here.
And if I do think of the Distillery district I think of the incredibly imposing and shadow casting on the entire district condos by the one entrance. Again, we get it, many people here love tall buildings and the "big city vibe". I like it as well in majority of areas downtown, and density makes sense near or even on pedestrianized streets, but not everyone loves towers hanging over them, and if you want to maintain the feel of a street that attracts businesses and crowds, you need to take that into account and not just scream dEnSiTy! While NIMBYs go to far with "neighbourhood character" and "density but not here", I do think the other side of the fence goes to far into their own narcissistic view that everyone other than them is wrong. There is a balance to be had here.
__________________
Hamilton Downtown. Huge tabletop skyline fan. Typically viewing the city from the street, not a helicopter. Cycling, transit and active transportation advocate 🚲🚍🚋
FWIW there are ~4 more towers proposed for the distillery district not including the surrounding developments in the west don lands which are a mix of mid and high rise heights, so I would say the area is like 50% finished at best. Once everything is built out it's going to be a really spectacular district. I don't think those shots of clear spirit do it justice - sure it's tall but the way it integrates with the area at ground level is very very good (think narrow pedestrian walkways, small format retail, contextual materiality) and for the most part the new developments in the distillery are excellent at integrating into the older historic buildings and in no way "overwhelm" them.
The other new developments proposed for the distillery, though tall are again really doing their best to try and relate to their surroundings though the use of contextual scale and materials. Once everything is done the distillery district will basically double in size due to the amount of new retail and public/pedestrian space proposed. Again, height will feel secondary due to the attention to detail paid to designing the way these buildings hit the ground.
and further to the east in the west don lands
Basically my point is that tall buildings can exist in older or low rise areas really successfully if they get certain design details right and that the lone towers currently in the distillery district aren't really a good comparison due to the fact that the area is still largely unfinished. Should towers go everywhere? No, probably not but until our zoning changes to allow more mid or low rise forms in residential neighbourhoods this is what we're going to get, so we've got to make the best of it.
The Gooderham and Clear Spirit towers in the Distillery District? Good god, we should be so lucky!
---
On a serious note. I was somewhat surprised to see those used as an example of bad planning - as far as I'm concerned, you would be hard pressed to find another example of towers fitting into a heritage district as well as Clear Spirit and The Gooderham do.
The questions I ask myself about those towers are the following:
Are the towers really detracting from the Distillery District? Well, the Distillery District is no doubt a smashing success as a heritage shopping district, so it would seem unlikely that people are avoiding the area because of "incredibly imposing and shadow casting" towers that make up about 10% of the district.
Do they fit well into the neighbourhood? A very subjective question, of course. I am resolute in my answer of yes, they do, largely due to the care put into their design at ground level and in the podium levels, which match the aesthetic and scale of the district very well.
Would a 10-12 storey midrise really fit better? I honestly doubt it. The distillery district is largely heritage buildings of 1 to 4 storeys in height, and the podiums of the towers match that height being 4 storeys. One of the towers is even using a heritage warehouses facade as it's first two storeys, with another two podium levels set up above. And the other tower is built on a brick podium which relates to the existing buildings but also has a restrained contemporary aesthetic to it.
Would it have been feasible to not build the towers? In my opinion, the answer is no. The Distillery District redevelopment required a large influx of density to make it a commercially viable project. Just those two towers are about 600,000 square feet of development. You'd need at least 6 midrises (of a rather large size and height) to get to the same level of density. There is simply not enough land in the Distillery District to fit all those buildings in. I would further argue that either tearing down existing buildings in order to stick to midrise, or building midrise additions above many of the existing heritage buildings, would result in an negative alteration to the "feel" of the Distillery District much greater than the towers ever could have.
All things considered, I think the math works out in favour of those towers rather than midrises.
---
I don't like personal arguments or commentary, but I do think I should respond to the idea that one side has a "narcissistic view that everyone else other than them is wrong." Everyone I've met who happens to be involved in urban development issues displays near unmatched passion for whichever position they push. This is not exclusive to any group or viewpoint. To say otherwise, I think, is missing the forest for the trees.
Personally, I harp on about high-rise towers a lot for a few reasons:
One, we're getting them in the downtown and elsewhere no matter whether you think they're great or terrible.
Two, the towers we're getting, are, more often than not, of terrible urban and architectural quality. Yet the single most important policy consideration to this backwater City Hall and Planning Department is whether or not an application complies to their hamfisted height limit! No focus on how the the development meets the street, how much retail is included, what the quality of architecture and materials are like. A year and a half into the new DSP regime, the City's actions have confirmed to me at least, that nearly anything goes as long as developers don't question their sacred height limit.
Three, the towers that the Planning Department opposes, are usually the ones that actually have effort put into their urbanism and architecture. Television City and Corktown Plaza stand out to me as the two best high-rise proposals to hit Hamilton in the past decade, and they were both vehemently opposed by planning. In the case of TV City of course, Lamb stood his ground and broke the height limit. In the case of Corktown Plaza, they got chopped down to the height limit. And I remember that 71 Rebecca was originally proposed as a rather sleek 40-storey tower before being chopped down to 30 storeys and gaining quite a heftier podium.
Four, the downtown is, and will continue to, develop faster than the rest of the city. It is also the natural location for the densest buildings and the tallest towers. I really do believe that we are needlessly throwing potential down the drain, and that we ought to stop the bleeding now, not in ten years once our downtown has a dozen or more architecturally and 'urbanically' crappy towers built all to the exact same height.
Four, the downtown is, and will continue to, develop faster than the rest of the city. It is also the natural location for the densest buildings and the tallest towers. I really do believe that we are needlessly throwing potential down the drain, and that we ought to stop the bleeding now, not in ten years once our downtown has a dozen or more architecturally and 'urbanically' crappy towers built all to the exact same height.
---
/rant over
Hey I'm the only one that's allowed long lengthy rants lolol jkjk
but hey, if independence day alien invasions ever occur here, at least no building tops will get sheared off by any spaceships passing by.. it'll just sail right on over..
well .. it might lop off one or 2 building tops but the rest are good hyuk hyuk hyuk..
I honestly don't think the height limit is that big of an issue. Hamilton continues to get proposal after proposal coming in despite it. It also seems to be having the desired affect of stopping land speculation, because the max height is known. Taller buildings aren't always cheaper than midrise also, it's just with the real estate boom it is, but this will not continue.
My point is that the arguments presented here typically have to do with the exact opposite of NIMBYism. It's height for the sake of height. Like some tabletop skyline will hurt the city in any meaningful way. It won't. Many great cities have a boring skyline from 20km away, but you couldn't tell walking downtown.
Taller buildings are not always the best environmentally either. I try to think like a true urban planner, and think holistically about urban development. Here people hate on Jason Thorne because of his height limit, but after speaking with him about it, and others who understand policy of this kind, it actually makes a decent amount of sense. I honestly think Thorne is probably one of the smartest people working at city hall. It's our idiot councillors and terrible suburban NIMBYs stopping true housing policy that are the problem. The only problem with Thorne's height policy is that it came before proper removal of single detached housing zoning. We are just finally starting to revisit second dwelling unit policy in this city.
Toronto also needs to remove single family zoning too. All the condos in the world can't keep up with the demand of the GTHA. We need more housing options, and Thorne knows that, but council does not.
__________________
Hamilton Downtown. Huge tabletop skyline fan. Typically viewing the city from the street, not a helicopter. Cycling, transit and active transportation advocate 🚲🚍🚋
My point is that the arguments presented here typically have to do with the exact opposite of NIMBYism. It's height for the sake of height. Like some tabletop skyline will hurt the city in any meaningful way. It won't. Many great cities have a boring skyline from 20km away, but you couldn't tell walking downtown.
Can you name some of the many cities?
While I see what your trying to say here, your comment from before said you do not not want a 22 floor building here. So I do not understand what your getting at- what do you think is ideal for this location?
I think a statement like that is a bit subjective, though I can see what TheRitsman meant. Halifax’s skyline isn’t particularly inspiring but it’s a beautiful city all the same. I do understand why you wouldn’t want a highrise surrounded by converted houses, and I’m inclined to agree. It all depends on the design, really. Though it must be said we are not at a shortage of streets which are more suitable for a building of such a height.
I think with Hess, its heyday is long since gone (and for the building that is being redeveloped to me its heyday was Amigo's and that's more than 20 years ago). Last I heard Che was becoming a cannabis retailer. Things change. The city could certainly use the housing and the tax revenues (and being able to build at more than 23 stories would have been better for both). What's left in Hess after Covid could use the customers.
Lurker here with a couple of questions: Heard a rumor about the small apartment building and former Chinese restaurant, and former Loonie land/paralegal space on the SW corner of Victoria and King St. being torn down to make way for something bigger. It appears that the tenants have been informed. But this is second hand information. Also, is anyone in this forum aware of what is planned for the large .5 acre lot on the north side of King St. East? I believe that would be 399 - 409 King East.
Lurker here with a couple of questions: Heard a rumor about the small apartment building and former Chinese restaurant, and former Loonie land/paralegal space on the SW corner of Victoria and King St. being torn down to make way for something bigger. It appears that the tenants have been informed. But this is second hand information. Also, is anyone in this forum aware of what is planned for the large .5 acre lot on the north side of King St. East? I believe that would be 399 - 409 King East.
399-409 I don't think anything is planned for it - it's a park area..
the loonie land building is being converted into a bar. I am note sure how far along stephen is on that.
399-409 I don't think anything is planned for it - it's a park area..
the loonie land building is being converted into a bar. I am note sure how far along stephen is on that.
Just saw a for lease sign go up on that building. Would be sad to lose it though. Got lots of potential that one. So not sure if either you or the lurker are correct.
Also speaking of converting bars, how's the gay bar going at Cannon? I noticed they've still been doing work and have a sign up now. Any news on that?
__________________
Hamilton Downtown. Huge tabletop skyline fan. Typically viewing the city from the street, not a helicopter. Cycling, transit and active transportation advocate 🚲🚍🚋
Just saw a for lease sign go up on that building. Would be sad to lose it though. Got lots of potential that one. So not sure if either you or the lurker are correct.
Also speaking of converting bars, how's the gay bar going at Cannon? I noticed they've still been doing work and have a sign up now. Any news on that?
Oh nevermind I had a sneaking suspicion that was the case - this building looks a lot like the gay bar - on cannon haha - as a result I don't know what the looney bin one is gonna be..
as for the gay bar, last I heard they were still working on interior renos - they're basically just waiting the pandemic out for "The Well" as it's going to be called - I just asked him for any updates - I'll keep you posted.
Lurker here with a couple of questions: Heard a rumor about the small apartment building and former Chinese restaurant, and former Loonie land/paralegal space on the SW corner of Victoria and King St. being torn down to make way for something bigger. It appears that the tenants have been informed. But this is second hand information. Also, is anyone in this forum aware of what is planned for the large .5 acre lot on the north side of King St. East? I believe that would be 399 - 409 King East.
Interesting. A few years ago after the fire damaged homes were razed the lot was put up on the market for 2.5M and after that the lot was being cleaned up some more, and then a few weeks ago I noticed another structure towards the back of the lot being razed. The last two buidings left standing, albeit boarded up is the corner house, where there used to be a dentists' office and Yoke management, and then the shuttered Filipino grocery.
Annnd, I just found the CBC news article in which 401 King is to be demolished Jan 25.
Last edited by Pulkvedis Pods; Jan 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM.
[/Quote]the loonie land building is being converted into a bar. I am note sure how far along stephen is on that.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about this? Again, the person whom I know had chatted with one or two of the residents living in the apartments above the former Looney Land, Edge Paralegal services place, and no mention of a bar. Hmmm.
the loonie land building is being converted into a bar. I am note sure how far along stephen is on that.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about this? Again, the person whom I know had chatted with one or two of the residents living in the apartments above the former Looney Land, Edge Paralegal services place, and no mention of a bar. Hmmm.[/QUOTE]
kinda late there lol - already amended my statement that I got this lot confused with the one on cannon - they look very similar on the outside.
Prev
Linear Mode
