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

[TheRitsman]

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.

That video was great. I love skyscrapers, and I think some in Hamilton would definitely be a good and cool thing, but medium densite 10 storeys or less, more spread out will create a walkable and sustainable city much faster.

The 30 storey max is great, because taller should require benefits to the community and it must be a special tower. Plain boring towers at 60 storeys are not what Hamilton should want. The LRT and the growth in interest in the city should be giving council and staff leverage to build a beautiful and walkable city.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by 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)

Lots of good nuggets in this comment. Well said.
I'm not necessarily opposed to a height restriction E,W,N and S of the immediate core. But lets take all the parking lots along Bay from Main to Cannon. I see no good reason for a restriction here. It's far from any of Hamilton's precious 'single family home' hoods and is literally smack downtown.

My main issue is with a height limit that is lower than buildings that have been around for decades. It's backwards.
You are absolutely correct on the harbour views. A 15 storey building at King/James blocks the sliver of harbour from Sam Lawrence. The real harbour views are east of Wellington.

Think of recent applications that wanted to build in the 30-40 storey range? There's quite a few. Seems like 40 floors might be our current sweet spot to max out.

For the next several years, I would be ok with a height limit matching Century 21. But 30 floors (which is actually more like 25-28 through some of the core) is too arbitrarily low.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

That video was great. I love skyscrapers, and I think some in Hamilton would definitely be a good and cool thing, but medium densite 10 storeys or less, more spread out will create a walkable and sustainable city much faster.

The 30 storey max is great, because taller should require benefits to the community and it must be a special tower. Plain boring towers at 60 storeys are not what Hamilton should want. The LRT and the growth in interest in the city should be giving council and staff leverage to build a beautiful and walkable city.

Keep in mind walkability is 100% tied to the street front. This has driven me batty about Hamilton for years. I've attended public meetings where people beg for a 12 storey building instead of 14 as if it matters one bit. But zero discussion about the sidewalk and street-level interaction.
NY is one of the most walkable places I've ever been too. It's loaded with skyscrapers. It's all about the sidewalk experience.
Vancouver is also a walkable mecca and is the 2nd most dense core in N America after Manhattan. Also, loaded with skyscrapers and they are increasing height as we speak.
Height is a boogeyman quite often in Hamilton. I totally agree with you on walkability tho - the sidewalk deserves the attention of neighbourhood groups and citizens. Not the height.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Keep in mind walkability is 100% tied to the street front. This has driven me batty about Hamilton for years. I've attended public meetings where people beg for a 12 storey building instead of 14 as if it matters one bit. But zero discussion about the sidewalk and street-level interaction.
NY is one of the most walkable places I've ever been too. It's loaded with skyscrapers. It's all about the sidewalk experience.
Vancouver is also a walkable mecca and is the 2nd most dense core in N America after Manhattan. Also, loaded with skyscrapers and they are increasing height as we speak.
Height is a boogeyman quite often in Hamilton. I totally agree with you on walkability tho - the sidewalk deserves the attention of neighbourhood groups and citizens. Not the height.

Completely agree, I meant more for the fact that tall towers "soak up density" like in the video, which means we will have surface parking lots for 30+ years. I would rather those be used up sooner rather than later. Streetscape is the number one most important part, but surface level parking is 100% not walkable.

It's why I want Main to be two way with wider sidewalks. It would be so much more real city like. Those 1-way highways split the downtown right down the middle. It should be two-way with a long green light along main. They can design it in such a way that it doesn't rip up the centre of the city. The LRT will help with this on King.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

...
It's why I want Main to be two way with wider sidewalks. It would be so much more real city like. Those 1-way highways split the downtown right down the middle. It should be two-way with a long green light along main. They can design it in such a way that it doesn't rip up the centre of the city. The LRT will help with this on King.

The fact that Hamilton has two 4-lane one-way inner-city expressways doesn't seem faze Hamiltonians. It's so "normalized" that when I moved here and suggested having 2-way traffic on Main and King, people look at me like I was completely nuts.

Hamilton is so addicted to cars that the former idiot mayor called it "the 20 minute city". You want a real city? Look elsewhere.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Completely agree, I meant more for the fact that tall towers "soak up density" like in the video, which means we will have surface parking lots for 30+ years. I would rather those be used up sooner rather than later. Streetscape is the number one most important part, but surface level parking is 100% not walkable.

It's why I want Main to be two way with wider sidewalks. It would be so much more real city like. Those 1-way highways split the downtown right down the middle. It should be two-way with a long green light along main. They can design it in such a way that it doesn't rip up the centre of the city. The LRT will help with this on King.

Oh, I gotcha...yea, makes sense. It seems to me that currently Hamilton has builders doing small-scale 4-8 storey stuff. Or some doing larger towers.
Not much in the 11-20 storey range....although in the suburbs they are trying to make headway in the 11-20 storey range, but of course face opposition from the sprawl homeowners.

I guess where I'm not entirely sold on the concept in that video is where we are turning down a 35 storey development and forcing them to go 30. It would make more sense if we were hard-capping everything at 12 floors. Then many more sites might become developed in a short period of time. But I have a hard time believing that a whole pile of neighbouring lots will be developed because the city forced a developer to shave off floors 31-35.

[durandy]

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.

There is no standard of review at all under the new system. No appeal of a OPA or ZBLA except in very narrow instances. The idea is that municipal decisions are basically viewed as legislative decisions protected from appeal and only appealable when inconsistent with higher order plans.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by durandy

There is no standard of review at all under the new system. No appeal of a OPA or ZBLA except in very narrow instances. The idea is that municipal decisions are basically viewed as legislative decisions protected from appeal and only appealable when inconsistent with higher order plans.

The way I understand the new review system is that the new body will not make orders like the OMB does.
The new body will basically mediate between a city and developer. They will then send both parties back to discuss a compromise.
Cities will have much more power under the new system... which I suspect is partially why we're seeing a slew of development applications before the end of last year. The business/development community across Ontario knows how unfriendly Hamilton city hall is towards business. Could be a rough few years if we don't learn from our past 40 years of stagnation.

[davidcappi]

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.

Maybe, but I'm still able to break more development news than you, all without soliciting donations. The self righteous martyr thing doesn't work on me.

And yeah that video makes some great points, if you're cool with filling up available land faster, meaning more block busting and demolitions happening in the future.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Maybe, but I'm still able to break more development news than you, all without soliciting donations. The self righteous martyr thing doesn't work on me.

And yeah that video makes some great points, if you're cool with filling up available land faster, meaning more block busting and demolitions happening in the future.

I would think parking lots would be mostly used first. Hamilton should also work on increasing the number of properties covered under heritage designation.

They don't all need to be saved, but at least the William Thomas building type of thing would be nice.

[davidcappi]

They don't all need to be saved, but at least the William Thomas building type of thing would be nice.

Agreed. This logic suggests that every existing structure is worth saving, and that every vacant land or parking lot owner is ready to sell/develop. At the public meeting for the tower on Rebecca, the developer stated the owner of the vacant lot behind the site wasn't interested in selling it in his lifetime. I don't think this situation is unique to this site. I suspect there are people who are just not interested in developing land or property they own.

Hamilton should also work on increasing the number of properties covered under heritage designation.

This part I agree with less. Not every 2/3 storey commercial building fronting King or Barton or James is worthy of heritage designation. If anything, it reminds me of when the Leaside neighbourhood in Toronto tried to designate their whole commercial district in order to prevent it from ever being developed. Save it for our historic schools, or sites of true historic or architectural significance.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I would think parking lots would be mostly used first. Hamilton should also work on increasing the number of properties covered under heritage designation.

They don't all need to be saved, but at least the William Thomas building type of thing would be nice.

You are making the assumption that the owners of those parking lots would sell them which isn't necessarily the case. Most of those lots generate huge incomes for the owners. It is easy cash with very little expense involved.

The city can't just tell them to sell and they have no legal standing to expropriate unless they are going to use them for city purposes. So it's very unlikely that those lots will be used to build on first, since developers are not likely to pay a premium to buy them when cheaper property's are available elsewhere in the downtown.

If the city ever tried to mandate that only those property's can be built on it would kill development in the downtown.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

You are making the assumption that the owners of those parking lots would sell them which isn't necessarily the case. Most of those lots generate huge incomes for the owners. It is easy cash with very little expense involved.

The city can't just tell them to sell and they have no legal standing to expropriate unless they are going to use them for city purposes. So it's very unlikely that those lots will be used to build on first, since developers are not likely to pay a premium to buy them when cheaper property's are available elsewhere in the downtown.

If the city ever tried to mandate that only those property's can be built on it would kill development in the downtown.

The city should really tax surface level parking lots more in the urban growth area.

[bvbborussia]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

You are making the assumption that the owners of those parking lots would sell them which isn't necessarily the case. Most of those lots generate huge incomes for the owners. It is easy cash with very little expense involved.

The city can't just tell them to sell and they have no legal standing to expropriate unless they are going to use them for city purposes. So it's very unlikely that those lots will be used to build on first, since developers are not likely to pay a premium to buy them when cheaper property's are available elsewhere in the downtown.

If the city ever tried to mandate that only those property's can be built on it would kill development in the downtown.

You're right that they can't force them to sell but if downtown continues to develop the land will become so valuable that financially it will only make sense for them to sell it to a developer rather than operate it as a parking lot.

Depending on the location of the parking lot developers may well pay a premium for the land provided they think the location will earn them a return on the finished product.

[drpgq]

"Agreed. This logic suggests that every existing structure is worth saving, and that every vacant land or parking lot owner is ready to sell/develop. At the public meeting for the tower on Rebecca, the developer stated the owner of the vacant lot behind the site wasn't interested in selling it in his lifetime. I don't think this situation is unique to this site. I suspect there are people who are just not interested in developing land or property they own."

I think this is a good point, especially when people say let's get density by building midrises on all the empty parking lots. A lot of these parking lots unfortunately aren't in play.

I live on St. Joseph's Drive just down the block from this development in the Arkledun, which it seems clear would never be built now. I was walking down the Jolley Cut yesterday and looked at the general area where Metro will go. Looks like it's a great place to put some density. It is almost all apartments down there, it is across the street from St. Joseph's, a major employment node, a really short walk to the GO station and a 12 minute walk to Gore Park. Probably the 36 tower will get bargained away, but as a denizen of the immediate neighbourhood I'm fine with it staying.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

...I don't think this situation is unique to this site. I suspect there are people who are just not interested in developing land or property they own...

Can someone point me to Hamilton commercial property tax information? I'd like to know if the tax rate on undeveloped property gives the owner an incentive to never develop it.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by drpgq

"Agreed. This logic suggests that every existing structure is worth saving, and that every vacant land or parking lot owner is ready to sell/develop. At the public meeting for the tower on Rebecca, the developer stated the owner of the vacant lot behind the site wasn't interested in selling it in his lifetime. I don't think this situation is unique to this site. I suspect there are people who are just not interested in developing land or property they own."

I think this is a good point, especially when people say let's get density by building midrises on all the empty parking lots. A lot of these parking lots unfortunately aren't in play.

I live on St. Joseph's Drive just down the block from this development in the Arkledun, which it seems clear would never be built now. I was walking down the Jolley Cut yesterday and looked at the general area where Metro will go. Looks like it's a great place to put some density. It is almost all apartments down there, it is across the street from St. Joseph's, a major employment node, a really short walk to the GO station and a 12 minute walk to Gore Park. Probably the 36 tower will get bargained away, but as a denizen of the immediate neighbourhood I'm fine with it staying.

Good overview of the area. That block of Charlton itself has 2 long slab apartments (Oakland Sq) that are around 22-25 floors. And the Olympia at 32ish I believe. I could see the city and developer coming to an agreement that sees the height slightly reduced on the 36 storey building, and perhaps swapped with the 26 storey building so the taller one is on the lower piece of land along Charlton. There is a 10 metre difference in elevation on that property.

[JoeyColeman]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Good overview of the area. That block of Charlton itself has 2 long slab apartments (Oakland Sq) that are around 22-25 floors. And the Olympia at 32ish I believe. I could see the city and developer coming to an agreement that sees the height slightly reduced on the 36 storey building, and perhaps swapped with the 26 storey building so the taller one is on the lower piece of land along Charlton. There is a 10 metre difference in elevation on that property.

This initial application reads to me as a negotiating tactic; City staff will hold to the escarpment line. Regardless of viewpoints of the merits of this height regulation, once it is implemented, staff will have to enforce it.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by JoeyColeman

This initial application reads to me as a negotiating tactic; City staff will hold to the escarpment line. Regardless of viewpoints of the merits of this height regulation, once it is implemented, staff will have to enforce it.

I'm curious to see how long it takes for it to be overturned in a court. I suspect it'll happen very quickly. Makes zero sense to implement a new height limit that is shorter than existing buildings. City may have to bump the limit to match Century 21. I could see courts/OMB being ok with that. Top of century 21 is technically higher than the escarpment, but not by much when looking out over the city. Would seem a nice middle ground to fall to. Slightly higher than the escarpment, but not so high that people are looking up to see tops of buildings, but also a winnable limit at the OMB.

[Chronamut]

I think there are some points of the video that people should pay attention to:

1) The more super tall buildings you create, the more you suck populations that are scattered all over the city into a few central locations, leaving other places barren.

2) Hamiltons infrastructure- sewers etc are.. ancient.. to say the least. When you build giant buildings the existing infrastructure has to be able to handle it, and there is an increasing chance that with that much packed in, it just can't - or rapid infrastructure updates have to be implemented, which usually involves that money having to come from somewhere, and I'll give you a few guesses who foots the bill in the end.

3) As was detailed, you can have a lot of people living in the same amount of space and not have them all be high rises. People are obsessed with height being the be all and end all - why, because it looks impressive? Because we have equated super tall buildings as what a successful city looks like?

4) Yes you want more people in your city. The question is, have you asked yourself WHY you do. More people = more traffic, more congestion on streets, more garbage, among other things. And do we have jobs to employ these people, entertainment for these people,. sustainable green space and parks for these people or are we simply a nursery for college students and people working outside the city? I personally think the man from toronto was much more informative than steve was (and a better public speaker, using existing examples to support his arguments)

I liked his concepts of mixed building use, where wal marts and other commercial aspects share the same space as residential. I also like hamiltons new approach that we don't want to see parking lots - build a podium, hide the parking spots inside, and front it with commercial with residential on top. Great strategy.

The mark of a great city isn't how many people are in it, or how high your buildings climb. It's how well it functions - how smoothly people can get around, both through public transportation, like he alluded to in london, where focus on cars is lessoned because people don't NEED to travel halfway across the city - they can get what they need locally. And if they do need to travel across the city they can transfer from a train to a bus to whatever else they use and it just works. Montreals subway system for an example is a really great way to get across the city, and it works really well, as do their trains.

It's about the beauty aesthetic - the tourism potential, the feeling of openness, public events like the gore park festival of friends, the gage park events and the supercrawl.

A very poignant point was made by the man from toronto in that torontonians don't want to be making filing cabinets for people. I thought this was really great. They are focusing on amenities for these people now, not just cramming as many people into as many high rises as you can so you come up with some sort of twilight zone subdivisions of skyscrapers.

Also a point was made on lessoning wind impact - something which occurs when you build a lot of high rises together and the sun disappears between the corridors and wind tunnel effects occur -something toronto is SORELY plagued with. One thing toronto DOES have that I must give it credit for is its underground city - you can get through a lot of the city without ever having to emerge on the surface, which means you can pop up where you need to. I like that. Ultimately thats not possible to implement in a city such as ours methinks though. Not big enough and way too much infrastructure change.. one reason we never had a subway.

I also loved the move away from the word nimby and the shift to "ogtimby" - "only good things in my back yard" - because in the end that's the big thing right. What's in it for the neighbours. Is it just about height and profit, or maintaining things those people who have lived there for decades enjoy and want to continue enjoying? My parent have moved three times because they had a beautiful view of the lake and someone plopped something right in their view of it. Yes it's progress but does it have to be done this way? Property values go down as a result because what was once a great view is now destroyed.

I think the video brought a bit of reality to the table. Focus on smart density. The argument of height vs scenery is old and tired. Those who have a good design, and a good pitch, and a good reason for height will most likely get the variances they need. We are a city that has largely never been experienced to many 30+ story buildings, or even 20+ story buildings in the downtown. We can't compare ourselved to other cities, because the whole reason other cities can be compared TO is because THEY are not LIKE other cities. WE are our OWN city - and we are unique, with different requirements. Remember a lot of the considerations of these things came FROM the citizens.

A city is made to cater to the citizens - the word city and the word citizen are tied together.