Jamesville Social Housing Redevelopment | ? | 3 to 6 fl | Under Construction

[TheRitsman]

https://urbanicity.com/hamilton/opin...esponsibility/

If you follow development or housing news in Hamilton, you’re likely aware that the City is embarking on a scheme to redevelop the 6-acre Jamesville social housing complex in the North End. As a group with a keen interest in urban development and housing affordability, HamiltonForward took a closer look at the City’s plans for the site.

JAMESVILLE, TODAY
As it sits today, the Jamesville complex is an unremarkable relic of outdated public housing policy which confined many below-market units in a small area. In anticipation of the redevelopment, CityHousing Hamilton has been emptying the 91 units on site, relocating residents to other CityHousing buildings across the city.

Considering the context of the site, the new West Harbour GO station just across from it, and the various new developments proposed in the West Harbour and North End areas, redevelopment and densification of the site makes sense. Earlier this year the City issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the site and out of 4 bids submitted, a team led by Marz Homes was chosen as the preferred proponent.

OPINION: Jamesville redevelopment plan an abdication of responsibility
If you follow development or housing news in Hamilton, you’re likely aware that the City is embarking on a scheme to redevelop the 6-acre Jamesville social housing complex in the North End. As a group with a keen interest in urban development and housing affordability, HamiltonForward took a closer look at the City’s plans for the site.

JAMESVILLE, TODAY
As it sits today, the Jamesville complex is an unremarkable relic of outdated public housing policy which confined many below-market units in a small area. In anticipation of the redevelopment, CityHousing Hamilton has been emptying the 91 units on site, relocating residents to other CityHousing buildings across the city.

Considering the context of the site, the new West Harbour GO station just across from it, and the various new developments proposed in the West Harbour and North End areas, redevelopment and densification of the site makes sense. Earlier this year the City issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the site and out of 4 bids submitted, a team led by Marz Homes was chosen as the preferred proponent.

THE CITY’S VISION
While the RFP did not exactly prescribe a height, density, or total unit count of the plan, the RFP stipulated that all bids would need to include a 46-unit CityHousing-owned rent-geared-to-income building, an additional 45 units of ‘affordable’ (defined as 125% of Median Market Rent) rental units, and that any bid must not exceed current zoning of the site.

With a current total of 91 rent-geared-to-income units on the site now, the RFP is requiring an unnecessary 50% reduction of social housing units while the CityHousing waitlist is just under 6,000 applicants long.

And with the requirement to stick to existing zoning, the site is confined to 3 storeys over the vast majority of it, and up to 6 directly along James Street North, which limits the site to about 400 units.

During a severe housing shortage, it is unacceptable to limit this site to only 400 units and just 3 to 6 storeys. Plus, given the location next to the brand new West Harbour GO Station, it is unthinkable that the City would push for such a low density of the site, and throw away housing affordability potential.

The City’s plan is an abdication of its responsibility to promote housing affordability, plain and simple.

to promote housing affordability, plain and simple.

THE HAMILTONFORWARD VISION
Our vision for the site is simple: more units, better design, and greater affordability will lead to a better outcome. Our group has compiled an alternative proposal that fits around 1000 units on the site, grows public park space in the area, creates new urban amenity space, and increases the count of truly affordable units from 46 to 164.

First, recognizing that next to a brand-new higher-order transit station, the West Harbour GO, density and height can and should be encouraged and planned for. Our proposal highlights buildings ranging in height from 6 to 25 storeys, which will allow for more space to be opened up to the public and increase both the count of market-rate units and deeply affordable units.

Second, accepting that the development is directly beside one of the main transit gateways to our City, we have proposed that the buildings on the site should be placed in a manner that promotes walking, cycling, and transit usage. Apart from the reconnection of Stuart Street, no new roads should be included and instead that buildings should be separated by pedestrian pathways lined with shops, restaurants, and other amenities.

Third, our plan places a focus on affordability that the City’s does not. Rather than shrinking the supply of deeply affordable units from 91 to 46, our plan accommodates an increase to 164. And instead of 330 market units, our plan allows for 825 market units, and market units which are delivered in a more affordable mid-rise and tower form rather than an expensive townhouse form.

Finally, our plan sees Jamesville as a complete community rather than a bedroom community, so our plan includes a swath of commercial and retail space, including room for a large-format grocery store.

THE NEXT STEPS
The City’s plans for Jamesville are not finalized yet, and pro-housing residents can make a difference in the outcome. HamiltonForward will be campaigning for the City to increase the density, height, and unit count to reasonable numbers like the ones in our alternative proposal, which will improve affordability for both the general populace and those who need deeply affordable units.

If you’re interested in supporting our vision for Jamesville, consider joining HamiltonForward at hamiltonforward.ca/join

[Pipedreams]

Good job getting your vision out there @HamiltonForward, unfortunately not the type of development I can see our city getting behind right now. The mere thought of a 25 story tower in that area would send the NIMBYers clutching their pearls (they've successful squashed the 11 story tower across the street from the go station).

[johnnyhamont]

Negotiations remain ongoing but this, probably outdated by now, was from last falls open house

[TheRitsman]

I hate it. Massive waste of space. I can appreciate larger units, and totally agree that the 1 bedroom units meant for low income families aren't great and a huge decrease in options. But truthfully I hate these 50, 60s Utopian designs. The front/backyards are so small they just get filled with trash. It would have been a much better use of space to use more property for one large community park, rather than every unit or two units have grass that won't get used.

[SteelTown]

Reminds me of Regent Park


https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/06...ld-regent-park

[TheRitsman]

Some pictures of the new Indwell portion of this development. Looks very similar to the design further North on James.

[Innsertnamehere]

Indwell does good stuff. The social cause is great, and their designs are always simple but well detailed and end up being quite attractive.

I'm interested to see what Marz Homes does with their part of the project.

[Chronamut]

*wrinkles nose*

[itputsthelotionon]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

*wrinkles nose*

Agreed. SOOOOOOO uninspired. Can we not do something original? This style is popping up everywhere recently and it is so ugly.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by itputsthelotionon

Agreed. SOOOOOOO uninspired. Can we not do something original? This style is popping up everywhere recently and it is so ugly.

I mean, it's affordable housing. What are you expecting, the Taj Mahal? As long as it's well detailed and not done with cheap materials, simple and clean is the best you can expect from a project like this, I think.

[itputsthelotionon]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean, it's affordable housing. What are you expecting, the Taj Mahal? As long as it's well detailed and not done with cheap materials, simple and clean is the best you can expect from a project like this, I think.

hmmmm - look at what they do in Europe. We have buildings like this in Hamilton because of attitudes like "this is the best we can do" or "what do we expect" - what is wrong with wanting more? Why is that a negative thing?

Also not expecting the Taj Mahal - common - you are being super sarcastic. But something nicer or more cutting edge - why not?

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean, it's affordable housing. What are you expecting, the Taj Mahal? As long as it's well detailed and not done with cheap materials, simple and clean is the best you can expect from a project like this, I think.

Let's be honest - half the old buildings that are "affordable housing" downtown had more architectural consideration put into them back in the day than this did. I realize those were different times and skilled craftsmen were everywhere, but still. This is just legoland building at this point. Make a concrete shell, and clad it with panels and wipe your hands and walk away.

This is setting the standard that if you can't afford the ridiculously high rates in the city you have to be a crack junkie and thus deserve a building that reflects your impoverished state. I don't think that's the right way to go - you're basically just building "the projects" at that point.

Apparently people who have less money aren't allowed nice things. I mean even the william thomas residents have something nicer and they're rental students.

I think it's sad as an architectural site that this community seems only hell bent on height and not actual quality. I mean look at the locke st building - there wasn't a single person that DIDN'T like that building. It doesn't take much to put a little effort in - that's all I am saying. When I was in montreal I saw these styles of buildings EVERYWHERE and it was very uninspiring. It reflects the emptiness within ourselves as a society imo.

I blame ikea lol.

[TheRitsman]

To be fair chronomut, the William Thomas apartments command a hefty monthly price tag on what amounts to a student residence.

[Hawrylyshyn]

How can you economically build ultra fancy affordable housing though? It costs more to build fancy, and that money is harder to get back in affordable hosing projects. So when the developer is expecting less income back, they can't go all out spending to make it fancy

[Innsertnamehere]

This project is far from a “project” the materials shown are not exactly bottom of the barrel. They’ve gone for a simple modernist architectural expression here, but Indwell has done more interesting stuff elsewhere in the city and in Ontario.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

It's my observation, rightly or wrongly, that Canadians are generally very accepting of mediocrity. We don't like to stand out. We don't like opinions that stray from the standard perspective of things. We're a very middle-of-the-road, ho-hum sort of people. We don't necessarily strive for greatness but perhaps that's partly what makes our country so manageable and livable - the lack of extremes, that is. Not sure but it certainly helps and perhaps it's the price we pay for a functional country...

[Innsertnamehere]

I’m just trying to set expectations. There are things like financial realities that limit what can be done.. make an expensive design and it may look better, but it won’t sell as the price point will have to be higher to pay for it.

For affordable housing, I’d rather spend that money on more housing units than extravagant buildings. Indwell does a good job for a limited budget generally.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

For affordable housing, I’d rather spend that money on more housing units than extravagant buildings. Indwell does a good job for a limited budget generally.

x2

The city's priority IMO should be to push the developers with deeper pockets to produce higher quality buildings. We see lots of nice stuff from companies like Core Urban who have been taking on smaller renos and projects, but when it comes to towers that we would hope will look good from far, what's proposed or built is often far from good.

We hear a lot of dithering from the DRP about height and density and what is appropriate for a particular neighbourhood, but what of aesthetics? Shouldn't THAT be their main focus?

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

This project is far from a “project” the materials shown are not exactly bottom of the barrel. They’ve gone for a simple modernist architectural expression here, but Indwell has done more interesting stuff elsewhere in the city and in Ontario.

'This project is far from a “project”'

hahaha. Perhaps. But you know what I was getting at. When you can look at a building and go "oh right, that's low income housing."

I kinda like the proposals they have had where you take one building and fill it with a combination of low and high income housing depending on the units - they you can price it competitively, have a nice design, and not fill it with one pure demographic of people who will probably trash the place. It's like a group home - did you know every year group homes entirely gut the interior and rebuild it because they trash it so badly?

And I don't know how I feel when we are arguing the "luxuriousness" of panels over concrete lol.. it's like saying are you kidding? I spent 500 dollars on this lego - it's top of the line lego!

It's still lego.

And yes I get it's simple and modernist and all that junk - but as you said, they have done more interesting stuff elsewhere, and this sorta typa designs seems to be popping up everywhere now, and not just for "affordable housing"

The big thing seems to be "how will the general shape and colours of this look far away" not close up.. but eh like we said, affordable housing.

I have to accept it, but I don't have to like it!

*proceeds to wrinkle nose*

lol

This reminds of the building on james st n they just finished that looks a bit like a library or a school. I just tire of building designs that appear to have no soul or warmth. LIUNA and core urban have spoiled me lol. Also you should be going in with the needed capital to build a nice building - not build something crappy because your return on investment is not going to be a lot, but I get how business work.

[itputsthelotionon]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I’m just trying to set expectations. There are things like financial realities that limit what can be done.. make an expensive design and it may look better, but it won’t sell as the price point will have to be higher to pay for it.

I Understand what you are saying here- but then how are other places doing this? How is it in European countries like Netherlands, Denmark, Germany we have social and low income housing that looks interesting? Is their budget much more then ours? Is our budget so low that this is all we can make? or is it a lack of creativity and risk tasking? Often times things do not have to be over the top expensive to look interesting, but too many new buildings in this city take the easy way out. We take zero risks in Hamilton. Often times there are too many voices and opinions and we go with what is safe too often.