Gibson School Lofts | ?m | 4 fl | Proposed

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Municipal policy around mixed-use and mixed-income would be helpful to manage that. I'm not counting on it to happen though. I'm not even expecting it to be done well for the City Housing redevelopments where there is more municipal control (like the one in Jamesville, and in the east end along Reid)

Seems, anecdotally at least, that people who get priced out end up moving to places like Brantford, or St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. Or staying local, there are neighbourhoods on the mountain that seem to be relatively more affordable.

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners. The good news is that they already know which ones are screwing its citizens. The bad news is they don't care because they benefit directly from them.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners. The good news is that they already know which ones are screwing its citizens. The bad news is they don't care because they benefit directly from them.

Some people think no policy or less policy would always be better, but I don't agree. Some policies, like development charges are good and bad. Ultimately they can be used to essentially fine a development into submission when they become unreasonable, but otherwise those costs should be handled by property taxes.

I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Some people think no policy or less policy would always be better, but I don't agree. Some policies, like development charges are good and bad. Ultimately they can be used to essentially fine a development into submission when they become unreasonable, but otherwise those costs should be handled by property taxes.

I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine

Sounds reasonable - I could get behind that

[StEC]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I would love to see policies around limiting the uses of certain properties. Make Barton St, Cannon St, King, Main, James, Ottawa, Kenilworth and Parkdale all have requirements:

1) No surface level parking
2) 3 storey minimum
3) 5 storey as of right
4) 0.5 parking requirement
5) No development charges if under 10 storeys
6) Deferred property taxes for 5 years
7) Mandatory commercial on first floor
8) Current vacant, or surface lots are taxed based 35% estimated total lost property tax revenue at maximum as of right height to incentivize development
9) Allow for development but fine if something is not built, which is already done, but raise the fine

I would definitely support these requirements as well! Seems like good initiatives to spur development.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but rather than creating more policies, what the government should do - at all levels - is determine which of its many existing residential policies, by-laws, zoning ordinances, etc., are making things worse for low and middle income earners.

There may be limitations based on what's allowed in the Municipal Act or other provincial legislation, but in addition to many of the things suggested by TheRitsman (especially requirements for blending in commercial uses) I was thinking about ensuring that a percentage of units is "affordable", and mandating that there is a portion that are multi-bedroom units to make it easier for families to purchase or rent... or perhaps rather than impose rules, incentivize them by giving developers a break on charges or property taxes for providing such things.

I don't know if blanket policy would be the way to do it, or if it's best done using zoning, or establishing corridors along certain streets where the requirements would apply.

I agree with you though that there are existing policies and regulations that probably make things difficult for people with less financial means... that deserves a thorough review with an eye to making changes.

The market for development of multi-residential buildings in Hamilton is still at an emergent stage though, so making it too hard for developers isn't a good thing either. But I think there's a balance. The province could (and probably should) create a more level playing field as well by mandating some of these things for all municipalities.

[Crapht]

The east side of this building got new windows this week. I didn’t see if the Birch street side received any but the Gibson side looks very nice.

[thomax]

12/1/2021 by Joe, on Flickr


12/1/2021 by Joe, on Flickr

[Chronamut]

Oh my god it looks SO MUCH BETTER with the new windows!

Also did they.. deliberately.. unevenly leave non-sodablasted black brick at the top..?

I mean I could see if it was an even band all around, but that's just weird..



EDIT: Nope, just checked, it's an original building feature, shame on the original builders lol..

[palace1]

The uneven bricks along the roofline are the result of renovations by the Board of Education. The newer brick appears to match the 1965 gym addition in front.

Older photos show arches on the side facades and raised sections on the front roofline that were removed.

1957 photo from Toronto Telegram archives at York University:



Vintage Hamilton facebook photo:

[Chronamut]

Aw boo, I hate when they shear features off like that.. I guess back then since it was so dirty the brick they used appeared to match..

Glad the new render at least removes all the dark brick from the front and punches in some well needed windows.. even if it does make it look a bit like a strip mall..

Thanks for the pictures!

I remember walking through it when it was the open house and all the walls were exposed down to brick - you just get this feeling of vastness inside, and in some spots you could see through holes in the floorboards to the floor below.. that was kinda freaky..

[atnor]

What’s the feeling here? Is Stinson following through or is this busy work?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by palace1

The uneven bricks along the roofline are the result of renovations by the Board of Education. The newer brick appears to match the 1965 gym addition in front.

Seems like it was oddly executed though. Was it done because too much brick along the top was in bad shape so they had to replace several courses of it? So why not do the full 7 or 8 rows around the whole perimeter rather than 7-8 in one section, 3-4 along another, etc.? (e.g., was it lack of budget? expectation that more brick in the courses below would need to be replaced?)

[ScreamingViking]

Mention of this in a Spec story about Harry being taken to task by the securities commission.


https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...legations.html

"Stinson announced plans for a 80-unit condo conversion of the former Gibson public school in 2013. Today, the building is being marketed as upscale loft rentals between $1,595 and $2,995 per month. A window installer placed a $478,000 lien on the property in February, but Stinson said in general work on the project is going well and tenants could start moving in later this year."

[matt602]

Referring to him as a "developer" at this point is a joke.

[ScreamingViking]

True!

Even calling him a "proposer" is dubious, though he's been prolific about it.

[drpgq]

I drove by on the weekend and saw Harry and a woman putting an additional sign on the front. I ended up walking by later and saw it was an open house sign, weekends 11 to 3.

I then heard him say at a Barton BIA meeting yesterday that he was hoping next year for them (I can't remember exactly what he said). Not sure if this new sign actually means anything.

[craftbeerdad]

I see Harry all the time walking around Stinson (believe he lives in the school/lofts still). Good luck to anyone who ever buys into his properties.

[ScreamingViking]

Harry, the Boy Who Cried "Condos!"

[Wigs]

Have you guys seen his shitshow in Buffalo? He purchased the Soviet looking Adam's Mark hotel that I believe was originally flagged as a Hilton in 1980 when it opened. It's a gargantuan almost 500 room hotel err was. Had a massive (suspicious) fire, owes tons of unpaid bills. Just a disaster.

From 2 months ago
• Video Link

1 King West, Candy Factory lofts and Stinson school seem to be his only accomplishments in 25 years or whatever. And all of them seem to have issues or some controversy surrounding them.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Have you guys seen his shitshow in Buffalo? He purchased the Soviet looking Adam's Mark hotel that I believe was originally flagged as a Hilton in 1980 when it opened. It's a gargantuan almost 500 room hotel err was. Had a massive (suspicious) fire, owes tons of unpaid bills. Just a disaster.

From 2 months ago
• Video Link

1 King West, Candy Factory lofts and Stinson school seem to be his only accomplishments in 25 years or whatever. And all of them seem to have issues or some controversy surrounding them.

Buddy seriously talked to the news himself... What a noob lol