Get rid of the 30 story limit!!

[Calvinsofie1]

For a city the size of Hamilton to you have an antiquated 30 story limit only hurts Hamilton. Downtown property is going to be a precious commodity and to waste it by limiting the height of buildings is beyond stupid. At this time you can barely see Hamilton's skyline from the highway and to think Mississauga has 60 story buildings makes Hamilton look laughable in my opinion. Tall buildings attract people and improve a city"s image.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Calvinsofie1

For a city the size of Hamilton to you have an antiquated 30 story limit only hurts Hamilton. Downtown property is going to be a precious commodity and to waste it by limiting the height of buildings is beyond stupid. At this time you can barely see Hamilton's skyline from the highway and to think Mississauga has 60 story buildings makes Hamilton look laughable in my opinion. Tall buildings attract people and improve a city"s image.

Firstly this discussion point has been had here ad nauseam, but majority of your points are easily dismissed. Skyline seen from the highway doesn't really matter, I rarely leave the city and don't really care what people think driving past.


Tall buildings don't attract people or improve a cities image. Nobody travels to Amsterdam or Paris for the tall buildings, most of the areas people like and desire to live in in Toronto are not the Skyscraper sections of the city. A lively city does more to attract people.

An unlimited height limit wouldn't do as much as simple things like making more roads two way, and expanding sidewalks downtown.

If you want to make the argument for density around transit, that's fine, but my experience has been that too tall starts to effect people's mental health and psychology and actually push people away.

My other argument would be that many here, and likely yourself feel there should be some limit, and not have unlimited height, so what should that number be, why is your number less arbitrary and what makes you an expert in urban planning that various people saying middling density is the preferred option don't have?

[Innsertnamehere]

Also, not a single building has been built under the 30 storey height limit yet. Not. A. Single. One.

It's not exactly an issue.

Ideally I think height limits would be a bit more flexible, but generally I'm fine with it.

The limit is allowing intensification to "spread out" more, covering more of the downtown. Which is a good thing.

[ericmacm]

The height limit won't last forever. Hamilton is only just beginning to hit its stride, and despite all that has been proposed, there is still an incredible amount of land still open for development. I can assure you that Hamilton will not be stunted forever.

The way I see the height limit right now is to encourage more widespread redevelopment. Keeping the buildings shorter has been forcing the construction of more towers (as opposed to fewer taller towers), which will see a more widespread effect on street level since more lots will be taken up. I see this as a way to establish more nice and desirable areas downtown that will help keep the developmental momentum going.

Height isn't everything. Right now, the height limit is a good strategy for forcing the development to be spread out so more areas become desirable and more empty parking lots get filled. The coming decade will likely be transformative for our mid-sized cities and it will be important to take maximum advantage of this growth. The height will come later once the LRT is established and more areas have been filled out.

[davee930]

Originally Posted by Calvinsofie1

For a city the size of Hamilton to you have an antiquated 30 story limit only hurts Hamilton. Downtown property is going to be a precious commodity and to waste it by limiting the height of buildings is beyond stupid. At this time you can barely see Hamilton's skyline from the highway and to think Mississauga has 60 story buildings makes Hamilton look laughable in my opinion. Tall buildings attract people and improve a city"s image.

I'm with you. Tall buildings definitely attract me! I'm weird though. I would live as high as possible if I had it my way.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

The 30 Story limit is the poster child for the backwards, inept town planning which has plagued the city for 30 years. In theory, it is agreeable - to encourage new developments to infill all the vacant lots and integrate well with the existing buildings.

In practice, however, it's nothing but another mound of red tape which discourages development in the city. There's a tonne of other ways to encourage midrise developments, without trying in vain to protect a vista which is not visible unless you're maintaining the counterweights on the lift bridge.

[ScreamingViking]

Even before the limit became official, we didn't see proposals that were much taller. E.g., the next Connaught tower is to be 36 storeys, Corktown Plaza was originally 34 and 31, and one of the Television City twins was 40.

310 Frances is an exception, but sited in a completely different location context and part of the waterfront boom happening in Stoney Creek and Grimsby. Plus the developer is taking advantage of a zoning oversight on the part of the city.

One could argue that things are just ramping up, and proposals for taller buildings would have been forthcoming. But it gets more expensive to build the taller you go, and Hamilton's condo market isn't at a point of supporting that expense.

As downtown fills in, I agree we will see more flexibility on the height issue and the city will probably ask for things in return for allowing towers that break the limit.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

The 30 Story limit is the poster child for the backwards, inept town planning which has plagued the city for 30 years. In theory, it is agreeable - to encourage new developments to infill all the vacant lots and integrate well with the existing buildings.

In practice, however, it's nothing but another mound of red tape which discourages development in the city. There's a tonne of other ways to encourage midrise developments, without trying in vain to protect a vista which is not visible unless you're maintaining the counterweights on the lift bridge.

The main goal is to reduce land speculation. The issue with unlimited height, or height beyond the demands of Hamilton developments leads to people zone flipping, or trying to sell properties for exuberant prices because "sky's the limit" which is ironic, because taller isn't always cheaper.

The other reality is that Hamilton had a finite demand of people interested in living in condos, and the best way to spread that out is to reduce the maximum height to force things to spread out more. Transit and cycling infrastructure doesn't work well when everybody and everything is in one place, and we need to stop the 20th century ideal of working in the centre and living on the periphery. Hamilton needs to aim for 15 minute communities, with more living and employment around other walkable centres. That will never happen if all the population of Hamilton moves into the core alone over the next 30 years.

Most decent cities have reasonable height limits for these reasons in the 21st century. It also reduces overshading of streets leading to lack of sunlight tree canopy and happiness.

The other issue is that while Amsterdam is more dense than Toronto, it feels less busy in most areas. Putting 60 or 90 storey towers leads too much density for most people. Hamilton doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the level of density beyond 30-40 storeys in the entirety of the core, especially the further you get from Main and King, because the lower city's North/South transit is mediocre because of its small distance. It is still profitable to build below 30 storeys as many developers are choosing to do so voluntarily, so those going above are doing so purely for profit. Profit is important for private developers, but livability is important for those who live here. Darko and Brad aren't going to move to Hamilton, so just as we typically want vacant unit tax, and non-resident sales tax which affects investors because they negatively effect our community and country, we need to be careful a love of architecture or "city living" don't trump livability. It's also key to understand that while R1 type single family housing is detrimental, unfettered density on the complete other extreme isn't necessarily the solution either. A balanced approach is necessary.

Again, unless you have the extreme ideal that there should be no height limit, you are suggesting another arbitrary number, and I question the expertise of those suggesting another number. What do you believe is acceptable for the core? 40? 50? 90? 300? What makes your number better?

The big issue here is that this forum is filled with height extremists who refuse to appreciate any other argument than "taller = better".

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

The points you make are entirely agreeable. I am not a proponent of the supertall. If nothing else, it's good that we can agree that a lot of people here appreciate and demand height just for the sake of height. Though that should be expected on the SkyscraperPage Forum.

I won't pretend to know the answer to what the height limit should be. 30 stories, as I understand it, is the number chosen because it lines up the with the mountain brow. The argument then made is that we must abide by the limit for the sake of protecting the view of the mountain, but you and I can both agree that's a bit silly, to put it nicely.

You and I are proponents of the same town planning ideals. I have no shortage of reasons to complain about the town planning decisions south of Concession St. How to attain the 15-Minute Neighbourhood, then, is where we seem to slightly disagree.

As it happens now every major development downtown (As I understand it) has conflicted with the height limit at one point or another during their planning phases. This policy in practice accomplishes nothing but to inhibit developments and draw out the planning process by literal years. There are better ways to encourage the European midrise. I won't pretend to know what those are, but I do know that a height limit toted as a reason to protect an arbitrary vista, which we have now, is not one of them.

[SteelTown]

For me, I would exclude the 30 storey height limit within a certain km from all future LRT stations which would have no height limit.

Ultimately, I think maybe within ten years the City will end up doing this. it's only smart urban planning.

[Calvinsofie1]

My take on this is that Hamilton has lag behind pretty much all other cities its size in Canada and as far as Construction and building height in the downtown area. Concern about blocking the view from the mountain is ridiculous I think because 160 Story Tower do not block any more than two 30 story Towers. My opinion is that if we feel all the downtown Lots with 30 story buildings will end up with what we've had for the last 30 years which is an antiquated 70s tabletop Skyline. The fact that you can't see the skyline from even the Skyway Bridge it's embarrassing for a city this size. And to those who say they don't care if you see the skyline like the gentleman who commented in an earlier post it's because you live downtown and you never leave the city like you said. I happen to care about the city's image and prosperity. They reduced the television City Towers which was a shame because local residents didnt like it. It is turning many developers off of Hamilton for this reason and that's a shame because we are missing a big opportunity to really change this city going into the future.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

because taller isn't always cheaper.

It is though.

[StEC]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

For me, I would exclude the 30 storey height limit within a certain km from all future LRT stations which would have no height limit.

Ultimately, I think maybe within ten years the City will end up doing this. it's only smart urban planning.

I completely agree, areas surrounding LRT stations should allow for height as high as developers want to go and they should be encouraged to build tall.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

It is though.

How is taller cheaper?

I'm not an architect or engineer or building developer. But generally, I'd think that going taller means:
- the foundation and structure would have to be more robust to support the additional height and the wind forces the building will experience
- the mechanical systems that provide services for the tenants will need to be larger to handle the extra demand, and the engineering to make them all fit and function properly would get more complicated
- more elevators may be required
- the complexity and time span of construction become greater

That would all increase the building cost per square foot, and a higher return would be necessary to justify constructing a taller tower.

If we're talking about an additional 4 or 5 floors perhaps it's not as large of an issue. But something like 15 or 20? That's a big difference.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

How is taller cheaper?

I'm not an architect or engineer or building developer. But generally, I'd think that going taller means:
- the foundation and structure would have to be more robust to support the additional height and the wind forces the building will experience
- the mechanical systems that provide services for the tenants will need to be larger to handle the extra demand, and the engineering to make them all fit and function properly would get more complicated
- more elevators may be required
- the complexity and time span of construction become greater

That would all increase the building cost per square foot, and a higher return would be necessary to justify constructing a taller tower.

If we're talking about an additional 4 or 5 floors perhaps it's not as large of an issue. But something like 15 or 20? That's a big difference.

Yes, total cost of the project would be more, of course. But cost per unit goes down with the size of the building.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Yes, total cost of the project would be more, of course. But cost per unit goes down with the size of the building.

To a certain extent. Eventually extra height costs more. My understanding is that it starts to be more expensive as you get above the mid-30's levels, and it goes up fast. A 70 storey building is far, far more expensive than a 50 storey one, and a 50 storey building is much more expensive than a 30 storey one.

If you have the market fundamentals there and land costs are high enough, you can justify those heights. Hamilton isn't there yet though. Condos in Hamilton go for about $750/ft right now - compared to Mississauga at about $900/ft and Toronto at $1,300/ft. $750/ft is just barely enough to justify a condo build of any size.


Really the most efficient building is like a 6 storey wood frame structure.

If Hamilton didn't have a height limit right now, would you see taller proposals? Yes, obviously. I know of at least one project that would have gone taller for sure if it could have. Would they have done 50 storeys? A little more doubtful. Probably more 35-40.

The other problem that really hits development in Hamilton is parking. Parking is crazy expensive, and is absolutely not profitable for a developer. They lose huge amounts of money on it. In Toronto, you have tight sites but don't have to build much of it. In Mississauga, you have large sites that can efficiently provide it with relatively low costs, and very favorable geological conditions. Hamilton? Terrible geological conditions, tight urban sites like Toronto leading to inefficient layouts, and while parking requirements are lower than Mississauga, they are still significant compared to Toronto. Projects are often limited by how much parking can be provided on site for a reasonable cost.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

If you have the market fundamentals there and land costs are high enough, you can justify those heights. Hamilton isn't there yet though. Condos in Hamilton go for about $750/ft right now - compared to Mississauga at about $900/ft and Toronto at $1,300/ft. $750/ft is just barely enough to justify a condo build of any size.
.

I totally agree with you on this point. It's the main reason why we don't see 'higher quality' builds in Hamilton quite yet. It just makes more sense to build pre-cast 'uglier' buildings right now. As Hamilton becomes more attractive for investors, we'll see more developments like Television City though.

[craftbeerdad]

Television City won't be some hallmark. Not sure if you know much about Brad Lamb, but his developments aren't exactly prize winners in Toronto.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by craftbeerdad

Television City won't be some hallmark. Not sure if you know much about Brad Lamb, but his developments aren't exactly prize winners in Toronto.

You're joking? Theatre Park in Toronto is one of the nicest condos in the city. His builds are consistently high quality, and Television City will absolutely be the nicest development in Hamilton. We need more like them here.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

I'm not a scientist or rocket engineer either but it's common sense that developers don't think in terms of what's more expensive or cheaper to build ...it's about potential profit or return on investment....a taller building will be waaay more expensive yes...but will make waaay more profit for them ... In turn making it a better investment....then they will be able to provide better quality materials because there is more profit margin ... It's kind of like gambling... You need to spend big to win big (typically)