[ryan_mcgreal]

buildings built right up to the street is just the first step. The other ingredient is having entrances into the buildings, window displays and other things that create and inviting atmosphere and encourage street activity.

To that formula I would add tall street trees to form an archway over the street and provide shade to the sidewalk.

[adam]

That building is going to be nicer than city hall :(

[raisethehammer]

That building is going to be nicer than city hall :(

LOL...trust me, no it won't.
I drove all through the site yesterday. This will be one huge ugly pile of crap.

[astroblaster]

i am not impressed.

[Jon Dalton]

I honestly thought it would be better. I was thinking all along that my comparison to Appleby and Dundas may have been too cynical, but it turns out reality is far worse. It's a row of stores with no entrances, effectively a barrier to pedestrian access.

[adam]

What a stupid contrast: new centre mall vs. collapse of GM/Chrysler/Ford

Pedestrian access anyone???

[hammergirl]

Large walls is also an invitation for graffiti artists.

We should start a pool as to when the first tags appear.

[Jon Dalton]

Looks like a candidate for Kunstler's 'eyesore of the month' http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html

[MsMe]

We should start a pool as to when the first tags appear.

I hate to say it but that's probably going to happen sooner then we think.

[markbarbera]

I honestly thought it would be better. I was thinking all along that my comparison to Appleby and Dundas may have been too cynical, but it turns out reality is far worse. It's a row of stores with no entrances, effectively a barrier to pedestrian access.

What a stupid contrast: new centre mall vs. collapse of GM/Chrysler/Ford

Pedestrian access anyone???

Where is the restriction to pedestrian access? Take a look at the latest site plan. There are walkways all over the place, many with direct connections to the public sidewalk along Barton Street.

I still contend that, while this is not what many of us 'armchair developers' would consider an ideal redevelopment, it will be a marked improvement over the decaying mall that was here before. Of course, it is easy for us to be highly critical of the design decisions made here, because it's not our money being risked on this redevelopment. $100 million is nothing to sneeze at. You can be sure the redevelopment being placed here is pretty much what the area's shopping demographic is asking for, otherwise the development would not take place. I for one very much look forward to taking the Barton bus there to do some serious shopping without having to drive to Ancaster or Upper Stoney Creek.

[raisethehammer]

I'm not aware of anyone in the area that was "asking for this" kind of development.

Also, if you can bus to a big box complex and trudge through parking lots with your bags in hand, being honked by drivers who can't believe a human being has the nerve to walk across their precious driving space, more power to you.

[raisethehammer]

Where is the restriction to pedestrian access? Take a look at the latest site plan. There are walkways all over the place, many with direct connections to the public sidewalk along Barton Street.


Which site plan are you looking at?
The one on Redcliffe Realty website shows virtually nothing in regards to public sidewalk access.
For example, if one wants to walk from the food court building to the Zellers via sidewalks, they have to cross traffic roads 5 times to get there. I wouldn't allow any senior citizen in my family to even consider trying that. It's a death wish for anyone of any age.
This thing is all about the car. bottom line.

[BrianE]

I'm not as excited about this project as I used to be. I pictured me and my family parking at Centre Mall to get groceries they walking over to the farmers market and walking along Barton St looking in the shop windows maybe buying things that catch my eye. Getting lunch on Ottawa St. some days, maybe fast food at the food pavilion other days.

I don't think I'll be doing that now.

I have a feeling that I'll want to get in and get out a soon as possible, too much traffic, nothing to look at, nothing to appreciate.

I'll probly go back to shopping at Eastgate Fortinos.

I'll give Centre Mall a try when it opens... but I don't see anything that will keep me coming back.

[block43]

I think we should change the name of this thread since the mall is almost all gone.

[markbarbera]

For example, if one wants to walk from the food court building to the Zellers via sidewalks, they have to cross traffic roads 5 times to get there

This is no different than crossing five side streets as you walk along King Street from John to Ferguson. Except, on the Centre Mall property, there is traffic calming like speed bumps and a speed limit of 20kmh rather than 50kmh. Try agruing without the exaggeration brought on by an obvious bias against these types of developments.

The one on Redcliffe Realty website shows virtually nothing in regards to public sidewalk access
This is simply not true. When is the last time you looked at the site plan? It was updated last week, and public walkways are clearly marked.

Here's a link to the latest site plan. (http://www.redcliffrealty.com/leasing/leasingPlans/CENTRE%20MALL1.pdf)

[raisethehammer]

I looked at it this morning.
the 'walkways' are the usual tiny concrete sidewalks in front of stores. nothing is connected and to get from one building to another requires walking in parking lots and roadways.
You can already see some of the roads on-site taking shape. Nice and wide so cars can dominate.
To suggest that crossing a downtown street at a stoplight is less safe or equally safe than trying to cross a mega-parking lot in 5 places in order to walk to another buildng is insane.
My bias is against crap.
This is an urban neighbourhood with lots of pedestrians/cyclists and transit users.
Yet, this development has taken shape as if it's in the meadowlands.
I fail to see how you can be promoting this as pedestrian friendly when the most dominant feature on the site plan is a massive parking lot. Please post a photo-tour of your experience the first time you do some 'serious shopping' by bus/foot at this place.

[comadriver]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong about cars or people who use them. The shopping mall is for shopping. Shopping involves taking merchandise with you from the store. The mall needs to attract consumers who will take more stuff with them and are likely to use cars for that purpose. It sounds like appropriate access is being provided for drivers, pedestrians and the disabled in this project.

The walls backing on Barton are not pretty, but one would have to be an absolute screaming nut case to disagree that this is an immense improvement over what was there before and a big step forward for the immediate neighbourhood.

Cheers :)

[ryan_mcgreal]

while this is not what many of us 'armchair developers' would consider an ideal redevelopment, it will be a marked improvement over the decaying mall that was here before.

Not good enough. We already know what good urban design looks like, as evidenced by cities that successfully implement form-based urban design codes. $100 million spent on a transportation and land use model with poor future prospects is $100 million misspent.

it is easy for us to be highly critical of the design decisions made here, because it's not our money being risked on this redevelopment.

I'm actually more interested in the role the city can play in setting and enforcing good design standards. It's not our money being risked, but it is our community being risked.

You can be sure the redevelopment being placed here is pretty much what the area's shopping demographic is asking for, otherwise the development would not take place.

It's merely chasing past performance, blind to the fact that the business model is changing. If you think it's too mindboggling that investors could spend $100 million on a bad business plan, just look at the Big Three automakers.

[ryan_mcgreal]

a big step forward for the immediate neighbourhood.

They said the same things about Jackson Square and the Eaton Centre (now Hamilton City Centre). Just like the new Centre Mall, those structures were turned in on themselves, presenting blank walls to their surroundings and locating parking inside the big block (albeit underground, and with actual indoor corridors between stores).

The surrounding areas, denied the continuity of a functioning streetwall (http://raisethehammer.org/article/074), suffered badly after JS/CC went up. Foot traffic dwindled, stores closed, and buildings were neglected in a vicious cycle of depopulation and disinvestment. Call it a negative multiplier effect: the inward-facing commercial establishment drained its surroundings of vitality until a tipping point was crossed and the mall itself began to suffer, since its surroundings were so bad no one wanted to come downtown any more.

[comadriver]

The surrounding areas, denied the continuity of a functioning streetwall (http://raisethehammer.org/article/074), suffered badly after JS/CC went up.

Ryan, any chance this could be a correlation rather than causal relationship?

[markbarbera]

I looked at it this morning.
the 'walkways' are the usual tiny concrete sidewalks in front of stores. nothing is connected and to get from one building to another requires walking in parking lots and roadways.
The site plan can be deceiving if you do not keep perpective with scale. The narrowest walkway appears to be about four feet wide. The walkway in front of the big boxes is about 15 feet wide, and most other walkways look about six feet wide. To keep perspective, eyeball the sidewalk width in comparison to the width of a parking spot in the site plan. A parking spot averages six feet in width.

To suggest that crossing a downtown street at a stoplight is less safe or equally safe than trying to cross a mega-parking lot in 5 places in order to walk to another buildng is insane.
No, it is the truth. Crossing against 20 kmh traffic circulating in a parking lot is infinitely more safe than crossing 50 kmh crossroad traffic. Using the word 'mega' in your description does not impact on traffic safety.

My bias is against crap.
This is an urban neighbourhood with lots of pedestrians/cyclists and transit users.
Yet, this development has taken shape as if it's in the meadowlands.

The development plan is significantly different from Meadowlands. Meadowlands does nto take any pedestrian traffic into account. This development does. Again, a bias against Meadowlands is clouding your judgement.

I fail to see how you can be promoting this as pedestrian friendly when the most dominant feature on the site plan is a massive parking lot. Please post a photo-tour of your experience the first time you do some 'serious shopping' by bus/foot at this place.
And perhaps you can reserve judgement on the pedestrian experience until you have actually visited the completed site as well. You may be pleasantly surprised by your experience.

[markbarbera]

They said the same things about Jackson Square and the Eaton Centre (now Hamilton City Centre). Just like the new Centre Mall, those structures were turned in on themselves, presenting blank walls to their surroundings and locating parking inside the big block (albeit underground, and with actual indoor corridors between stores).

The surrounding areas, denied the continuity of a functioning streetwall (http://raisethehammer.org/article/074), suffered badly after JS/CC went up. Foot traffic dwindled, stores closed, and buildings were neglected in a vicious cycle of depopulation and disinvestment. Call it a negative multiplier effect: the inward-facing commercial establishment drained its surroundings of vitality until a tipping point was crossed and the mall itself began to suffer, since its surroundings were so bad no one wanted to come downtown any more.


But we are dealing with a site that was already isolated from the community. There is no net difference to the area. There is nothing more inward-facing than the indoor shopping centre island surrounded by moat of parking.

Like I have said before, there is some argument that an opportunity for mixed-use redevelopment was lost here, but the end result will not worsen the area. At worst, the status quo will remain. At best, the neighbouring commercial areas will see an improvement in occupancy and real estate values, which is already being seen on Ottawa Street and to a lesser extend along Kenilworth. And the city will experience an increase in commercial property tax revenue.

[markbarbera]

Ryan, any chance this could be a correlation rather than causal relationship?

That's an excellent point which is often overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Ryan, any chance this could be a correlation rather than causal relationship?

In the interest of clarity, a causal relationship is a type of correlation; but you're correct that not all correlations are causal. Further, even where causality does exist, its direction is not always clear.

For example, there is a very strong positive correlation between ice cream sales and heatstroke, but it would be absurd to conclude that ice cream causes heatstroke or that heatstroke causes increased desire for ice cream. The correct explanation for this correlation is that both heatstroke and increased desire for ice cream are caused by hot weather.

This example indicates the best way to determine whether and how two correlated phenomena are connected causally: the presence or absence of a plausible causal path that makes useful predictions that can be tested empirically.

This gets tricky, of course, when studying the economic and social effects of a given building form. It's not like you can test these effects experimentally with an otherwise-similar control group!

But through the less direct process of careful observation, comparative analysis of different areas and different cities over time, it's still possible to draw pretty confident conclusions.

Looking at a number of downtown malls built in different North American cities during the 1960s-1980s, certain patterns emerge:


The existing streets around inward-facing, indoor malls tend to deteriorate significantly after the malls were created.
The existing streets around outward-facing malls with porous streetwalls and around outdoor malls with pedestrian areas tend not to deteriorate as much.
The existing streets around malls that were converted from inward-facing to outward-facing (i.e. from blank to porous) tend to improve after the conversion.

As an example, an excellent academic study of this trend is Piere Filion et al.'s paper The Successful Few: Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions, which examines the relative success or failure of various downtowns and concludes (http://raisethehammer.org/blog/038) that:


downtown could no longer compete with the suburbs on its own terms and that their salvation rested instead on their distinction from the suburban realm in terms of the nature of their activities, a more compact built environment, and the predominance of pedestrian movement for intra-downtown journeys.


In other words: successful downtowns have streetwalls, dense, mixed building uses, and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure - none of which characteristics the new Centre Mall offers.

I also encourage you to supplement your research with basic firsthand observation. Starting at the corner of King and James, walk along King to Bay and turn right (north). Walk on Bay until York and turn right (east). Walk along York until James and turn right (south). Pay attention as you walk: to the sidewalk, the flow of traffic, the building walls that surround you, the presence or absence of other pedestrians, and so on.

Probably the worst offender in the megablock is City Centre, whose exterior is the most blank and impermeable, and whose facade is the most bland and cartoony (right down to fake flags on the clock tower). Ask yourself: What reason or incentive might I have to stand or walk outside this mall?

[raisethehammer]

But we are dealing with a site that was already isolated from the community. There is no net difference to the area. There is nothing more inward-facing than the indoor shopping centre island surrounded by moat of parking.


sadly this sort of logic has become a mantra in Hamilton as we try to defend garbage developments - "it's no worse than what was there" is not the kind of city I want to live in.

[markbarbera]

sadly this sort of logic has become a mantra in Hamilton as we try to defend garbage developments - "it's no worse than what was there" is not the kind of city I want to live in.

Likewise, the mantra to adhere to nothing less than the percieved idealism of a few of self-appointed experts on the subject has stagnated any kind of progress in this city, good or bad.

For the record, I do not see myself as a defender of garbage developments because I simply do not see the Centre Mall development as a garbage redevelopment. I actually think it is quite appropriate for the area given its retail history, and a realistic approach to the potential of an area that abutts such a large concentration of heavy industry. At risk of offending some, you simply cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The city has been quite involved in the redevelopment plans for this site. It has the support of council, specifically the unqualified support of the councillor that represents the area in which it resides. The time to be critical of the redevelopment had come and gone years ago. Griping about it during the construction phase is a complete waste of time and energy.

[ryan_mcgreal]

"it's no worse than what was there" is not the kind of city I want to live in.

Likewise, the RHVP enthusiasts have resorted to claiming they're vindicated because the universe didn't actually collapse into singularity when the expressway was completed.

[markbarbera]

Likewise, the RHVP enthusiasts have resorted to claiming they're vindicated because the universe didn't actually collapse into singularity when the expressway was completed.

It astounds me that this battle is still being fought years after the highway's completion. It has been built, and it is being used by thousands. Time to move on, folks.

[crhayes]

I am going to reserve judgement until the project is complete. Sure, there may not be a streetwall, but hopefully there are some other aesthetics such as trees, banners etc. to make it look nicer.

Although this is not "ideal" to many people there definitely are some positives to it.

[comadriver]

Ryan, I am on board with the concept of openness. Having re-looked at the plan that Mark linked to, I see significant street frontage, which visually obstructs a lot of the parking spaces if you look at it from Barton. Most smaller stores open onto Barton street. The biggest boxes are tucked to the back, which makes sense.

Is your precise issue with the sheer number of parking spaces? The intent is obviously to bring people in from outside the immediate area. Can you say with confidence that would happen without the parking spaces? What specific changes would you make to the layout, while keeping all of these businesses in the area? Keep in mind that a lot of them cannot operate unless they are a certain size and in a mall setting, due to the economies of scale.

As someone who just bought a house not too far from Centre Mall and intend to bike, walk or drive to some of these stores, I like the layout. It sure beats the Square One-type plan, where you need to walk for 20 minutes inside the mall just to get to the store you need.

[raisethehammer]

It astounds me that this battle is still being fought years after the highway's completion. It has been built, and it is being used by thousands. Time to move on, folks.

claims were made by RHVP enthusiasts and now is where 'the rubber meets the road' to see if those claims are true are not. So far, RHVP enthusiasts have resorted to responding "it's been built. move on."

[markbarbera]

You are incorrectly categorizing me as a RHVP enthusiast. However, I do have enough sense not to dwell in the past and know how to move on.

[raisethehammer]

no, I wasn't referring to you. Just to RHVP enthusiasts in general.

[markbarbera]

I am surprised at how heavily this road has been adopted, but I now accept the fact that, for the majority of citizens of Hamilton, the RHVP is a useful part of the infrastructure. But this thread is now bogged down by ramblings over the merit of done deals. I say again, time to move on.

[raisethehammer]

it may be a done deal in terms of being constructed, but nowhere near being a 'done deal' in terms of delivering it's promises: tens of thousands of new jobs, millions in new tax assessment and tons of industry that would make it a worthwhile investment. Of course, we'll look over Larry DiIanni's claim that "NO residential sprawl will be built at the top of the road. It's for INDUSTRY and PROSPERITY that we need". Funny. I was at a friend's house the other day and their backyard backs onto the entry ramps to RHVP.

Nobody ever doubted that people would drive on it.
Ever been to L.A.?? Strange thing happens when you build roads - people drive on them.

[markbarbera]

it may be a done deal in terms of being constructed, but nowhere near being a 'done deal' in terms of delivering it's promises: tens of thousands of new jobs, millions in new tax assessment and tons of industry that would make it a worthwhile investment. Of course, we'll look over Larry DiIanni's claim that "NO residential sprawl will be built at the top of the road. It's for INDUSTRY and PROSPERITY that we need". Funny. I was at a friend's house the other day and their backyard backs onto the entry ramps to RHVP.

Nobody ever doubted that people would drive on it.
Ever been to L.A.?? Strange thing happens when you build roads - people drive on them.

I feel duty-bound to point out the obvious. This is a thread about the Centre Mall, not the RHVP. Its mention here is a bit of a straw man. There's a thread for its discussion elsewhere. If it is humanly possible that something that ought to have been said about it has not yet been said, then post it there.

[raisethehammer]

I think it absolutely relates to this thread. It's being touted as the 'reason' for the 'wonderful' Centre Maul development by RHVP backers. At least they are willing to admit that Centre Mall is being redone for cars only.

[markbarbera]

Actually, if it is being 'used' to tout this development, the argument is that the improved access the RHVP provides will allow for a wider demographic of shoppers to add to its dwindling base. And there must be truth to that, considering the retail development sprouting up at the southern end of the RHVP.

But the RHVP was not brought up in your earlier post in that context, was it? It was more in the form of a broadsided cheap shot at a former politician and others who dared to defy your opinion and actually supported the construction of the RHVP.

A couple more points regarding that post. Do point out if I am wrong, but your friend's home that backs onto the RHVP ramp had to have been built prior to the parkway. No new residential construction has been built backing onto the RHVP since its completion.

Yes I have been to LA. Lovely town. Can't wait to visit again.

[Millstone]

It astounds me that this battle is still being fought years after the highway's completion. It has been built, and it is being used by thousands. Time to move on, folks.

Years? It's been one year.

[Jon Dalton]

Centre Maul (oops, did I spell that right?) has nothing to do with the Red Hill Parkway. Big box is a universal trend in retail as malls become passé. Whenever a mall is getting old, they just slap up a big box that's already designed. See Queenston mall, Mountain Plaza mall, etc, etc. In this case they at least did a bit of cut & paste and rotate 180º in AutoCAD to come up with the 'streetwall' variation.

It's Hamilton, we ought to be thankful for a bit of mediocrity right? I'm lukewarm on the whole thing, if it was downtown I'd be right pissed off but where it is, it's only as bad as any other city's inner suburb mediocrity. There's something very similar that went into some unsed railway land in Toronto's Junction neighbourhood. It's a huge waste of land and infill potential, but in that area it won't do much harm.

[raisethehammer]

mark - my friends home was just built and they just moved in.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed but around the corner is another 10,000 homes being built at summit park. both sides of upper mt. albion, paramount/mud streets....it's been covered in homes since the highway was built.

what an exciting addition to hamilton's retail landscape RHVP is proving to be. How great to zip south to a sprawling mess of parking and ugly stucco boxes, OR get crazy and zip north to a sprawling mess of parking and ugly stucco boxes!! Wow, we sure know how to live it up in this town!

[flar]

I feel inclined to point out that the new Centre Mall has nothing to do with "what people want" or what's good for that part of the city, and more generally, that big box power centres replacing malls has nothing to do with what people want. It only has to do with what retailers want, and that is to maximize their profits. That is the only rationale for crap like the new Centre Mall. They want people in and out as fast as possible. Power centres are not made for comfort, only for convenience and to buy as much junk as possible as quickly as possible while still maintaining some of the synergy of malls by having several retailers share the parking lot.

In old fashioned malls they thought that maybe a climate controlled, comfortable atmosphere might be conducive to shoppers spending money, but in the end, it just ends up costing the retailer money to provide security for the building and clean up after all the people "loitering" and using the mall as a public space. People are addicted to shopping and will buy things anyways, so all that can be eliminated by having stand alone minimalistic warehouse style disposable buildings.


In short, the new Centre Mall is not better than what was there before for anyone except retailers.

[markbarbera]

mark - my friends home was just built and they just moved in.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed but around the corner is another 10,000 homes being built at summit park. both sides of upper mt. albion, paramount/mud streets....it's been covered in homes since the highway was built.

Okay, now I'm more confused. Summit Park is built at the southwest corner of Rymal and Fletcher's Road. It is impossible for oyur friend's backyard to back on to the RHVP if built there. I guess you were talking figuratively.

I am quite familiar with Summit Park. It is located just west of the site of the new factory being built that will recycle restaurant grease into biodiesel. RHVP is indeed attacting new residential, retail and industrial to this area.

[raisethehammer]

no, they BACK onto RHVP ramp. I said that Summit park is 'around the corner'...meaning, around the corner from their place and down Rymal a bit.
Sorry for the confusion, but it's quite plain to see if you drive up there. Not a single real job yet. Just sprawl homes and big box crap.

[markbarbera]

Playing devil's advocate here, but aren't construction jobs real jobs? and how many commercial businesses in the park up there would you qualify as worthwhile? As another forum participant pointed out, the RHVP has only been open to traffic for a year. Is it fair to be condemning it in this manner so early on in the game? Passing judgement on immediate growth over long term growth doesn't seem level-headed to me. Lets have adiscussion about RHVP ten years from now, ok?

At any rate, this discussion is supposed to be about Centre Mall yet it is constantly being hijacked by the RHVP straw man. I am happy to continue a discussion on RHVP in its proper forum.

[markbarbera]

Speaking of the Centre Mall, the old Zellers closes its doors for the final time on December 3. The new store will open the next day.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Have been away from this thread for a few days -- I'm not even going to bother jumping in any deeper than to the knees at this point.

Construction jobs are absolutely real -- and this era of shrinking new home starts--retail, commercial, infranstructure and industrial work is more crucial than ever. Retail and Foodservice jobs are real too--and play a role in the overall mosaic of the economy, even if they are often scoffed at it.

Secondly--as much as it is "the in thing" to talk about downtown malls killing downtown retail with their "inwardness" -- you only need to visit a city that didn't go that route (like the one I live near) to see that downtown retail died anyway--even with streetwalls intact and no inward facing mall. For certain malls went up in a number of cities to try to arrest this trend - and the malls only marginally helped - but to point to them as cause of the disappearance of retail ignores the fact that in a number of other cities (without downtown malls) the decline was just as severe. Hell, for a CMA population of over 300,000 we only have one major suburban mall -- the stores downtown still left.

I'm not passing judgement on the Centre until I see it in something closer to completed form. As much as I dont appreciate the "look" of the blank walls along Barton, I was under the impression from the beginning that this was Redcliffe's plan - I actual don't recall them ever saying they were building streetfront retail -- so this is exactly what I expected when they talked about having buildings along Barton...again, there was never a streetwall to restore - a fence around the Jockey Club and then a parking lot around the Centre.

Lastly, I thought of all you kids yesterday -- I found myself at a LEED Gold Certified...get ready for it...big box development. Fairlane Green in Allen Park, Michigan...I even took a photo of the medallion on one of the buildings just incase y'all didn't believe me.

[BCTed]

Lastly, I thought of all you kids yesterday -- I found myself at a LEED Gold Certified...get ready for it...big box development. Fairlane Green in Allen Park, Michigan...I even took a photo of the medallion on one of the buildings just incase y'all didn't believe me.

I don't believe you.

[SteelTown]

Isn't that Zellers at Clappison's Corner LEED? Complete with windmills.

[flar]

Isn't that Zellers at Clappison's Corner LEED? Complete with windmills.

Don't let the windmill fool you, I'm pretty sure it's not LEED, it looks pretty much like any other department store.

[raisethehammer]

fabulous. LEED buildings in the middle of nowhere surrounded by 10 acres of pavement only accessible by cars and paving over previously great farmland in order to construct. Sounds like a downright green fantasy-land.

[bornagainbiking]

Glass half empty, glass half full, at least it is a start, or a step in the right direction.
Like when you consider a diet, have a diet coke with your Big mac combo. At least the thought is there. haha
As for farm land you just might see a return/shift with the focus away from manufacturing.
Again so much negativity, remember it took steel, concrete, trades people and labour to put up that structure and some labour dude could pay his bills and feed his family, with the farmers food. maybe buy a truck or two.
A alderman once told me there is little money in residential taxes, sort of a balance for tax vs service. The money is in business.

[emge]

It is strange.. but given that part of LEED certification is location that's friendly to bikes and alternative transportation, they do need more points in the other areas when building out there. And yes, better than nothing -- It would be great if all new big box stores were LEED certified.

Its unbelievable how little things that are no-points-given prerequisites for LEED like collection of recyclables aren't always followed even in obvious places... (I know that's just a tiny part of environmental impact, but I'd be glad if all they're doing is recycling their hundreds of plastic hangers a day instead of throwing them out). I worked in an office building a few years back where no reycling was collected - 50-75 employees throwing out mounds of paperwork every single day. So when I shred and recycle my paperwork at home, it pales in comparison to stuff like that happening at hundreds of businesses... and that's before you even get to things that give you points toward certification in LEED retail.

[the dude]

the issue here is the design of the development. it doesn't matter what the site was like in its other incarnations. what matters is proper human-scaled, pedestrian friendly spaces. naturally, other cities have insisted that retail developments be built in this manner. not us. it probably didn't cross their ignorant little minds. they think the neighbourhood's garbage and that locals should be happy with anything. thanks for failing yet again.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Quote
fabulous. LEED buildings in the middle of nowhere surrounded by 10 acres of pavement only accessible by cars and paving over previously great farmland in order to construct. Sounds like a downright green fantasy-land.

I think it's fair to say that this comment shows obvious bias. Because--of course--all such developments look the same in your mind...which they are clearly not. The entire development is LEED certified--not just the individual buildings. Secondly, the vast majority of the open spaces in this particular development are naturalized green spaces--I believe it's in excess of 3/4 of the total land area (I will do a bit of research and confirm that). Lastly, it was not a greenfield development--but a brownfield one--replacing a landfill and a vacant VA Hospital.

[raisethehammer]

I was actually referring to the Zellers with windmills, but whatever...

[adam]

Quote
fabulous. LEED buildings in the middle of nowhere surrounded by 10 acres of pavement only accessible by cars and paving over previously great farmland in order to construct. Sounds like a downright green fantasy-land.

I think it's fair to say that this comment shows obvious bias. Because--of course--all such developments look the same in your mind...which they are clearly not. The entire development is LEED certified--not just the individual buildings. Secondly, the vast majority of the open spaces in this particular development are naturalized green spaces--I believe it's in excess of 3/4 of the total land area (I will do a bit of research and confirm that). Lastly, it was not a greenfield development--but a brownfield one--replacing a landfill and a vacant VA Hospital.

You still need a car to get to any of the stores. And if you tried to brave the walk from one store to another you'd probably get hit by a car while traversing the huge sea of pavement (only teenagers walk in these big box developments because they don't have a car - and its looked down on). No trees or vegetation grows in a parking lot. Why can't we start going with parking garages? Why does every square inch of earth that a car touches have to be made dead by pavement? If we don't change this, imagine how much earth will be paved over in 10 years.... 20 years? Will we just pave over the entire planet?

[markbarbera]

Where is this 'pedestrians are going to be hit crossing the paking lot' idea coming from?!? This is really complete nonsense.

First off, I can't think of the last time, indeed any time at all in this city's history where a pedestrian has been struck while crossing a parking lot of a mall, big box or otherwise. If it has occurred I can guarantee it makes up a tiny fraction of all pedestrian accidents on record. Furthermore, given the average speed of a car in a parking lot is 20kmh, any hypothetical pedestrian accident is not going to produce life-threatening injuries. The 'unsafe pedestrian' is a weak argument against this mall at best.

So unless any of you spouting off such baseless conjecture about potential pedestrian safety can support this suggestion with hard statistics supporting the claim, to belabour the fiction is just silliness.

And once again, take a look at the plans before making nonsense statements about 'no pedestrian access'. Pedestrians have been taken into consideration in this redevelopment, perhaps not in the context you anticipated, but in a way not seen in any other development of its kind in the area. Like it or not, the fact remains that pedestrian walkways are in relative abundance here. All the buildings lining Barton Street have pedestrian walkways running along the storefronts and linking directly to the public sidewalk along Barton Street. Of the 23 buildings under construction, 12 have direct pedestrian access to them without a pedestrian ever having to set one foot on paved parking. All the buildings have pedestrian walkways along their storefronts and there are clearly marked walkways connecting all the buildings.

It is obvious some of you absolutely hate the design of the redevelopment. But let's be honest with the facts and a little less melodramatic with baseless conjecture about pedestrian safety concerns at this site.

[raisethehammer]

mark - find me a mall anywhere in hamilton that doesn't have walkways leading to the property from the public sidewalks??
if that's considered great pedestrian access it's no wonder this city is in the shape it's in. the bar has been set so low it's flush with the pavement.

[markbarbera]

Limeridge Mall has no direct pedestrian access to it, neither did Centre Mall in its previous incarnation. Eastgate has very limited pedestrian access. Eastgate and Lime Ridge Malls are islands in a sea of parking, as was Centre Mall. The redevelopment is an improvement for pedestrian access. Not perfect, but definitely a step up.

[ryan_mcgreal]

The time to be critical of the redevelopment had come and gone years ago. Griping about it during the construction phase is a complete waste of time and energy.

We were critical of the redevelopment years ago. Now we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

It astounds me that this battle is still being fought years after the highway's completion. It has been built, and it is being used by thousands. Time to move on, folks.

And yet the exact same arguments that were used to support Red Hill are now being used by the same people to support Mid-Pen (and to a lesser extent the AEGD). Again, we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

In short, the new Centre Mall is not better than what was there before for anyone except retailers.

What flar said. I'm tired of the diminished expectations in this town, the self-fulfilling sense that we should be grateful for whatever scraps fall our way.

[markbarbera]

We were critical of the redevelopment years ago. Now we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

The thing is, many of the criticisms you are making are not well founded. The redevelopment is much more pedestrian friendly than you care to admit, and is a step above any major retail mall concept yet to be built in the city. Yes, it does not follow the textbook design for developing an urban streetwall, but quite frankly the textbook design just does not fit at this location.

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project. The design process is long over, and the site is now being built. Judging it now by what you see of this work in progress is premature. Let's revisit this conversation a year after the construction ha been completed. At that point a more informed crtique of the site can be made. Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

Quite a few opponents of this redevelopment are a little over-eager to be self-congatulatory on their abilities of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[raisethehammer]

Limeridge Mall has no direct pedestrian access to it, neither did Centre Mall in its previous incarnation. Eastgate has very limited pedestrian access. Eastgate and Lime Ridge Malls are islands in a sea of parking, as was Centre Mall. The redevelopment is an improvement for pedestrian access. Not perfect, but definitely a step up.

Limeridge has sidewalks along Mall Rd from Mohawk and sidewalks along Upper Wentworth to the transit terminal and then from the terminal to the front entrance. From Upper Wentworth sidewalk to the main entrance requires one to cross roadways 3 times. That's 2 less than getting from the food court to Zellers and who knows how many from Barton St to Zellers.
Pretty bad when in 2008 we're building less pedestrian friendly projects than Limeridge Mall.
Not to mention, once you get inside the mall things are pretty pedestrian friendly. No cars that I recall or long walks in the rain.

[flar]

Mark Barbera, there are power centers all over the place, we've all been to them. They are not pedestrian friendly, they are designed for cars, this cannot be disputed. There is nothing that distinguishes the Centre Mall redevelopment from any other power centre.

They could have made it look like this along Barton:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oakville_1/00303.jpg

Then we could say there was some consideration given to pedestrians. But instead, it looks like any other power centre that backs onto a highway.

[ryan_mcgreal]

The redevelopment is much more pedestrian friendly than you care to admit

Likewise, getting punched in the face only once a minute is quite a bit better than being punched in the face twice a minute. (No, I'm not suggesting that Centre Mall is literally akin to getting punched in the face.) The redevelopment is not pedestrian friendly in any meaningful sense of the term. The fact that it is merely possible to walk from one store to another (unlike the Meadowlands, in which even that minimal sop to walking is absented by retaining walls and culverts) does not make it pedestrian friendly when the primary orientation is entirely to the interior surface parking.

quite frankly the textbook design just does not fit at this location.

Why on earth not?

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project.

Live and don't learn, that's Hamilton.

Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

We know enough to know that the development will present Barton Street with the blank rear walls of one-storey retail warehouses punctuated by entrance/exit ramps for vehicles. Frankly, I think your high-handed "wait and see" attitude as at least as self-serving as my open contempt for a wasted opportunity to build an urban retail development in an urban setting.

[highwater]

Now is not the time to give a credible critique of the project. The design process is long over, and the site is now being built. Judging it now by what you see of this work in progress is premature. Let's revisit this conversation a year after the construction ha been completed. At that point a more informed crtique of the site can be made. Any being presented now is based on very few facts, a considerable amount of conjecture, and a great deal of bias.

In other words, "who are ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

This development is fugly. A year from now it will be fugly + filth + graffitti.

[BrianE]

I don't understand how anyone can defend this 'development' along Barton St. I drove by Centre Mall this weekend with my wife who has zero interest in urban planning or architecture and generaly doesn't put a high value on the outward appearance of buildings that she shops in.

This is her comment upon seeing the ass end of buildings fronting onto Barton St., and I quote:

"This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life."

[markbarbera]

We know enough to know that the development will present Barton Street with the blank rear walls of one-storey retail warehouses punctuated by entrance/exit ramps for vehicles.

Correction: The stores that will run along Barton are not retail warehouse format. In fact, they are primarily services like hairstyling salons, banks, a dental office, an optician, a shoe store and several smaller retailers. In fact, most retail shops along Barton are less than 1500 square feet - definitely not geared for warehouse retail. And there are no entrance/exit ramps punctuating the streetwall. There are, however, four access roads and ten pedestrian walkways that punctuate the north side of Barton.

[markbarbera]

This development is fugly. A year from now it will be fugly + filth + graffitti.

The development is not even complete and you have already passed judgement on how it looks. Any development at this stage looks ugly. Let's see the final product and judge then.

[markbarbera]

Why on earth not?

Because this is not a typical site for urban infill. The site borders on heavy industry. The site simply is not marketable for the kind of mixed-use developments you are suggesting. Have you any idea how difficult it would be to market a mid-sized office or condo tower that backs onto Dofasco and National Steel Car? Let's be realistic here, an urban development designed for downtown Oakville simply cannot fit here, certainly not at this stage of the city's life. To suggest otherwise is not being wholy honest.

[markbarbera]

Limeridge has sidewalks along Mall Rd from Mohawk and sidewalks along Upper Wentworth to the transit terminal and then from the terminal to the front entrance. From Upper Wentworth sidewalk to the main entrance requires one to cross roadways 3 times. That's 2 less than getting from the food court to Zellers and who knows how many from Barton St to Zellers.
Pretty bad when in 2008 we're building less pedestrian friendly projects than Limeridge Mall.
Not to mention, once you get inside the mall things are pretty pedestrian friendly. No cars that I recall or long walks in the rain.

How is crossing roadways or being outdoors not pedestrian friendly? Wouldn't that make King Street or Locke Street unfriendly to pedestrians?

Even if we accept this highly debatable presumption you have made, consider this: Of the 100 retailers that will be in the Centre Mall redevelopment, 54 of them have direct pedestrian access from the public walkways of Barton Street, Ottawa Street and Kenilworth Avenue without having to cross any parking areas. For Lime Ridge Mall, there are zero retailers with direct pedestrian access of this kind.

[highwater]

The development is not even complete and you have already passed judgement on how it looks. Any development at this stage looks ugly. Let's see the final product and judge then.

So it's going to look like this when it's done?



http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oakville_1/00303.jpg



You must think we're idiots.

[markbarbera]

So it's going to look like this when it's done?



You must think we're idiots.

As i have already stated, that kind of development cannot be supported by the demographics of this block as it exists today. Perhaps sometime down the road, but to try to say that a development that is successful in downtown Oakville would be equally successful at this site is simply not based on the reality of the demographics.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Because this is not a typical site for urban infill. The site borders on heavy industry. The site simply is not marketable for the kind of mixed-use developments you are suggesting.

To clarify: Centre Mall is bordered by Barton St. E., Ottawa St. N., McAnulty Blvd and Kenilworth Ave N. on all these streets, the other side of the street is residential and commercial [edit: hat tip to markbarbera (`"http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3932325&postcount=682")], not heavy industry (though industrial sites are kitty-corner to Centre Mall at its northeast and northwest corners).

In any case, as heavy industry continues to decline in Hamilton, the whole point of urban revitalization is to transform urban land use, not to be enslaved to it. Wherever our economic future lies, it's not in mid-20th century heavy industry, and it's certainly not in car-dependent land use. We should not make our planning decisions around infrastructure that has poor long term prospects.

Have you any idea how difficult it would be to market a mid-sized office or condo tower that backs onto Dofasco and National Steel Car?

Not every mixed use development needs to be connected to condos or office towers. For at least part of Centre Mall - say, the businesses backing on to Barton St., which as you point out are not even box stores - a commercial streetwall with two storeys of apartments above would be a great way to intensify a neighbourhood that really needs more connections.

This would also cohere nicely with the existing urban streetwall on Ottawa St. N., which has been quite successful at sustaining a neighbourhood commercial centre, mixing boutique retail with neighbourhood staples.

Let's be realistic here

In the sense in which you are using the term, "realistic" means "fatalistic". Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Every planning and land use decision we make will attract some investors and repel others. The more we continue down the road of sprawl residential and big box commercial, the more we will continue to define the city in those terms and attract more of the same, even as other cities differentiate themselves and attract both people and investors who value urban design reflecting an urban sensibility.

Cities that can attract the innovative, forward-looking money and brains will succeed. Cities that stick with the status quo will fall behind. It's that simple.

[raisethehammer]

it's plain to see this development is butt-ugly and will continue to be so.
Hopefully we get some colourful graffitti on these buildings so the streetscape has a bit of vibrancy to it instead of blank, beige walls.

[markbarbera]

Sorry, but the urban streetwall you describe already exists along most of Barton Street west of this redevelopment. This stretch is also wrought with serious vacancy problems and decay. If the streetwall concept is the panacea for urban renewal, what has it failed so miserably along Barton west of this development, and what makes you think extending this concept along the Centre Mall property line would be more successful than the existing streetwall in decline?

It is obvious that Barton Street cannot sustain its existing streetwall, let alone an extention to it. To propose otherwise may seem forward-thinking, but it really is just idealism divorced from socio-economic realityf this area's demographic.

[markbarbera]

it's plain to see this development is butt-ugly and will continue to be so.
Hopefully we get some colourful graffitti on these buildings so the streetscape has a bit of vibrancy to it instead of blank, beige walls.

The walls will not be blank when completed. With any luck, any defacing by graffiti vandals will be removed promptly.

[flar]

^^Seriously now, what could they possibly do to these walls?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/3003497814_4e64feea90.jpg

[ryan_mcgreal]

If the streetwall concept is the panacea for urban renewal

It's not the panacea, and I never claimed otherwise. It is, however, an essential characteristic of urban form.

[raisethehammer]

a $100 million investment into this site with a streetwall facing Barton - upper floor office space, some apartments and the 2-storey foodcourt - could have helped to spur re-investment into the existing streetwall west of here. Most of that streetwall is occupied, so let's not start acting like the Spec and making ridiculous claims.
Instead, big boxes plopped into the urban environment will have the opposite effect - it will re-enforce in the minds of 'developers' that the old storefronts are outdated and can't be retrofitted and the only way to invest in the city is to demolish old spaces and put up shite box stores.

I personally would love to see artists colour these ugly walls. And quick.

[markbarbera]

Who in their right mind would introduce more office space to a market with a 25% vacancy rate?

From what I recall, the food court is two storeys, with the second floor set aside as a community meeting space.

I am not sure when you last walked along Barton Street, but I'd estimate the retail vacancy rate to be close to 10%. Next time I walk down the road I'll count the empty storefronts and post the tally.

[markbarbera]

To clarify: Centre Mall is bordered by Barton St. E., Ottawa St. N., McAnulty Blvd and Kenilworth Ave N. on all these streets, the other side of the street is residential, not heavy industry (though industrial sites are kitty-corner to Centre Mall at its northeast and northwest corners).

Further clarification: The south side of Barton Street between Ottawa and Kenilworth is commercial, not residential. The east side of Kenilworth Avenue across from the development is a commercial/industrial mix, not residential (with the exception of four residential units between Harrison and Vansitmart) . And the north side of the property actually ends at the CN rail line, not McAnulty Boulevard as implied. The west side of Ottawa Street is a mix of residential and institutional.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Further clarification

Thanks for the clarification. My point is that the mall is geographically close to heavy industry, but does not abut it directly on any side.

[markbarbera]

And my point is that proximity to heavy industry seriously limits the present redevelopment options for this site.

[raisethehammer]

Who in their right mind would introduce more office space to a market with a 25% vacancy rate?

From what I recall, the food court is two storeys, with the second floor set aside as a community meeting space.

I am not sure when you last walked along Barton Street, but I'd estimate the retail vacancy rate to be close to 10%. Next time I walk down the road I'll count the empty storefronts and post the tally.

It looks like the new scotiabank in this project is two stories. must be office space for something.
I'd agree with 10% vacancy along Barton too.

[crhayes]

Obviously what it boils down to is the demographic that is going to be using the site, and how they can attract that demographic. I think it's safe to say that, as a developer trying to maximize the number of people using the site (and thus maximizing revenue for retailers), building big box stores was the obvious choice. Allowing people to drive to the location and park will more than likely bring them a lot more customers than the current set-up along Barton.

The way I see it is that many of these stores are not typical Ma' and Pa' shops that can be supported by the surrounding neighbourhoods. There are too many big box stores in this development that rely on attracting customers from all over the city, hell, possibly even other cities; I'm sure there are many people on this forum that traveled to Burlington to visit Ikea or Best Buy (before we got ours). Thus, a large parking surface is the only way to sustain this type of development.

Is it ideal for the city? No. Is it what we all wanted? No. However, we are not the ones with the money and thus, unfortunately, could not make these decisions.

I think another big factor is the state our public transit is in. If we had a more robust transit system I think a more urban development could have been a huge success. However, considering our dependency on cars (and it will likely be this way for MANY more years to come) it is no wonder developers choose to make complexes like this.

I am not advocating this development. For instance, they could have created a streetwall and built a parking lot behind it (and had front and rear entrances - why not???). I agree with the points that Ryan and Raisethehammer make, because we shouldn't settle for this. However, as Mark says it is an improvement over what was there, and it will at least be accessible to pedestrians.

[raisethehammer]

just to clarify, I'm not asking for the current set-up on Barton to happen on this site.
I would have been happy if these buildings would have been flipped around flush with the sidewalk all the way along Barton with most vehicle access into the centre of the site from Kenilworth or Ottawa.
I don't even care about big boxes in the back.
The Barton streetscape would have been so easy to do decently properly - even an ugly stucco building facing Barton would have been acceptable.
But the back of the building is just unacceptable.
And then of course, the entire car-centric development makes it even worse.

[MsMe]

I wonder if they will put a sidewalk beside the tracks from one end to the other (Ottawa to Kenilworth). At least some of the shopping area would be easier to get around then, especially the disabled on scooters.

[BrianE]

I would have been happy if these buildings would have been flipped around flush with the sidewalk all the way along Barton with most vehicle access into the centre of the site from Kenilworth or Ottawa.
I don't even care about big boxes in the back.
The Barton streetscape would have been so easy to do decently properly - even an ugly stucco building facing Barton would have been acceptable.
But the back of the building is just unacceptable.


EXACTLY!

I think this is all anyone really wanted from this development at a minimum. Is RTH's proposal really all that radical, would this building set up have really bankrupted RedCliffe? Would these simple changes made this site unusable to retailers and customers?

I think it would have vastly improved on the current setup. Not only that but it's not like this changes the number of buildings being built or complicating their construction. Just turn them around, it could have been done on the drawings. Construction workers don't care which way a building faces.

[markbarbera]

I have heard rumblings that some of the yet-to-be announced tenants include Winners, a home furnishing store (can't pin the brand down - hearing either Pier 1 or Home Outfitters), PetSmart, Indigo, Starbucks and Michaels. All would be warmly welcomed to the lower city. Can anyone confirm these rumours?

[SteelTown]

Wouldn't be surprised about Winners and Michaels.

[raisethehammer]

I have heard rumblings that some of the yet-to-be announced tenants include Winners, a home furnishing store (can't pin the brand down - hearing either Pier 1 or Home Outfitters), PetSmart, Indigo, Starbucks and Michaels. All would be warmly welcomed to the lower city. Can anyone confirm these rumours?

"warmly welcomed"??
Is a foreign dignitary coming to Centre Mall? Lol.

[adam]

Well.. they are foreign owned companies! (But they'll give Canadians the privelege of working there for minimum wage)

[matt602]

I'd definitely warmly welcome most of those stores.

[BCTed]

I have heard rumblings that some of the yet-to-be announced tenants include Winners, a home furnishing store (can't pin the brand down - hearing either Pier 1 or Home Outfitters), PetSmart, Indigo, Starbucks and Michaels. All would be warmly welcomed to the lower city. Can anyone confirm these rumours?


I am having difficulty picturing a Starbucks --- I guess it would be attached to Indigo.

[emge]

I have heard rumblings that some of the yet-to-be announced tenants include Winners, a home furnishing store (can't pin the brand down - hearing either Pier 1 or Home Outfitters), PetSmart, Indigo, Starbucks and Michaels. All would be warmly welcomed to the lower city. Can anyone confirm these rumours?

Hmmm.. I don't know anything about here, but I didn't think Pier 1 was doing much expansion.. they were closing stores a year or two ago.

[Millstone]

I am having difficulty picturing a Starbucks --- I guess it would be attached to Indigo.

I was having a hard time picturing a Starbucks on Locke, but here we are.

[FRM]

A Winners would be great, I hate going to the one at Upper James. Crossing Barton to get to Winners will be easier than trying to cross Upper James, when taking the bus, and much faster and easier to get there from downtown.

Even though it might look like crap, this development will help steal away more shoppers from the lower city, who usually have to go to the mountain for these types of stores.

[the dude]

i hope michaels opens a store. i can take care of all my scrapbook shopping in one stop...:slob:

[comadriver]

We were critical of the redevelopment years ago. Now we're just trying to draw attention to its failings so we don't keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Have you ever wondered why no one ever listens? Hint: it's not because they are ignorant Hamilton-haters.

This thread, with rare exceptions, is not interested in reasonable discourse. We all have our biases, but frankly, this self-perpetuating negativity-drenched drivel is not constructive. As a newcomer to Hamilton, I truly hope the likes of raisthehammer have no real political or monetary influence outside this forum. (I suspect they do not).

Cheers guys, have fun wasting your breath.