[Hammer Native]

First of all I'd like to add my name to the list of people on this forum who wish Harry Stinson success. I think this city needs to have outsiders come in and hopefully shake up complacency among the local developers who for the most part, can't see past building more houses, strip plazas, or drab squat buildings in general. This leads me to another idea I had for a thread. Would we like to see other outsiders develop here and make their mark on our cityscape? If so, who?
Well now that we've talked about the condo king, I wish we had someone among the likes of Rudy Reimer of Burlington who could develop an abundance of commercial office complexes in this city. Some people have called him the Donald Trump of Burlington. I don't know if it's because he's the dominant builder, or because people may think he has a big ego, (although I'd rather developers show some ego, or pride in their projects.) For anyone that's not familiar with him, his complexes pretty much dominate the QEW Burlington. Even a lot of the older office buildings were his. Now granted, they are suburban, campus style, sterile and all similar looking buildings. Having said that however, they are first class office space, are beautiful inside, and have attracted a lot of top companies to lease space in Burlington. He gets his projects done and he gets them leased. I would like to see projects like this on Hamilton's suburban areas, the mountain, or wherever, as opposed to what keeps getting built now. For that matter, the QEW-Burloak type complexes might not look out of place in our downtown. (Well I guess whoever is developing the Hamilton Business Centre on the QEW, that's a start.)
Just think think if we had top companies bringing quality jobs to this city even if they happen to be suburban locations, and therefore might be incentives for better local transit. (But right now we have mountain residents clogging the Linc/403 every morning to get to work.) I once read a comment in The Spectator many years ago. It was something about Hamilton becoming a bedroom community to Burlington. I didn't get it, I do now.
This city has a lack of first class, grade A office space. I read the only two buildings downtown that are, would be Commerce Place and the Federal Government Building. Even Standard Life Bldg. is out of date, and hopefully something gets done with Stelco Tower. Our office vacancy rate is high, but a realtor did say there is a lot of crap out there. So I'm wondering if it's a case of "Build it and they will come."
A lot has been said about the good paying industrial jobs that have left Hamilton due to the economy or changing demographics, etc. Not a lot has been said about the Hamilton success stories that have thrived and left the city simply because they needed bigger and better premises and couldn't find it here. A couple that come to mind; Wescam, their cameras cover the major sporting events, space shuttle flights, and even if I'm correct, the OJ Simpson freeway chase. They outgrew their Flamborough headquarters and bought the GAN Insurance building on North Service Road Burlington. Also, AIC Investments, one of Canada's most successful investment companies with their own mutual funds. They originally were in a couple of historic houses southwest/downtown, but that company grew substantially and are now in a sprawling complex, (the former Stelco Research Centre at N. Service and Kern's Rd, Burlington.)
I remember hearing a comment from the former CEO of Lakeport Breweries.
She said that not one city politician had been in touch with her, maybe take a tour of the plant, or just see how things were going.
A lot has also been thought out about how to attract new business to Hamilton. Fine, but the city should work more on keeping what we have here.
I'm not thinking one Reimer type is going to be the saviour any more than Stinson can save downtown himself, but as I said I would like to see complacency shaken up among the development industry whether it's by outsiders, or our council or whatever it takes.
I'm not advocating we pave over much of the valuable farmland either. In fact agriculture is now one of the biggest contributors to Hamilton's economy since amalgamation. I just like many of you on this forum, want to see better land use here. Not only improvement in developed areas, but rural as well. As I drive up Upper James for example near the airport, I don't see many farms but I see go-cart race tracks and more golf courses than we need, and long to see prime developments.
Anyway, I've rambled enough, would love to hear your opinions.

[oldcoote]

Bottom line is that if there is money to be made, people will line up to make it.

What was needed was someone to take the chance. Stinson may be that guy, who knows? In many ways his plans are a litmus test for the city. If he restores the Connaught, it will be great for the city but won't necessarily attract out-of-town developers. If he builds a 'wow' tower, and makes money, you'll definately see more developers snatching up the very affordable downtown real estate.

[RePinion]

^ It's because of his ego. Reimer builds rubbishy suburban office towers in a horribly outdated aesthetic (covered in that horrible reflective glass, which we don't need more of downtown). I don't think he has much interest in an urban market like Hamilton (at least downtown). The sorts of developers we need to attract are the ones used to dealing with a high density market and the unique problems it creates. Such developers are likely to come from Toronto, or possibly even Ottawa or Montreal.

The companies which decamp from Hamilton to the suburbs do it for the same reason that companies leaving Toronto for Mississauga or New York for New Jersey or White Plains do it: cost. Lots are smaller in Hamilton. To accomodate these large organizations they would actually need to build new office towers or retrofit older ones like Stelco Tower. This certainly could be done but it is much more expensive, in the short term, than building a huge concrete and glass bunker in the suburbs. These companies have greatly encouraged sprawl and the practice should be penalized.

I think Hamilton desperately needs to preserve the large amount of agricultural land still present on its fringes.

[Hammer Native]

^Absolutely, let's keep our prime agricultural land for farming. I'm referring only to the land that is destined and zoned for development, be it around the airport or wherever. I just hope it is put to the best use possible. For example I wondered why more houses were allowed to be built so close to the airport?
Right now the area there and around the new highway 6, and Glanbrook Business Park and a few other areas is a blank canvas for the most part. Let's strive for the best development possible, whatever cities or developers we market ourselves to. And that probably needs to be done more aggressively.

[raisethehammer]

as a Hamilton native I'm sure you know which developers we'll be 'marketing ourselves to'.
the same batch of losers we've let ruin this town over the past 30 years. Out of town developers don't have any pull with the media or local elections. We'll get horrendous development out there and all through our suburbs as long as councillors are only interested in keeping their jobs and fattening their campaign chest through the donations of all these pea-brains.

[Hammer Native]

^Yep, I know just what you mean. That's why I long for a shakeup in the way things have been for so long. I remember a thread with peoples' wish list for Hamilton, that would be mine. Maybe it's a pipe dream, maybe miracles can happen here.

[RePinion]

My personal view is that the developers in Hamilton are amongst the most blameworthy regarding the pathetic state of the downtown. I wish more publicity could be focused on their selfishness and stupidity. The city is surely to blame for poor planning, lack of foresight, outmoded ideas, etc. but a city's state of development must always be attributable to some extent to - the developers.

The truth is that the only "development" these slimebags are interested in is huge suburban residential tracts on shovel-ready land. For the most part, they have no interest in "developing" the core or any other part of the lower city because of the obstacles (sometimes slight, sometimes serious) associated with developing an already densely occupied area. Usually they are involved in the lower city only in the capacity of property speculators. When they do actually build something in the downtown, their efforts are amateurish and distasteful (note the crowning glory of bad taste in Hamilton, the Chateau Royale; note also, to a lesser but still considerable degree of embarrassment, the Terraces on King and Cityview Terraces). The city deserves better, far better - and has shown that it can support serious efforts at condo development, such as the Core Lofts (which was done by an outsider). Stinson - we can only hope and pray - will break the back of this horrible tradition of selfishness and mediocrity.

[Hammer Native]

My personal view is that the developers in Hamilton are amongst the most blameworthy regarding the pathetic state of the downtown. I wish more publicity could be focused on their selfishness and stupidity. The city is surely to blame for poor planning, lack of foresight, outmoded ideas, etc. but a city's state of development must always be attributable to some extent to - the developers.

The truth is that the only "development" these slimebags are interested in is huge suburban residential tracts on shovel-ready land. For the most part, they have no interest in "developing" the core or any other part of the lower city because of the obstacles (sometimes slight, sometimes serious) associated with developing an already densely occupied area. Usually they are involved in the lower city only in the capacity of property speculators. When they do actually build something in the downtown, their efforts are amateurish and distasteful (note the crowning glory of bad taste in Hamilton, the Chateau Royale; note also, to a lesser but still considerable degree of embarrassment, the Terraces on King and Cityview Terraces). The city deserves better, far better - and has shown that it can support serious efforts at condo development, such as the Core Lofts (which was done by an outsider). Stinson - we can only hope and pray - will break the back of this horrible tradition of selfishness and mediocrity.

And I believe a Toronto company did the Piggot-Sunlife condos, not 100% sure though, but thank goodness those gems were saved and we have them to be proud of.

[matt602]

And I believe a Toronto company did the Piggot-Sunlife condos, not 100% sure though, but thank goodness those gems were saved and we have them to be proud of.

Amen. I often take them for granted.

[raisethehammer]

yup...they were slated for demolition until saved and converted to condos.

RePinion - hell will freeze over before Hamilton's media will do any public scolding of the true vilians of our downtown and crappy development practices in general. that's the problem...the media is in bed with them. the politicians are in bed with them. we're stuck. that's why I've mentioned before I'd love to see the Spec and CH go out of business entirely. Have some new blood start up a new media age in Hamilton that isn't just a puppet show of the local 'builders'.

[Goldfinger]

Metrus was the developer who could be blamed for the current state of the Lister block. They are one of the largest in Toronto.

In any case, I'm not going to get involved in this one. Throw all the shit you want at the local guys.

I think the forum has become nothing more than a bunch of kids complaining about the same things over and over again.

[flar]

^^I think the average age on this forum would surprise you.

[highwater]

eh?

[markbarbera]

I'm beginning to think that Goldfinger is Joe Mancinelli, or some other lower-ranking LIUNA guy....

[Goldfinger]

^^I think the average age on this forum would surprise you.

No, it disturbs me.

Most of the discourse here is VERY one sided. How could anyone blame the demise of downtown squarely on the local developers without considering other factors such as city council and staff, the Province and the OMB, citizens of Hamilton, Macroeconomics, taxes, Planning and land use policies, etc.

[coalminecanary]

Because the deadbeat developers are the ones that in the end own the properties that continue to not be developed. Now, this is only the case because the city/bylaws/tax laws allow it (and sometimes encourage it). We'd all like to see the land use laws and zoning change, and it's starting to happen, but the long bony fingers of the biggest developers appear to go so deep into council and the media that it all comes back on the developers shoulders when you approach it from that front too.

[HAMRetrofit]

I actually blame the citizens of Hamilton for the demise of the downtown and not the developers. If it were up to the developers they would place a 80 story tower on every corner, with no underground parking whatsoever, and allow any type of mixed use. Why? Because this is what would make the most money consistently. The developers don't have any agenda to throw people out into the suburbs, it actually creates more work and more expenses for them. They are selling what the public is going for with 100 percent certainty. It is the planners and the municipality that are behind this. It reduces costs for them in terms of policing, social services, and the province pays for new roads so they cheat and blame it on the developer scape goats.

You say deadbeat developers, I say deadbeat municipality.

[Hammer Native]

No, it disturbs me.

Most of the discourse here is VERY one sided. How could anyone blame the demise of downtown squarely on the local developers without considering other factors such as city council and staff, the Province and the OMB, citizens of Hamilton, Macroeconomics, taxes, Planning and land use policies, etc.

Well this is just my opinion but I'm not so much as blaming the demise of downtown on our local developers as I am for the lack of things happening. Successful and determined developers get their projects done even with the above mentioned obstacles to deal with, be they Stinson, Trump, Reimer, The Reichmanns, I could go on. And I think for the most part raise their own financing and don't have their hands in our (city taxpayers) pockets. We just keep getting fed reasons as to why projects are stalled, they want the city to do this and that for them. (eg. lease space at exorbitant rates, grant money, etc. (The Terraces on King probably the worst example. It involves taxpayer money, and that decrepit St. Deny's sat there for how many years?

[HAMRetrofit]

Another note, if a building is ugly it has nothing to do with the developer. It has to do with with what the Architect designed for them. There is something called the Architects Act which requires that they design all buildings greater the 600 sm and taller than 3 stories. If you don't like the design of a building being constructed in your neighborhood then you would need to take it up with the architect and planners involved.

[Civchic]

Developers are just like any other business venture. They'll build where and when it's cheapest, with the least difficulty, and with the greatest profit.

Urban densification and retrofit is more difficult and more expensive than greenfield development. Speaking as a consultant engineer - our approvals process with the municipality is WAY more difficult for urban infill projects. So difficult that it becomes economically unviable.

I'm not saying that our clients (developers) are clean of any blame in the situation - not by far! But to rest the blame squarely on their shoulders is a bit much. If you had millions of dollars to invest, would you invest it in something that you had to jump through hundreds of hoops for, pay through the nose for, get roadblocked at every opportunity - or would you buy a farmer's field, throw up some cheap McMansions, and then sell them for ginormous profit in a few quick years?

Some blame has to rest on the population as well - how many people screw up their noses at living in a downtown condo when they can have their little slice of suburban green? Not me, and not many others on this board, but most of the general population.

Ethics and ideals are cheap, unfortunately. The only solution to urban sprawl is to make it economically more painful to those who have the money.

[raisethehammer]

do we even have proper developers in Hamilton's former city?? they all appear to be speculators to me.
Not one of them takes a lead role in trying to change the operations at city hall...in fact, they encourage all the easy approvals for sprawl and stupid taxes that encourage vacant brownfields.
We need guys with vision like Frisina who went before council and had the 6-storey height limit repealed in order to build an 18-storey apartment - wonderfully designed might I add (any developer who cares will get a GOOD architect). Then he went on to build a 43-storey tower that remains our tallest today. From 6 stories to 43! How? By educating the council on the merits of intensification and building 'up' instead of 'out'.
todays losers do the complete opposite....they try to brainwash the local populace of the 'harmful' effects of building up instead of out. Raise the Hammer nailed this issue a couple of years ago:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=033

These guys are losers with no vision for the city. How far we've fallen since the days of great vision and smart business practices of guys like Frisina.

[Goldfinger]

do we even have proper developers in Hamilton's former city?? they all appear to be speculators to me.
Not one of them takes a lead role in trying to change the operations at city hall...in fact, they encourage all the easy approvals for sprawl and stupid taxes that encourage vacant brownfields.
We need guys with vision like Frisina who went before council and had the 6-storey height limit repealed in order to build an 18-storey apartment - wonderfully designed might I add (any developer who cares will get a GOOD architect). Then he went on to build a 43-storey tower that remains our tallest today. From 6 stories to 43! How? By educating the council on the merits of intensification and building 'up' instead of 'out'.
todays losers do the complete opposite....they try to brainwash the local populace of the 'harmful' effects of building up instead of out. Raise the Hammer nailed this issue a couple of years ago:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=033

These guys are losers with no vision for the city. How far we've fallen since the days of great vision and smart business practices of guys like Frisina.


The Century 21 building was a commercial failure. Al Frisina had vision but that project was not viable in Hamilton as it went under power of sale a few years later. He never returned to the core, he instead went out to the burbs and built subdivisions like everyone else.

[Hammer Native]

I have a handful of history books about Hamilton and have watched a few documentaries over the years, some of you may have to. I get the sense that the forefathers and builders of this city of the early twentieth century were big visionaries and believed Hamilton could be anything. I'm talking about the McQuestons, the MacNabs, and the enterprising business people of that era. And I think evidence of that can be seen in the quality and architecture of our old buildings and structures. (Boy if only they were all still standing.) McQueston was responsible for the high level bridge that now has his name on it, and wanted it to be impressive. Look at the beautiful detail of the former Bank of Montreal (Gowlings) building at Main and James, inside and out. Look at the suburban box we have at Main and Bay today.

I have a history documentary on tape, (when I find it I'll pass on the name because I think it still can be purchased.) Anyway I recall someone from then making a statement that they believed Hamilton could one day rival Toronto and "maybe even New York." How's that for big thinking?

Well ladies and gentlemen I would also like to say as one of the new guys on the board I was happy to see a thread I only just started yesterday has generated so much activity and interesting conversation. And to think I was worried it about it being ignored. HA, HA, I'm half kidding but it makes me glad I joined in. I don't know if this will be my last post today but have a good night all.

[thistleclub]

I have a handful of history books about Hamilton and have watched a few documentaries over the years, some of you may have to. I get the sense that the forefathers and builders of this city of the early twentieth century were big visionaries and believed Hamilton could be anything. I'm talking about the McQuestons, the MacNabs, and the enterprising business people of that era. And I think evidence of that can be seen in the quality and architecture of our old buildings and structures.

A different era, to be sure. the industrial era excited a lot of big thinking and bold planning, wheras today people seem to be more about contingencies than the plan itself. Broad brush-strokes: The early 20th century was concrete; the early 21st century is abstract. There are obviously vast differences in the kind of building materials favoured by various eras, and the amount of money people are prepared to sink into detail work and craftsmanship. Even expensive modern buildings aren't neccessarily well-built. The Michael Lee Chin-funded addition to the ROM, for example, is not without material flaws even now.

To be a little contrary, MacNab and McQuesten weren't developers. They were connected, high-ranking lawyer-politicians who were able to do what they did in part because they were able to rally backing from banks or higher levels of government. If they lived today and behaved like most of their peers, they might have taken up posts on Bay Street boards after leaving office rather than trying to muddy their hands with urban development. Their legacies are picturesque but ambiguous. MacNab's most impressive legacy is Dundurn Castle, which of course was not the most selfless project. McQuesten left us some beautiful infrastructure but was also an evangelist of highways. He also helped lure McMaster to the city, and in that he pointed the way toward our modern era of institution-building. Since 2000, local business philanthropists have pumped more than a quarter of a billion dollars into the school's coffers, much of it devoted to MUMC and Hamilton Health Sciences. Although these gifts have not fueled a renaissance of Victorian architecture, they have played a role in redefining the city in a positive light and making it world-class in its own way.

[Hammer Native]

^^Yes I guess I lumped in the politicians and business people together in the one statement. We do have some great philanthropists in this city which was a good point to bring up, and we owe them a lot of thanks for helping maintain quality of life in such things as healthcare and education. David Braley, The Juravinskis, Morgan Firestone, Michael Lee-Chin, Michael DeGroote, and I'm sure I've missed others. Although I can't think of anybody in the development business.

[realcity]

This is how land developing happens in Hamilton.

1. A land speculator buys farmland on the fringe of the city. The offer is too good to refuse. Since it is 'unserviced land'. ie no sewers.

2. The new owner leases back the land to the farmer. The farmer continues to work the land. It pays for the low agricultural tax that is levied on the land.

3. The 'land developer' call them Land Speculator, lobbies the local government to extend the boundry, meaning build roads and sewers to the farmland.

4. The land speculator then puts up a cardboard sales office, gives the former farmland a marketable name like Meadowlands, Summit Hill, Forest Acres etc.

5. The sales office then takes money from someone wishing to purchase a new home. Then the house gets built by contract workers.

Where in this scenario is the land developer ever risking or investing any of their own money? Only at the beginning with this process is money really invested. And then at a low risk because the land is leased back to the farmer at basically cost.

This is why they don't invest and build downtown. This business model is all they know how to do.

[LikeHamilton]

This is how land developing happens in Hamilton.

1. A land speculator buys farmland on the fringe of the city. The offer is too good to refuse. Since it is 'unserviced land'. ie no sewers.

2. The new owner leases back the land to the farmer. The farmer continues to work the land. It pays for the low agricultural tax that is levied on the land.

3. The 'land developer' call them Land Speculator, lobbies the local government to extend the boundry, meaning build roads and sewers to the farmland.

4. The land speculator then puts up a cardboard sales office, gives the former farmland a marketable name like Meadowlands, Summit Hill, Forest Acres etc.

5. The sales office then takes money from someone wishing to purchase a new home. Then the house gets built by contract workers.

Where in this scenario is the land developer ever risking or investing any of their own money? Only at the beginning with this process is money really invested. And then at a low risk because the land is leased back to the farmer at basically cost.

This is why they don't invest and build downtown. This business model is all they know how to do.

This is not just in Hamilton but everywhere.

[HAMRetrofit]

This is how land developing happens in Hamilton.

1. A land speculator buys farmland on the fringe of the city. The offer is too good to refuse. Since it is 'unserviced land'. ie no sewers.

2. The new owner leases back the land to the farmer. The farmer continues to work the land. It pays for the low agricultural tax that is levied on the land.

3. The 'land developer' call them Land Speculator, lobbies the local government to extend the boundry, meaning build roads and sewers to the farmland.

4. The land speculator then puts up a cardboard sales office, gives the former farmland a marketable name like Meadowlands, Summit Hill, Forest Acres etc.

5. The sales office then takes money from someone wishing to purchase a new home. Then the house gets built by contract workers.

Where in this scenario is the land developer ever risking or investing any of their own money? Only at the beginning with this process is money really invested. And then at a low risk because the land is leased back to the farmer at basically cost.

This is why they don't invest and build downtown. This business model is all they know how to do.

The city can court developers that can think outside of this framework. Once downtown development is stimulated others will follow suit. Once Toronto's condo market got going all the typical suburban developers like Great Gulf and CF followed suit. They will not do this unless certainty of profit is proven because they are already making large capital elsewhere.

[Goldfinger]

This is how land developing happens in Hamilton.

1. A land speculator buys farmland on the fringe of the city. The offer is too good to refuse. Since it is 'unserviced land'. ie no sewers.

2. The new owner leases back the land to the farmer. The farmer continues to work the land. It pays for the low agricultural tax that is levied on the land.

3. The 'land developer' call them Land Speculator, lobbies the local government to extend the boundry, meaning build roads and sewers to the farmland.

4. The land speculator then puts up a cardboard sales office, gives the former farmland a marketable name like Meadowlands, Summit Hill, Forest Acres etc.

5. The sales office then takes money from someone wishing to purchase a new home. Then the house gets built by contract workers.

Where in this scenario is the land developer ever risking or investing any of their own money? Only at the beginning with this process is money really invested. And then at a low risk because the land is leased back to the farmer at basically cost.

This is why they don't invest and build downtown. This business model is all they know how to do.


Well, there is never a guarantee they will get approval for construction. Your soft costs, i.e. planners, municipal application fees and development charges, engineering expenses, TARION, insurance, lawyers, surveyors, environmental reports, interest, real estate fees, land transfer tax then the purchase price. You will need to spend on all this before you could even think opening up a sales office.

You don't just walk into City hall and ask for the approval in the morning and have it by the afternoon. Everything with you guys on this board is simple, and you all look for simplified answers.

[Civchic]

I agree with Goldfinger here. My company is a sub-consultant on a new development going on (no I won't say which one) and there have been well over 3 million dollars already spent on feasibility studies, consultants, subwatershed studies, etc. It's still growing corn, headed to the OMB, and likely won't start construction for at least another two years. And at least another million dollars.

Yet - it is still easier to do that than to develop in the city. Besides - the profit is there, because a giant portion of the population will still buy into the slice of green idea. People buying $400,000 homes in Waterdown are not going to buy condos in downtown Hamilton, and you have way more of the former just now.

Profit is the driving force.

[raisethehammer]

that's why we need proper legislation protecting land, raising taxes in greenfields and drastically lowering them downtown. the only reaon people can afford their waterdown homes is the massive subsidy used to develop their project.

[RePinion]

Another note, if a building is ugly it has nothing to do with the developer. It has to do with with what the Architect designed for them. There is something called the Architects Act which requires that they design all buildings greater the 600 sm and taller than 3 stories. If you don't like the design of a building being constructed in your neighborhood then you would need to take it up with the architect and planners involved.

Nothing to do with the developer? Hardly. It is directly contingent on how much money the developer is willing to spend on architecture. The talent of the architect in any given development notwithstanding, the aesthetic quality of the finished building often depends upon how much time the architect was able to spend on the project. The less the developer is willing to spend monetarily, the less time the architect will be able to devote to the project. As far as I know, architects, just like lawyers, generally work on a billable hours model.

[RePinion]

that's why we need proper legislation protecting land, raising taxes in greenfields and drastically lowering them downtown. the only reaon people can afford their waterdown homes is the massive subsidy used to develop their project.

Agreed. What it comes down to, in large part, is that while it is not necessarily easy (or effortless) to make money by building huge sprawling developments, it is certainly easier than through downtown development at least at present. That is why we have to take away (or comparitively impoverish) any incentives for continued greenfield development, whether that be through legislation, aggressive downtown development incentives, or any other means.

[I, Sinclair]

Yet - it is still easier to do that than to develop in the city. Besides - the profit is there, because a giant portion of the population will still buy into the slice of green idea. People buying $400,000 homes in Waterdown are not going to buy condos in downtown Hamilton, and you have way more of the former just now.

Profit is the driving force.

People are rational, and they respond to incentives. Make that $400k house a $600k house and there will be more demand for $300 condos. Greenfield land should be shockingly expensive, if it's even allowed to be developed at all. After all, they aren't making any more of it.

It's no great loss to society if middle class families can no longer afford to buy a 3000 sq foot home on a 10 000 sq foot lot an hour from the city center. And the right to suburban living is not guaranteed in law. In fact, there is probably a net benefit to everyone if some of those were traded in for infill townhomes.

[Goldfinger]

People are rational, and they respond to incentives. Make that $400k house a $600k house and there will be more demand for $300 condos. Greenfield land should be shockingly expensive, if it's even allowed to be developed at all. After all, they aren't making any more of it.

It's no great loss to society if middle class families can no longer afford to buy a 3000 sq foot home on a 10 000 sq foot lot an hour from the city center. And the right to suburban living is not guaranteed in law. In fact, there is probably a net benefit to everyone if some of those were traded in for infill townhomes.

I don't agree here. People will still go out to the greenfields, they will just downsize. Instead of 3000 sq ft. they will go with a semi. People don't want to live downtown because they think it's crowded, dirty, unsafe and a poor investment. I have seen study after study that shows consumers want and prefer a yard especially if they have young children.

[Goldfinger]

I agree with Goldfinger here. My company is a sub-consultant on a new development going on (no I won't say which one) and there have been well over 3 million dollars already spent on feasibility studies, consultants, subwatershed studies, etc. It's still growing corn, headed to the OMB, and likely won't start construction for at least another two years. And at least another million dollars.

Yet - it is still easier to do that than to develop in the city. Besides - the profit is there, because a giant portion of the population will still buy into the slice of green idea. People buying $400,000 homes in Waterdown are not going to buy condos in downtown Hamilton, and you have way more of the former just now.

Profit is the driving force.

The consultants have become such a critical piece of the process now. I have to admit I was never sold on their value until I started using firms like PEIL and IBI. I found they are much more efficient at getting approvals done because they have excellent relationships with city staffers due to the fact that many actually worked in the planning and development departments and know how to work the bureaucracy. Now, I wouldn't even think of going for a draft plan approval with them quarterbacking.

[HAMRetrofit]

Nothing to do with the developer? Hardly. It is directly contingent on how much money the developer is willing to spend on architecture. The talent of the architect in any given development notwithstanding, the aesthetic quality of the finished building often depends upon how much time the architect was able to spend on the project. The less the developer is willing to spend monetarily, the less time the architect will be able to devote to the project. As far as I know, architects, just like lawyers, generally work on a billable hours model.

I was being facetious, I agree with you. The architect involved should ask for more billable hours. In many cases the design is flawed from the beginning :haha:

[HAMRetrofit]

How many acres are you speculating on now Goldfinger?

[hamiltonguy]

As someone looking to buy a home in a few years to raise a family, I honestly don't like the burbs. A nice small house is the city with a small yard is enough. Heck even a condo is fine as long at the soundproofing is good (I play saxophone, and I don't want to disturb the neighbours) and there is a place for the children to play under supervision.

[realcity]

Well, there is never a guarantee they will get approval for construction. Your soft costs, i.e. planners, municipal application fees and development charges, engineering expenses, TARION, insurance, lawyers, surveyors, environmental reports, interest, real estate fees, land transfer tax then the purchase price. You will need to spend on all this before you could even think opening up a sales office.

You don't just walk into City hall and ask for the approval in the morning and have it by the afternoon. Everything with you guys on this board is simple, and you all look for simplified answers.

Obviously this process is distilled down for simplicity and effect. I never mentioned how long a speculator has to sit on the greenspace until it gets serviced. Desantis bought the land in the 53/20 area in 80s. If you were to look at a map of all the surrounding greenspace of who owned it, you'd recognize all the names as the local home builders. Currently the airport lands and along Highway 6 are the next target.

The point was this business model is now dead. The Places to Grow Act and Greenbelt put an end to farmland speculation. It's finally been realized by Queens Park as too valuable. All the PR that comes from the Home Builders is against the GreenBelt. I wonder why? because they're stuck with land that will be farms forever now. I'm sure there is a way to make a profit from farming too, just like there is way to make a profit from urban developing like Stinson. But they're not interested, it's not their business, it might as well be a bakery business, it doesn't fit the model they know.

[Civchic]

The consultants have become such a critical piece of the process now. I have to admit I was never sold on their value until I started using firms like PEIL and IBI.

My husband used to work for PEIL! :) I work for another consultant, and you are exactly right. We are designed to work the paper trail - 90% of what I do is not engineering - it's massaging the beaurocracy.

I,Sinclair and RePinion got what I was trying to say - it's all about economic incentive. Make it affordable and profitable to re-develop the core and that will happen. It may be a painful transition from old-style developers, and it will take a while before it runs smoothly (while those old guys do their best to muck it up), but it will happen. It already is happening, on a small scale. 6 years ago all of our client base was greenfield development. 100%. Now, I'd say 25% of our business comes from small infill developments.

[RePinion]

The consultants have become such a critical piece of the process now. I have to admit I was never sold on their value until I started using firms like PEIL and IBI.

My husband used to work for PEIL! :) I work for another consultant, and you are exactly right. We are designed to work the paper trail - 90% of what I do is not engineering - it's massaging the beaurocracy.

I,Sinclair and RePinion got what I was trying to say - it's all about economic incentive. Make it affordable and profitable to re-develop the core and that will happen. It may be a painful transition from old-style developers, and it will take a while before it runs smoothly (while those old guys do their best to muck it up), but it will happen. It already is happening, on a small scale. 6 years ago all of our client base was greenfield development. 100%. Now, I'd say 25% of our business comes from small infill developments.

This is good to hear from an insider. It signals that Hamilton's development status quo is slowly but significantly beginning to erode.

One question though: has the amount of work related to greenfield development declined, while that related to infill projects has comparitively increased, or has it remained more or less constant?

[Civchic]

That's a really good question. At first, I was going to say that I don't think it's decreased, since we're still working on a lot of it. But it is more that each individual development is taking WAY longer and we're putting a ton more work into each one. Gone are the days that a developer knocked out 1000 greenfield units each year. Waterdown greenfield is where the money is right now, and of course we've got a couple Ancaster Meadowlands developments. We have nearly zero greenfield work in Burlington, which used to be where we worked exclusively.

Infill has definitely increased, but we're still mostly in Burlington. It is a lucrative endeavour for us (the consultants). These smaller developers, a lot of them the type of people who are only doing it once because they own a big lot they can sever and densify - they really need us to wade through the mess at city hall. Our infill projects in Hamilton have suffered from inertia and roadblocks, sadly. We've done a couple and it's been a nightmare to deal with city staff.