[DC83]

http://loftytoronto.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/picture-2.png
source (http://loftytoronto.com/2008/05/21/ironstone-condominiums/)

Located at 1094 Ironstone Dr in north Burlington around Appleby & Upper Middle area

Website: http://www.ironstonecondominiums.com/

[DC83]

^^ Ok, so I'm not gonna lie... I'm super jealous!
I want this bldg downtown Hamilton, it looks really nice!

We were picking up a friend in this area on our way to Toronto this weekend and I saw a sign for this. So I had to post it (obvi).

Thoughts? (that aren't related to sprawl, please)

[SteelTown]

This is the one under construction right? At some corner by the waterfront?

It's REALLY nice.

[raisethehammer]

no, this is up in sprawlsville (haha..sorry, I had to).
BUT it's GREAT for sprawlsville. Jeez. I'd take it downtown, let alone on the south Mountain somewhere.

[flar]

This is the one downtown:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/burlington2008/00120.jpg

[raisethehammer]

that's like all the TO condos.
I'm guessing that it's dirt cheap to build these types of buildings these days?? They all seem the same.
The area in TO around the Skydome is horrible. Way too much of this with a cold, bland street presence.

[DC83]

This is the one under construction right? At some corner by the waterfront?

It's REALLY nice.

It IS really nice. Unfortunately it's up at Appleby & Upper Middle in North Burlignton. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1094+Ironstone+Dr+Burlington+ON&sll=43.399809,-79.80619&sspn=0.016994,0.04858&ie=UTF8&ll=43.390407,-79.786599&spn=0.008498,0.015965&t=h&z=16)

The one downtown Burly is nice, too.

[raisethehammer]

so, check out the website of the builder:

http://www.davies-smith.com/

they do tons of condo buildings in suburbs.
I wonder if it's cheaper out there? We should try to get builders like this downtown instead of the batch of Hamilton crap-builders we have building Twenty Place.

[raisethehammer]

It IS really nice. Unfortunately it's up at Appleby & Upper Middle in North Burlignton. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1094+Ironstone+Dr+Burlington+ON&sll=43.399809,-79.80619&sspn=0.016994,0.04858&ie=UTF8&ll=43.390407,-79.786599&spn=0.008498,0.015965&t=h&z=16)

The one downtown Burly is nice, too.



wow...horrible.
So in other words, expect everyone to drive in and out of this place.
Still, I'd take a dozen of them on the Mountain or East Hamilton....better than low density sprawl.

[SteelTown]

This is the one downtown:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/burlington2008/00120.jpg

Yea that's the one, I have a friend who has a condo in downtown Burlington and I see this one being built most of the time. Downtown condos are expensive! Starting average price is something like $450,000.

[oldcoote]

I just can't understand how anyone would want to live in that location, regardless of the building.

Old Burlington I could see, but....:koko:

[raisethehammer]

yea, it's weird.
If it sells out it should make a case for condo buildings in similar suburban areas in the Hamilton area.

[flar]

There are a lot of condos in Dundas already.

[DC83]

^^ as well as Burlington, downtown Stoney Creek (although most are from the 90's).

For some reason, edgy (or even nice) architecture doesn't take place downtown? It's all brick wall crap or historic reno/restoration.

To be fair though, Montreal concentrated it's condo developments on reno'ing old/decrepid blgds into lofts/condos THEN started to allow new builds. It makes sense considering just how dense and old downtown Montreal is.
Hopefully once all our older bldgs are reno'd into residential/mix-use new ATTRACTIVE builds (such as Ironstone Condos) will be built... most likely concentrating around the approved LRT routes.

[flar]

I like this one in Dundas:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/springdundas/00247.jpg

And there are some really nice loft conversions, for example:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/00014.jpg

And some that I don't like (you can see where the next one will go at the extreme left:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/00025-00027.jpg



I'd take any of them in Downtown Hamilton though.

[SteelTown]

And there are some really nice loft conversions, for example:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/00014.jpg


My parents a few years ago had an amazing deal on these lofts. I bitch to them still to this day for not taking it haha.

[thistleclub]

http://www.newsbureau.ca/Content.aspx?item=1764

Does a bedroom community need to be central? Ironstone is a hell of a lot better than the 60s-era towers sprinkled across the mountain. Plus: Short hop to Glen Abbey, down the street from a provincial park, sweet rooftop patio...

[DC83]

The area in TO around the Skydome is horrible. Way too much of this with a cold, bland street presence.

It's called City Place by Concord. Although the building designs are nice (especially their signature Parade Condos (http://www.cityplace.ca/parade/)) I agree it's very cold and doesn't promote much street life, especially along Spadina which is rediculously busy just north of the City Place developments in (new)China Town.

They didn't add enough street-front retail, and the retail they do have is like Fido or Rogers and they completely lack the ability to add a patio for a resto.

[JT Jacobs]

My parents a few years ago had an amazing deal on these lofts. I bitch to them still to this day for not taking it haha.

I love this building (Bertram lofts, Dundas, that is): great job, great location. It astounds me that more developers don't do similar-style lofts in Hamilton. Does anyone know who did this development?

[fastcarsfreedom]

It's a terrific building--looks great and adds density to an area this Forum is very critical of. Of course I'd love to see more of this type of development in Hamilton--take note that it's part of the trend of development moving westward out of the the GTA. All the massive suburban single-family housing currently being created in Hamilton is part of the same trend--such housing was built wildly in Peel and Halton in the past 10-20 years--now the trend has moved to Hamilton...a few years down the road the influx of these types of developments will be begin...particularly with expanded GO service.

[Millstone]

^^ downtown Stoney Creek (although most are from the 90's).


Maybe King St... but Hwy 8 is all boxy 70s apartment buildings that look like ass. I really don't like that stretch. I take Hwy 8 from St. Catharines and always shudder coming into Stoney Creek.

[Jon Dalton]

I ride by this every week. It's much more impressive in that drawing than it is in real life. They did a good job of ensuring that none of the surroundings appear in the drawing.

[omro]

How much are the Hamilton units?

[raisethehammer]

yea, it looks like they took out the surroundings and added that 20-storey guy standing there with a glass of wine.
Considering where this place is, he should have been holding a Hortons or a Slurpee.

[DC83]

^^ It's Burlington, try Starbucks & a Booster Juice HAHAHA crazy yuppies!

Developers use rediculously fake surroundings to sell their 'quiet, unique communities' to gullible buyers.

Look at sites like Summit Park (http://www.multi-area.com/single_family_homes_floorplans.asp), they protray a forest-like setting when in reality, this site was built on a former farm with little-to-no trees and the trees they do plant will likely reach about 1/4 to 1/2 their potential size due to the way they develop land now.

http://www.multi-area.com/images/floorplan/Aspen-A.jpg
http://www.multi-area.com/single_family_homes_floorplans.asp

[raisethehammer]

haha...yea, people are so gulible it's unreal. "country living in the city".
It'll take 70 years before the trees look like that, if they even plant any and don't kill them with all their pesticides and driveway salt.

[highwater]

They won't even look like that in 70 years. DC's right. Modern developers use 'scorched earth' techniques, removing the best soil before building. There's a reason the trees are so big in Westdale and the Southwest, and it isn't just their age, it's the quality of the soils, quality that is lacking in new subdivisions (likely built on soils that were farmed unsustainabley even before the developers got their backhoes on them).

[ryan_mcgreal]

Not only that, but the industrial machines used to build houses now compact the earth until it's like concrete. Even with a full 18 inches of high quality topsoil, trees wouldn't have a chance.

[BrianE]

And the number of trees in the rendering is unrealistic as well. Getting developers to plant more than the absolute minimum number of trees per hectare is like banging your face against a wall.

[raisethehammer]

why waste money on trees when you can buy some more cheesy 'pillars' from home depot to give the house a sense of prestige.

[Jon Dalton]

How much are the Hamilton units?

Not sure if you're referring to this building but it's starting at 160,000.
It's now 50% sold.

[Jon Dalton]

Try looking at this from the opposite side as that shown on the rendering (from Appleby Line, that is). Much less appetizing.

[omro]

Not sure if you're referring to this building but it's starting at 160,000.
It's now 50% sold.

That's not a bad price, though depends on the size of the units. Good to know.

[SteelTown]

They are now advertising Ironstone on SSP Local: Hamilton now haha

[raisethehammer]

I love the ad they are using on SSP too - "reduce your carbon footprint".
Yea, cause we all know how environmentally friendly it is to live in north Burlington and drive to all the big box stores.

[Jon Dalton]

Reduce your carbon footprint, eh? That's just typical of the greenwashing hype that's taking the marketing world by storm, from Ford cars to plastic water bottles: "Sleek design uses 30% less plastic!"

A tour of your new neighbourhood:

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA005.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA008.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA009.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA001.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA006.jpg

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA034.jpg

Welcome home.

[highwater]

:haha:

[fastcarsfreedom]

While it may amaze some of you that people go for the "country living in the city" concept--it is equally amazing how much all of you buy into your own hype too. Driveway salt? Compacted soil? Unsustainable farming? Architectural drawings are what they are--they've never represented "reality"--and no one buys a house at Summit Park thinking that it's going to look like it does in the sketch--they all visit the model home while it's sitting out in a field by itself.

As for the trees--I can't speculate. I live in a 70s subdivision--early scorched earth if you will--built off of farmland--I've seen the photos it was bulldozed flat and started from scratch--earth movers and all. Now, let me tell you, our neighborhood is full of mature trees--all of which have grown naturally and not been killed off by driveway salt and lawn spray--(which of course, no one in the city would dare use). I'm cool with your preference for an urban lifestyle--I think it's great--but please idle back your hype a little--people in the city drink Hortons coffee too...and lo and behold, people from the city drive out to box stores too--in our case, they drive a lot further than I do.

[raisethehammer]

sorry fastcars, but you've gotta admit the advertising for this place is a joke.
I don't know why you always bring up your town near Windsor. Nobody on here has ever made a negative comment about where you live. None of us even know where it is (I do now, but only cause I drove to Detroit).
The above pictures represent such a massive waste of your tax dollars and of the worlds energy supplies that you should care about it.
It's a joke.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I mention where I live as an example--because it's suburban--that's all. I'm certainly not thumping my chest and trying to defend it--since this is a Forum about lifestyle choices--I use my own as a point of reference. I don't live in an urban environment--I live in a suburban one--that's relevant to the discussion when arguments against that particular lifestyle choice drift from reasoned debate to foolishness about lawn spray and Tim Hortons.

I also take exception to the insinuation that I "don't care" merely because I disagree--it's downright shocking to me to be frank and smacks of myopia. It is possible, as shocking as it may be to your sensibilities, to look at the world with reasoned and intelligent eyes, and draw different conclusions than you have.

So, in a perfect world, where should I move? It would seem increased density in the suburbs is every bit as offensive as sprawl--reading the above comments about this building in Burlington.

[raisethehammer]

you obviously didn't read all the comments. I said clearly that this is better than sprawl.
But to market it as some King and James, urban lifestyle choice with no footprint in a joke.
As big a joke as the stiffs in Summit Park putting up signs about 'country living'.
How can we NOT make fun of these losers.
Just advertise what you're building - "a cookie cutter townhome in a sprawling burb."

[markbarbera]

--since this is a Forum about lifestyle choices--

Huh? forum.skyscraperpage.com defines it differently...

Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I should have clarified--I think it is fair to say that the urban/suburban/exurban/rural choice is a theme which underlays the discussion here. I have been reminded on several occasions that this is an "urbanist" Forum--therefore, despite the fact that skyscraperpage.com defines the Forum differently, I think it is fair to say that this particular Forum focuses on urbanism/sprawl/sustainability--at least that's how I see it. When was the last time a suburban construction project discussed here was not accompanied by a barrage of posts about the negative effects of sprawl?

Therefore mark, while your intentions may have been noble, I dont quite understand the point of your post in the context of the discussion at hand.

[raisethehammer]

there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

[adam]

This post is lucky to exist here at all. Skyscraper? Not even close! Even a 2 year old can see that! :jester:

[Millstone]

there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

Do you have anything of value to contribute? We get it, you hate suburbs; move along.

[markbarbera]

I think what is at issue is how critisicm of an urban design that promotes sprawl is consequently interpreted as an attack against an individual's lifestyle choice. It's akin to health professionals warning of the dangers of smoking, then subsequently having the warning portrayed as an attack on the smoker's lifestyle choice.

[highwater]

Thanks for nailing it, mark. Snide remarks about suburbanites' physiques, restaurant preferences, etc. etc. are tedious and insulting, but no one should have to pretend that sprawl isn't anything other than environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Those are your opinions highwater. I have my own. The thing is, around here, you're all in, or your not. I have never advocated unchecked sprawl continuing for time eternal--there are environmental concerns--as there are in urban areas. The social unsustainability is an opinion and a worldview I don't happen to share--it is, in fact, merely a theory.

Quote
I think what is at issue is how critisicm of an urban design that promotes sprawl is consequently interpreted as an attack against an individual's lifestyle choice

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not interpretation--as stated previously, suburbanites are frequently referred to as overweight, lazy, Tim Hortons drinking, Kelseys-eating, losers, easily duped, socially unconcious people who kill their trees with driveway salt--shall I go on? These are not reasoned arguments--they are intended as insults--so please, do not blame me for misinterpretation--it is what it is. It is a generalization that is no more appropriate than a poster saying the city is filled with crime, drugs, prostitution and criminals. It's rhetoric, it's pointless, it does nothing to advance the discussion/debate.

Quote
there must be sites online called forum.beautifulbigbox.com or something. I'm sure sprawl projects would be better received there and urbanism would be bashed.

Essentially what I "interpret" here is that all of your opinions should go unchallenged. Also, remind me of the last time I "bashed" urbanism...I can't seem to recall.

You will find no one who is a bigger supporter of the city than I am--I just don't choose to live there--those two things can be reconciled--I refuse to accept the notion that I'm either "for you" or I'm "against you"...it's insulting and condescending.

[raisethehammer]

Thanks for nailing it, mark. Snide remarks about suburbanites' physiques, restaurant preferences, etc. etc. are tedious and insulting, but no one should have to pretend that sprawl isn't anything other than environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable.

these are not 'opinions'.
They are fact.

[adam]

Taglines like "country living" and "community" are often used to advertise new residential developments. You can't build a community in a matter of months, you can't raze the earth and expect country living next to the highway.

If you have a valid point that contradicts this, please present it and I'll humbly accept that I'm wrong.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Again, I don't remember specifically saying I was somehow in favor of sprawl. What I do remember saying is that people make differing choices about the environs in which they choose to live--and blanket assumptions and generalizations have no place here if you're trying to make a reasoned argument. If all you want to do is come here to beat your drum, that's a different story.

adam--your points are well made. In reality, "community" is something that is person-generated, and not a function of geography. The prevailing wisdom here would suggest that people who live in "sprawl" are socially isolated, car-dependent and sedintary--while those who live in an urban setting (the enlightened) enjoy closer relationships with neighbors, are more active and don't drive (and certainly don't use salt on their driveways). My point is merely that it's the people who make up the community that decides what happens there--not where someone lives in relation to density. I spent several years living in a high-denisty, high-rise condo--the appeal being every bit as contrived as saying Summit Park is "country living". In that particular community I was surrounded by a fairly homogenous group of people who sought the condo lifestyle--they are the very people I see folks here saying we should attract to live downtown. Almost without exception my neighbors were elitist, isloated, suspicious of any newcomers to the building--and despite living in the city--with a large nature trail system running through the property and being adjacent to both the lakefront and riverfront--generally speaking took the elevator to the underground garage and drove in and out. My immediate neighbor complained to me that I didn't squeegee my glass balcony railings often enough, another resident worried that my muddy truck was making the underground parking "dirty", while other's merely spoke loudly in the common areas about the quality of the owners going "downhill"--complete obsession with property values. The people make or break the community.

I now live in 1970s era sprawl. I made a point when I moved in of getting to know everyone in our immediate area--even though I strongly prefer an element of privacy (one of my reasons for living here)--my wife and I don't have kids--but I've gotten to know the kids on my street from young ones to teens--I'm the guy that lets the kids play hockey in his driveway and lends out his sticks--it didn't take a blackout or a calamity of some sort to get us out onto our porches--we all made the effort--from block BBQs to having Block Parents to taking concerns to Town Council as a group. So, while some feel very strongly about the "unsustainable" nature of lighter density neighborhoods--I stir at the mention of 'social unsustainability' which is a notion I don't accept. I can walk to the store, or for a coffee, and often do.

So my point is--it is risky to make assumptions based on bias, or to accept your own opinions as fact, merely because you believe in them so strongly.

[adam]

You state that blanket assumptions have no place here and yet you paint everyone who lived in your old building with the same brush.. is it a 1-way street? (no pun intended)

[highwater]

It's great that you live on a chummy street, fastcars, but I was referring to social unsustainability in more of a macro sense, such as the family time and volunteer hours lost to lengthy commutes, the loss of cultural and economic cross-pollination when residential areas are separated from employment and retail areas, the public health ramifications of car dependency, the loss of freedom and independence for children and seniors and anyone else who can't drive, etc. And yes, I suppose the isolation of suburbia is subjective, but I've just read too damn many articles about the suffering of new Canadians, particularly those who are used to living with extended family, to dismiss it entirely.

[highwater]

And I'm sorry. The landscapes in Jon's pics are just f*cking soul-destroying. I don't see how a fan of good architecture like yourself could argue otherwise.

[fastcarsfreedom]

A good argument indeed adam, and one which I left myself open to. In fact, I'm sure there were wonderful people who lived in my complex--I just never met them. I went to one acrimonious owners' meeting, and that was the extent of it--I remember we had a polling station in the building at election time--and the Elections Canada folks were also residents of the building--and no one really knew each other--save for the same few people encountered in day-to-day life.

I realized you were speaking in a macro sense, highwater--I respect that. Nonetheless, most of us don't live in a macro world. Again, we make choices in life that govern how we interact in our communities. I could, potentially, live in the city, take a short walk to/from work (or the bus) and come home and sit on my ass all evening. That would be family and volunteer time lost to the internet, or TSN. Instead--living where I do--I take time to stay active, I use the resources in the community, I still play hockey and softball at my advancing age--it's a choice I make. The health ramifications of "car dependency" are an excuse for an inactivity--not the cause of it.

Interesting arguments about the "suffering" of new Canadians. I am tempted to go off in a completely different direction--but I will resist that urge. While I think living with extended family is a wonderful notion--I think it is fair to say that is not something widely embraced in North American culture. In that sense, I can appreciate that it would be a 'transition' for someone coming from an area of the world where living with extended family is the norm. Nonetheless, most immigrants have some choice where they locate upon arriving in Canada, I think it's fair to say most are fleeing from true "suffering", as opposed to being subjected to it upon their arrival.

As for the photos--I don't base my viewpoints on a few selectively chosen photographs. It's akin to me taking photos of a vacant storefront on Barton Street, the Columbian Chemicals factory at Strathearne and Burlington Street and a prostitute on Wilson Street and saying that the city is depressing and soul-destroying. As for architecture--it's an interesting point. In reality, there is very little good architecture happening anywhere--most design, urban and suburban, is boring and repetititive--and what passes as being avant garde/trendy is mostly gharish (Libeskind).

Essentially--what I read from this debate is that it's impossible to be pro-city unless you're anti-suburb. I don't get that.

[Jon Dalton]

As for the photos--I don't base my viewpoints on a few selectively chosen photographs. It's akin to me taking photos of a vacant storefront on Barton Street, the Columbian Chemicals factory at Strathearne and Burlington Street and a prostitute on Wilson Street and saying that the city is depressing and soul-destroying.

I shot the most interesting scenes I could find, not necessarily the most depressing. These were taken months ago before this thread came up with no intention of anti-suburbia grandstanding but rather looking for patterns and aesthetics in suburban design that make for interesting subject matter. I think they portray the area quite well, minus the supercenters and industrial parks.

[DC83]

As for the trees--I can't speculate. I live in a 70s subdivision--early scorched earth if you will--built off of farmland--I've seen the photos it was bulldozed flat and started from scratch--earth movers and all. Now, let me tell you, our neighborhood is full of mature trees--all of which have grown naturally and not been killed off by driveway salt and lawn spray--(which of course, no one in the city would dare use).

I also grew up in a 70's development called Heritage Green in Upper Stoney Creek. For the most part, the majority of the original trees were kept (thank GOD), but the rest have yet to reach maturity YET they have gotten quite nice over the last 10 years-or-so.

But check this out:

Why Trees Die in New Subdivisions (http://www.ag.fvsu.edu/teletips/trees/832.cfm)

There are reasons for these trees dying. One of the most common reasons is the change in the soil grade around the tree. Three or more inches of soil added over tree root systems often cuts off oxygen to the roots which eventually kills the roots and this eventually kills the tree.

If the subdivision was developed in an area where the trees were growing in thick groves and many of the trees had to be removed to make room for the houses, the trees which are left are exposed to more light and wind than they can handle and may die in two or three years.

Unfortunately for us (and our health) development companies don't care about this HUGE problem (it IS a huge problem) and will expect the City to pick up the cost 10-15 years down the road when most (if not all) of the trees have died. It's actually pretty disgusting if you ask me.

EDIT: ps, I'm not trying to pick on you Fastcars. You just have to admit that their 'green' claims are rediculous considering how big a carbon footprint living in this condo would leave. Granted MY condo isn't LEED certified, but I least I try my hardest in other ways: little-to-no A/C, Walk/take Public Transit, buy local from my downtown Farmer's Market, etc etc... much of which no one in North Burlington would do.
At least the building itself is nice :)

[fastcarsfreedom]

Greenshifting--I hate even using that term, makes me want to gag--so I'm with you 100% on the ridiculous claims of this developer--everyone is on the bandwagon in much the same way everyone was on the no cholesterol (sp?) bandwagon a few years back.

Trees are a big issue--I agree, and frankly, most developers could do a far better job of working within the framework of the land they acquire to build on. Summit Park, Meadowlands, etc, aren't the best examples--because they were cleared land to begin with--but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make the effort to seek out types of trees that are hardy and ensure that they are planted for maximum survivability. I've always thought the area of Tyandaga Woodlands/Forestvale area in Burlington was well done--with the new home construction done amidst old growth--it makes for a helluva beautiful neighborhood.

You are brave if you can go with little to no a/c--but I give you credit. I generally use mine all summer--home and auto--just can't seem to keep my hand off the switch. On the flipside I use less than average (I speculate) for heat in the winter--of which I use as little as possible. Public transit isn't an option for us--but I certainly make as many trips as possible via my legs as opposed to driving.

[Jon Dalton]

Oops I forgot one:
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/burlington/jonsfujisensia100AA034.jpg

Couldn't even walk to get a coffee if you lived on this street - because there's a giant fence in the way!

In all fairness though, Ironstone is walking distance from Millcroft Shopping Centre (at least to its entrance) with restaurants, grocery, Zellers, crappy tire and a whack of other stuff.

I agree on the greenshifting trend, that's what pushed me over the edge to post this stuff. I so highly doubt that it factors into anyone's decision to move anywhere. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but will admit that my lifestyle choices are more based on my own sanity than trying to save the world. I know old houses use more energy to heat, and diesel GO trians belch disgusting amounts of smoke. Wood burning is more harmful to the atmosphere than driving cars with catalytic converters and thosands of dollars worth of emissions equipment. As far as I'm concerned, environmental damage is directly correlated to population, and none of us are going to go childless for the sole purpose of decreasing the world's population. We can all do our bit to be responsible knowing our affects on the environment, but every single one of us has our vices that we will continue to justify.

[raisethehammer]

yep..I have bonfires in my backyard right downtown. So do all the neighbours! lol.

[adam]

I wonder when the trend in the States is going to catch up wjth us here? Nobody's moving into new developments and they're turning into mini ghost towns... Retiring baby boomers and generation y'ers who want urban living are taking over the majority of the population..

[fastcarsfreedom]

adam--that "trend" is the result of serious difficulty in the real estate market. You can't move into a new house without being able to sell your old one. Some of these "mini ghost towns" are also the result of the bankruptcy of developers/land owners.

[raisethehammer]

gas prices are having a psychological impact too.
In reality it's only about $5-10 bucks more for a tank now than last year, but people are responding like it's $500. I hope gas goes up by another full dollar.
We'd see tons more of these scooters, bikes and folks moving into the city.
I can't believe the number of electric bikes and scooters in my hood. It's wicked. They're all over the place.

[adam]

adam--that "trend" is the result of serious difficulty in the real estate market. You can't move into a new house without being able to sell your old one. Some of these "mini ghost towns" are also the result of the bankruptcy of developers/land owners.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you are forgetting new families and first time home buyers as well as a host of other variables. Its not a cut and dry system. I wouldn't try to quantify the trend in a couple sentences alone.

[DC83]

Adam, I would LOVE for the Greenwashing trend to even exist in the US which is doesn't. They're still as ignorant as usual towards the environment.
Go to a US grocery store and bring in your own bag... they'll look at you like you walked in from the Ghetto.

You can have fires in Strathcona, rth??? Last time I tried that at my mom's place in Upp SC the fire dept showed up :s It's a $200 fine!

[Millstone]

gas prices are having a psychological impact too.
In reality it's only about $5-10 bucks more for a tank now than last year, but people are responding like it's $500. I hope gas goes up by another full dollar.
We'd see tons more of these scooters, bikes and folks moving into the city.
I can't believe the number of electric bikes and scooters in my hood. It's wicked. They're all over the place.

When you spend $11-12,000 in gas a year just on business, $10 is a lot.

[raisethehammer]

Adam, I would LOVE for the Greenwashing trend to even exist in the US which is doesn't. They're still as ignorant as usual towards the environment.
Go to a US grocery store and bring in your own bag... they'll look at you like you walked in from the Ghetto.

You can have fires in Strathcona, rth??? Last time I tried that at my mom's place in Upp SC the fire dept showed up :s It's a $200 fine!

no, you technically can't have fires, but everyone does.
this ain't the burbs where people sit at home peering out their windows spying on their neighbours to see if their kid steps on my front lawn etc.... lol.

[raisethehammer]

When you spend $11-12,000 in gas a year just on business, $10 is a lot.

cost of doing business.

[DC83]

no, you technically can't have fires, but everyone does.
this ain't the burbs where people sit at home peering out their windows spying on their neighbours to see if their kid steps on my front lawn etc.... lol.

Sweet. I guess one just needs an ultra-dense hood to light fires hehe
Maybe I should light one on my balc? Nahhh (but I DO have an electric bbq, SHHH)

I dunno bout the burbs alone on that, dude. I spent the 1st couple years of my life on Colbourne St in the Jamesville area and lemme tell you, those Portugese/Italian ladies sit on their patios making sure no one touches their lawn...eerr, I mean veggie gardens! I've almost lost a hand b4! hahaha jks

[adam]

Its legal to have a fire as long as you have a grill on the top and its official purpose is for cooking!

[fastcarsfreedom]

Quote
They're still as ignorant as usual towards the environment.
Go to a US grocery store and bring in your own bag... they'll look at you like you walked in from the Ghetto

I find gross generalizations to also be an indicator of ignorance. Not sure when the last time you visited a U.S. grocery store was--but I can assure you they all sell those reuseable bags. As someone born and raised in Canada, I've never been able to grasp the strange inferiority/superiority duality that seems to exist among people like yourself.

Quote
I'm not sure what your point is, but you are forgetting new families and first time home buyers as well as a host of other variables. Its not a cut and dry system. I wouldn't try to quantify the trend in a couple sentences alone.

Strange, because you were the one that tried to quantify it in a single sentence.

Quote
I hope gas goes up by another full dollar.

Ignoring, of course, the devestating impact that this could have elsewhere in the economy. As an ardant supporter of small/independent business, I would expect you would sensitive to their economic stablility--considering they tend to be the most impacted by shifts in consumer spending. We are already seeing significant reductions in consumption, and significantly reduced growth in consumption in the developing world.

Quote
I can't believe the number of electric bikes and scooters in my hood. It's wicked. They're all over the place.

I'm all for diversity of transport modes. Perhaps, in the near future--the driver's of these other vehicles will be subject to the same level of enforcement of the highway traffic act as the driver's of motor vehicles. Compliance comes with enforcement, safety comes with compliance.

[markbarbera]

...and yet another construction thread is hijacked with the same tired discussions spatterd about among many other threads in this SSP. Does anyone have anyhting to contribute about Ironstone Condos?

[adam]

With regards to cyclists, pedestrians and scooters and legal enforcement...

I just took a walk to do some errands and observed 15 vehicles arrive at a stop sign, and not a single one came to a stop. Also the 40km/h limit was not observed by about 10 of these vehicles. How's that for compliance? Whatever systems are in place are clearly ineffective for motor vehicles.

[raisethehammer]

yea, I just had to renew the stupid sticker on my license plate and walked out feeling like I've been robbed.
What a waste of money. I shouldn't have to renew the plates until my license comes up for renewal.
the last thing I want to see is the heavy hand of Mr. Government crushing every other mode of transportation and lifestyle choices.
We've allowed them and the oil companies to corner us for too long. It's time for freedom, my friend.

[Millstone]

yea, I just had to renew the stupid sticker on my license plate and walked out feeling like I've been robbed.
What a waste of money. I shouldn't have to renew the plates until my license comes up for renewal.

If you're so anti-car, then don't drive. Leave it up to the real world. :yes:

[the dude]

^not sure what that means. i don't drive and my feet are planted firmly on terra firma.

having gas increase by another dollar/litre is the best thing that could happen to us. sure, 'joe pickup truck' isn't gonna like it but it will allow us to continue our excessive lives just a little longer. that's what we all want right? damn straight it is, so let's eek things out as long as we can.

incidentally, wouldn't it be great if we could have a bike maker open shop in hamilton? there's no doubt that bike sales are going to continue to increase with each passing year. probably hasn't crossed the minds of our city officials.

[raisethehammer]

the entire economy is shifting away from wasteful, corporate greed and into new ideas that are sustainable and wise.
Cities that embrace the new economy will love the future.
Cities that try to grasp onto the cheap-oil past are dead. No hope. No future.
That's another reason I'd like to see all of the relics on council and in the Chamber of 'commerce' turfed as soon as possible. They've screwed up enough in this city. If we aren't careful they're going to screw up our future too (again).

[adam]

Whatever do you mean?!? Gas is only $1.25/litre now... so cheap! :haha:

[adam]

Great article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7566566.stm)

[thistleclub]

Getting back to Ironstone Condos | HT ?? | 16 FLRS | U/C, I wonder what the board's reaction would have been had the same building been developed on the same site (or, alternately, near the Meadowlands or Summit Park) without the "green" marketing tilt or the ad presence on Skyscraperpage. Which do people find more objectionable: the marketing or the map position?

[raisethehammer]

the marketing.

I'd like to see more stuff like this built in the suburbs. But don't insult our intelligence with stuff about 'sustainability' and 'footprint' of the residents.
It's more sustainable than sprawled out homes and that's good enough for me.
I'd fall over in shock if something like this was ever built in the meadowlands.

[adam]

I can't help but think the name Meadowlands was meant to be toungue in cheek. Its like a slap in the face to the natural area that was absolutely destroyed when it was built. Meanwhile there are empty buildings downtown.. oh sorry i forgot, the downtown is reserved for synchronized stoplights and 2 1-way highways.

[raisethehammer]

don't you know, they always name these places after whatever they destroy.
Eagles Nest Drive.... Blue Jay Lane....Orchard Park....
now, its the medowless-lands.

[fastcarsfreedom]

It's all about the map position thistleclub--make no mistake. Fault would be found--there would be some negative tilt--it's how things work here. You certainly don't see this Forum swimming with praise for Dundas--which is seeing it's downtown surrounded by higher density developments--best case scenario these things are ignored--or the presence of parking, objectionable building materials or something else would be found to be at fault.

There was no intent on anyone's part to 'hijack' this thread--the topic carried the conversation in a certain direction--and that's that. Fair to see this condo development was the start-off point for the discussion, and it has continuted to be the underlying theme.

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I also just forked out $ for my val tag--actually seems to me to be a relatively reasonable price to pay to keep my plates valid. I actually assume the "robbed" statement was meant to be sarcastic. If it wasn't, freedom is easily exercised, by simply giving up the vehicle.

As for joepickuptruck (perhaps a new screen name for me?)--his concern's over gas prices are easily dismissed by you because he lives such an objectionable life. Of course, you have no more actual insight into his life, than he has into yours. Again, those cheering for a further $1/liter increase in gasoline prices have chosen to complete divorce themselves from reality.

[adam]

If my bike is being treated the same as my car and faced with the same licensing regulations and payments, I should be able to take up a lane on the 403, or anywhere I please. If that's not acceptable, then I should expect bike lanes on EVERY SINGLE ROAD. I should be able to bike all along the 401 from here to Windsor.

Apples and oranges aren't the same are they?

[fastcarsfreedom]

All I said was that the HTA should be enforced equally. Sadly, for every respobsible cyclist on the road, there is another who feels it's acceptable to ignore the law and use their "right" to use the road as a cloak. I never advocated licensing or fees for bikes--not sure where that's coming from.

Suggesting the use of bicycles on a 400-series highway is taking your argument to the extreme. The same logic would suggest cars be allowed to use bicycle paths.

[raisethehammer]

nothing far fetched about that. I routinely come across cars parked in bike lanes all the time. Still haven't seen a bike on the 403.
Fact is, cars break the law FAR more than any other mode of transport. It's not even close.

[adam]

Anyone want to start a bash cyclists thread?

[raisethehammer]

It's all about the map position thistleclub--make no mistake. Fault would be found--there would be some negative tilt--it's how things work here. You certainly don't see this Forum swimming with praise for Dundas--which is seeing it's downtown surrounded by higher density developments--best case scenario these things are ignored--or the presence of parking, objectionable building materials or something else would be found to be at fault.

There was no intent on anyone's part to 'hijack' this thread--the topic carried the conversation in a certain direction--and that's that. Fair to see this condo development was the start-off point for the discussion, and it has continuted to be the underlying theme.

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I also just forked out $ for my val tag--actually seems to me to be a relatively reasonable price to pay to keep my plates valid. I actually assume the "robbed" statement was meant to be sarcastic. If it wasn't, freedom is easily exercised, by simply giving up the vehicle.

As for joepickuptruck (perhaps a new screen name for me?)--his concern's over gas prices are easily dismissed by you because he lives such an objectionable life. Of course, you have no more actual insight into his life, than he has into yours. Again, those cheering for a further $1/liter increase in gasoline prices have chosen to complete divorce themselves from reality.


well, I appreciate the fact that you now speak on behalf of the entire forum, but please consider the following:

- Dundas is routinely praised for it's density and downtown. When has anyone bashed Dundas or talked negatively about it? I can't think of once.
- The Madison is under construction on the Mountain. Most of the 'urbanists' on the forum have been the biggest supporters of this project and are hoping it sells out and leads to more similar construction projects.

[DC83]

100% the Marketting.

I have faith in Meadowlands (at least the main commercial aspect of it) and yes, I would be dumbfounded if something of this nature was built in Ancaster or Stoney Creek or Binbrook...

IF they used the same 'green' campaign to market themselves, HELL YA I'd be all up on them for being liars. But hey, they know how to market to stupid ppl... hence why none of us have even considered this condo bldg.

IF they built this at Forest & Catherine, however, then we'd all be very VERY happy :)

[Jon Dalton]

I'm indifferent to the project. It's good for the area, but it's just mind-boggling that anyone would want to live in a condo here. The attraction of outer suburbs is lots of open space and a big house with a yard, is it not? Just seems like the worst of both worlds.

Regarding bicycles and the law: Different types of vehicles are subject to different rules. Transport trucks obviously have much tighter restrictions than mopeds and scooters. Bicycles are the least dangerous of all vehicles. The cyclist should be allowed more leeway because he/she has 100% visibility and the ability to stop or turn on a dime. Some jurisdictions already allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. This is something every cyclist already does and it will not change any more than rolling stops or going 10km/h over the speed limit will change. You won't see bike couriers who get paid by the delivery waiting for a light to change when there are no cars in the way. It's just how we roll in the city. This is coming from someone who bikes, walks AND drives.

[adam]

Agreed. I walk bike and drive as well. I avoid driving when i can, and in turn get some exercise, save money on gas (by not using any at all!)
... its amazing how different the city looks when you aren't trapped in a car in traffic.

[raisethehammer]

Hamilton looks it's absolute worst from a car IMO.
It looks great from the window of a bus and looks and FEELS amazing (maybe that's the key - the FEEL of the city) while walking or cycling.

[fastcarsfreedom]

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.

All cities look better on foot - I've yet to a see a city look any different from a bus than it does from a car - I'll take your word on that one.

As for Dundas--rest assured that my tongue was partly in my cheek for that post. I would actually be okay with someone saying they have a bias against anything built outside of the urban core -- it's a genuine statement. If Ironstone was built downtown everyone's tongues would be on the sidewalk and no one would give a rat's ass if they said it was a 'green' building or not. Dundas does have density in it's core (as do Burlington, Stoney Creek, even Waterdown) but any praise is limited. The real humor in all this is the suggestion that I was using the royal 'we'...that's a good one...

[raisethehammer]

Lol....good post.
Yea, call me crazy but I find when I'm on the bus I can just look around and see whats happening, people interacting etc...
In a car, you're just focused on the road (or the cell phone, hairbrush and ipod) and never get to see what's around you.
Check it out next time you're on the bus.

As for other cities, I guess Mississuaga looks better from a car than anywhere else?? It's pretty bad regardless, but driving in on the highway you actually have some hope for a decent CBD only to find out that it's a big shopping mall.

[Jon Dalton]

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.


Well I enjoy bombing around on a bike faster than cars in the city, and am somewhat concerned about the recent discussion about bike licensing and such. Why should I not be defensive if I believe there is a valid defense? Sure I'm admitting I break the law, just like every one of has at some point today. My point is that laws should be enforced according to the risk posed by the offender.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I suppose perhaps I was thinking back to being a passenger in a car - I always remember looking at King Street as we'd drive by - tshirt stores and stereo shops back then. Unfortunately, the bus lost it's appeal for me around the same time -- I haven't been on one in several years -- and unfortunately never enjoyed using public transit down here--the HSR is on par with the TTC when compared to our system down here--all of the buses down here turn around at the city limits - so we don't have service out here. The one exception is the bus which travels through the Tunnel and does a loop of Downtown Detroit -- it's the one innovative and successful service they operate -- and it runs on a generous frequency.

I have no love for Mississauga. Nonetheless, they have TRIED to develop density in their "downtown"--remember, when Square One was built - it was very typical sprawl in the midst of a field - and they've added some genuinely fine public buildings like their Civic Centre and Living Arts Centre...they have tried. Very high quality public transit of course makes a difference - such that the similarly "invented" downtowns in North York and Scarborough have developed more density than Mississauga has -- and Scarborough's too was built around a mall - in that case STC.

[coalminecanary]

I'm all for diversity of transport modes. Perhaps, in the near future--the driver's of these other vehicles will be subject to the same level of enforcement of the highway traffic act as the driver's of motor vehicles. Compliance comes with enforcement, safety comes with compliance.

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I hate to break it to you, but drivers of motor vehicles are subject only to selective enforcement. Police turn blind eyes to speeds as high as 20-30 over the limit on major roads/highways, and 10-20 over the limit on most other roads, including residential streets. Believe it or not, speeding is against the law. even if it's "only a little speeding".

Police turn blind eyes to rolling stops at stop signs, and even more dangerously, rolling stops on turns at red lights.

So as far as equal enforcement, I think that given the selective nature of automobile enforcement, the enforcement of cyclists should be equally selective. That means enforcing only the worst offences - riding amongst pedestrians, perhaps. Riding the wrong way down a one way street.

I'm all for equal enforcement as well. I have been arguing for it for years. But I also think that if the TRUE reasoning is safety, then tightening enforcement needs to begin with the most dangerous users, and as things come under control, you move down the line toward the least dangerous. As it stands, drivers injure and kill a hell of a lot of people each year, so perhaps we should start enforcing their rules first. Once that's under control, we can start focussing on scooter-ers, cyclists, and pedestrians -- who tend to injure or kill nobody but themselves (and even then, only occasionally).

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.

You put cyclists on the defensive by putting RTH's quote in bold face, and starting a discussion about enforcing cyclists and scooters, with an implication that motorists are law abiding victims of cyclists' outlaw actions. (Sorry if we misinterpreted this, but the fact that several of us saw it this way might show that the implication was pretty strong).

The motor vehicle "tirade" is completely valid because when enforcement of cyclists comes up, it inevitably leads to a discussion of "equal enforcement" and motorists break laws even more often than cyclists. So if the true discussion is about fairness and safety, then hell yes, we had better talk about cars.

Anyone who argues that cyclist enforcement is lacking, but motorist enforcement is just fine, is clearly arguing based on a different set of principles other than safety. This is simple math. Law breaking motorists cause most of the injuries and fatalities on the road. Law breaking cyclists and pedestrians cause very very few. My guess is that the underlying issue is usually motorists' convenience, but of course that's just speculation. Whatever the true motivation, safety it ain't.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I am keenly aware of selective enforcement--perhaps more intimately than your realize. I can assure you that basic principles as far as enforcement of bicycles go is 100% discretion -- as in, enforcement is next to nil. In reality the resources don't exist at the police level, or within the provincial offences system, to handle more enforcement than is currently ongoing.

For certain there are terrible motor vehicle operators on the road -- and just as they give all driver's a bad name there is an equal percentage of cyclists who ride as they please and inevitably hide behind their "right" to do so. Basic compliance is fairly high among all drivers, however I made no implication that all driver's are law-abiding saints. If several of you drew the same conclusions about my statement it might well be attributed to group-think, or a tendancy to categorize my posts as combative--I have no idea--in fact, your misinterpretation of my statements is your concern. The boldface quote was in fact a keying error - I had intended to italicize it, and selected the wrong icon.

I find your accusations that my concerns are not safety-related to be belittling--I don't believe I ever stated that cyclists or pedestrians cause accidents--but I have experience seeing the result of these accidents--and they are rarely positive for the cyclist...regardless of who's ultimately at fault.