HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 2:57 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
They are doing crap like this because that's what people want. If there wasn't a demand then it wouldn't be built.

Sorry, that argument died years ago.
People want condos, yet that's not stopping NIMBY groups from opposing them.
Compare the sale price per sq foot in walkable urban hoods vs. sprawl hoods and you'll see what people actually want.

No 1980's sprawl development should ever be built again. All new greenfields should mimic Westdale Village or Downtown Dundas. Cities all over N America are building new suburbs like this. Hamilton is one of the last ones to cling to this sprawled out mess with 100% car dependancy and big box stores.
I'm all for new developments, but with improvements to design that are commonplace elsewhere.

If NIMBY groups are looking for a cause, they should focus on these car-dependent developments, not urban condo projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 3:03 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Here's a brand new suburban greenfield project in Vaughan, ON

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...7471-95555.jpg

Here's a brand new 'downtown' being built in Markham:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/editorialhu...ro-960x540.jpg

Urban style 'suburb' built way back in the 1990's in Portland, Oregon:

http://www.urbanindy.com/wp-content/.../orenco_lg.jpg


New developments are needed and welcome in Hamilton....but the lowest common denominator is 1980's sprawl. People want mixed-use, walkability etc......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 3:51 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto/Hamilton/Bangkok
Posts: 4,946
Here's the three concept plans for the site...


Concept 1:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:


Concept 2:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:


Concept 3:


source

Within the context of existing and planned development:



More Info: www.hamilton.ca/city-planning/planning-community/elfrida-growth-area-study




My preference is Concept 3, it has the potential for three new Westdale style neighborhoods. If they add the commercial/mixed-use central node from Concept 2, it'd be near perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 6:47 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
these always look good on a map, but the reality in Hamilton ends up being like Upper Stoney Creek or the Meadowlands. It's all our staff know.

I believe that every residential purchase in developments like this needs to have a clause included where the home-buyer understands that future complaining about how long their commute is, or how slow traffic has become will be ignored by the city. They're choosing to live far away from everything in a development designed to force multiple cars per home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 8:13 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRTfan View Post
Sorry, that argument died years ago.
People want condos, yet that's not stopping NIMBY groups from opposing them.
Compare the sale price per sq foot in walkable urban hoods vs. sprawl hoods and you'll see what people actually want.

No 1980's sprawl development should ever be built again. All new greenfields should mimic Westdale Village or Downtown Dundas. Cities all over N America are building new suburbs like this. Hamilton is one of the last ones to cling to this sprawled out mess with 100% car dependancy and big box stores.
I'm all for new developments, but with improvements to design that are commonplace elsewhere.

If NIMBY groups are looking for a cause, they should focus on these car-dependent developments, not urban condo projects.
You keep telling yourself that. In the meantime all of these greenfield developments are selling out and new ones are being planned. You are simply projecting what you want, not what the average person wants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 9:17 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
You keep telling yourself that. In the meantime all of these greenfield developments are selling out and new ones are being planned. You are simply projecting what you want, not what the average person wants.

Umm, I'm not telling myself anything. Numbers don't lie.
People pay more to live in a walkable hood. And there is zero reason to not build walkable hoods on greenfield developments.
Anything built, whether designed properly or designed like it's 1980 will sell. We have a massive housing shortage in this city.
Walkable communities served with great transit and cycling options save the taxpayers TONS of money annually compared with Upper Stoney Creek/Meadowlands/Waterdown style developments.
All taxpayers who want to complain about their tax rates have a duty to be vocal about the way in which our city develops.

30 years ago a developer could argue that people didn't want urban style housing, thus they built winding cul-de-sacs with 3 car garages.
In 2017 they know that people want an urban vibe even in their suburban developments. The only reason we don't see complete communities built in our suburbs is because city hall's zoning code was largely written in the 1950's.
And it's one of the main reasons our city is broke and digging deeper holes every year.
I'd be fine with 75 storey towers downtown and 100's of thousands of new housing units on greenfield lands but only if designed properly and not car-dependant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 12:38 AM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRTfan View Post
Umm, I'm not telling myself anything. Numbers don't lie.
People pay more to live in a walkable hood. And there is zero reason to not build walkable hoods on greenfield developments.
Anything built, whether designed properly or designed like it's 1980 will sell. We have a massive housing shortage in this city.
Walkable communities served with great transit and cycling options save the taxpayers TONS of money annually compared with Upper Stoney Creek/Meadowlands/Waterdown style developments.
All taxpayers who want to complain about their tax rates have a duty to be vocal about the way in which our city develops.

30 years ago a developer could argue that people didn't want urban style housing, thus they built winding cul-de-sacs with 3 car garages.
In 2017 they know that people want an urban vibe even in their suburban developments. The only reason we don't see complete communities built in our suburbs is because city hall's zoning code was largely written in the 1950's.
And it's one of the main reasons our city is broke and digging deeper holes every year.
I'd be fine with 75 storey towers downtown and 100's of thousands of new housing units on greenfield lands but only if designed properly and not car-dependant.
I am not saying we shouldn't have urban development, I am all for it. But we also need a variety of housing for people to choose from. Where I live on the mountain I have everything I need within walking distance and I walk to do much of my shopping. I like being able to do so.

As for those new developments in the area we are talking about, Elfrida have you actually seen those new developments. Most are townhouses with 1 car driveways or large single family homes on postage stamp sized lots with single car driveways. There are bike lanes and sidewalks with lower speed limits on the roads. There are a lot of people in a fairly small area. It is not your typical suburban area. Transit may not have caught up with development yet but they have and are upgrading the arterial roads, namely Rymal which is being urbanized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 8:24 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
I am not saying we shouldn't have urban development, I am all for it. But we also need a variety of housing for people to choose from. Where I live on the mountain I have everything I need within walking distance and I walk to do much of my shopping. I like being able to do so.

As for those new developments in the area we are talking about, Elfrida have you actually seen those new developments. Most are townhouses with 1 car driveways or large single family homes on postage stamp sized lots with single car driveways. There are bike lanes and sidewalks with lower speed limits on the roads. There are a lot of people in a fairly small area. It is not your typical suburban area. Transit may not have caught up with development yet but they have and are upgrading the arterial roads, namely Rymal which is being urbanized.
Totally agree. There are buyers out there for all housing types. Someone should inform the elites in Durand about this fact.

The description of your neighbourhood is what we need to be building in new suburbs, except with more robust neighbourhood retail districts like Westdale, Locke, Ottawa St, Concession etc..... Folks want to walk and cycle, but won't if it's not safe or convenient. Less car dependancy, the better for us all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 9:01 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,616
what the market wants is grade related housing - townhouses and detached. Detached especially. It isn't as picky in what form that comes. The problem is that developers build what they have always built - crappy suburban stuff. They need to change the game and build houses in a way that supports a more urban lifestyle. There is a bit of blame to go around - developers for doing the same product they ever have, zoning for being outdated, and buyers for demanding a product that doesn't exactly line up with urbanists dreams.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2017, 2:07 AM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto/Hamilton/Bangkok
Posts: 4,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomax View Post
Construction Update, viewed from Centennial Parkway...

my photo


my photo


my photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 8:29 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto/Hamilton/Bangkok
Posts: 4,946

Fallingwaters by Joe, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
End

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.