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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 2:02 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
I was speaking more towards the planning issues of lack of transit, road capacity and no sidewalks.
totally agree….and serious pressure should be put on city hall to increase transit. I've read through some of our transportation plan documents lately and the disconnect between what people want vs what city hall wants to do (roads roads roads) is really amazing.

I don't follow the news in Ancaster much, but they had a mini-revolt up there towards the city's attempts to turn many of their nice village 2-lane streets (Wilson, Rousseaux, McNiven) into 4-5 lane cross sections with double left turn lanes etc…. basically trying to give the old Main/King/Upper James treatment to Ancaster Village. Reading through the public meeting minutes it's stunning how loud and passionately residents are asking for no road widenings, but instead, massive investments in transit, walkability and safe cycling networks.

All the city of Hamilton knows is more lanes and more roads. With the morning issues on the 403 EB that currently exist, we have a perfect opportunity to look at a rapid transit bus route down Wilson (with it's own lanes as much as possible) from Ancaster into W Hamilton to McMaster, connected right into the future B-Line LRT. Ditto for a rapid transit route with it's own lanes from Limeridge Mall to downtown and on and on the possibilities go.

This area of Stoney Creek being discussed is a perfect time to look at adding a 'transit-way' along the Service Road (perhaps there's room to add bus-only lanes on the sides) connecting the new Costco/big box area at the far end of Stoney Creek, up and along the N Service Rd with a few stops in these residential hoods (along with allowing more high-rise density along the N Service Road lands) right to Centennial GO Station and onto Eastgate Square and the LRT B-line.

Hamilton being relatively compact could easily see a surge in transit ridership but city hall refuses to invest in transit.
So we add more roads and more lanes across the countryside and everyone complains when they funnel onto the Line or 403 and sit there for 45 minutes.

Newsflash to Hamilton planners: go visit LA if you want to see what happens when adding more lanes is your solution to traffic issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 4:40 PM
johnnyhamont's Avatar
johnnyhamont johnnyhamont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 111
What's been New Horizon's biggest project so far? I haven't followed them much beyond the City Square development, but if the process of that development is any indication of what to expect for this one, I'm not sure I will get my hopes too high.
On a different note, it pisses me off that 1200 units in tower form needs review from DRP but any size suburban neighbourhood of detached homes gets a free pass.

Last edited by johnnyhamont; Feb 15, 2019 at 9:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2019, 1:34 AM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto/Hamilton/Bangkok
Posts: 4,946
The proposal is going to the Design Review Panel on April 11th, and the Planning Committee on April 16th.

Here's some renderings from the site plan application...


310 Frances Avenue by Ward10Viv, on Twitter


310 Frances Avenue by Ward10Viv, on Twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2019, 4:40 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 717
I cant imagine what the DRP will say - will have to be within confines of what the site allows and if they have missed anything on setbacks etc. For sure would have loved to density / height swapped that site for one in downtown Hamilton - but that aint happenin'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 12:18 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 18,813
The site has already been approved so the Design Review Panel can talk all they want, however at the end of the day the developer can ignore them. They are just following the bureaucratic protocol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 12:58 AM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
That podium looks brutal. Looks like a casino in vegas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 1:15 AM
HamiltonForward's Avatar
HamiltonForward HamiltonForward is offline
Forever forward.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
The site has already been approved so the Design Review Panel can talk all they want, however at the end of the day the developer can ignore them. They are just following the bureaucratic protocol.
I still feel this proposal will need all the support it can get.

The usual suspects are already complaining about this project, something something too tall, traffic, infrastructure, "why are the only options NIMBYism or towers??" among some of the critiques.

I am hoping to make it to the DRP on the 11th and plan to go to the planning committee on the 16th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 2:51 AM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 717
Nothing is going to stop this project, except of course enough demand (if condo).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 7:20 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonForward View Post
I still feel this proposal will need all the support it can get.

The usual suspects are already complaining about this project, something something too tall, traffic, infrastructure, "why are the only options NIMBYism or towers??" among some of the critiques.

I am hoping to make it to the DRP on the 11th and plan to go to the planning committee on the 16th.
The infrastructure and traffic concerns are a valid argument and important that those are addressed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2019, 9:24 PM
HamiltonForward's Avatar
HamiltonForward HamiltonForward is offline
Forever forward.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
The infrastructure and traffic concerns are a valid argument and important that those are addressed.
No doubt about it.

But from my experience, these people don't want answers, they want to build a case to oppose, oppose, and oppose.

This area has been zoned for high-rises like this since the 1970s. The infrastructure is either there or can be upgraded. We have development fees for this reason.

Likewise, traffic concerns can be assuaged. This is rather close to the under-construction Confederation GO station and perhaps with 2200+ new residents the City will finally get the pressure it needs to increase Stoney Creek transit options.

Personally I believe this project should be built, and I'll be submitting a delegation request to speak in favour of at at planning on April 16th in the coming days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2019, 3:25 AM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 717
This plan complies with zoning does it not, there is nothing to debate other than the placement of ingress / egress. Would so love the developer to build a quality high-density and provide a local example of what is possible, and lets show that there is nothing to fear when we be rid ourselves of the false need to restrict height to the level of the escarpment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2019, 3:11 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,590
Stoney Creek residents continue to fight against proposed three-tower development
The three towers proposal is scheduled to be discussed at the design review panel committee April 11.


The battle over a massive three-tower development proposal on Stoney Creek's lakefront area is set to begin this week.

But Stoney Creek Coun. Maria Pearson says the war may already be over for residents opposed to the plan.

While Pearson said she has "several concerns" about the development that proposes 59, 54 and 48-storeys respectfully at 310 Frances Ave. near Green Road, the area, she points out, is already zoned for such buildings by the former City of Stoney Creek prior to amalgamation.

"There is nothing we can do," said Pearson. "Density was incorporated into the zoning. It has already been approved for this."

She pointed to the already established 19-storey Bayliner and Shoreliner residential buildings located along Frances Ave and across the property.

"We wanted intensification. The (former City of Stoney Creek council), was very forward looking in those days," she said.

New Horizon Development Group, a Burlington-based company, co-owned by Jeff Paikin, which has been constructing residential developments in the area for the last few years, is proposing to add 1,836 units to the area.

Councillors already approved in 2016 New Horizon Development Group's proposal for 40 townhouse units, 38 freehold townhouse units and 129 residential units at 311 and 312 Frances Ave.

The three towers proposal is scheduled to be discussed at the design review panel committee April 11.

Pearson, who received notice of the massive development application Dec. 30, and a site plan application Jan. 23, said she is already providing staff and the developer with suggestions to address a variety of issues, such as parking and traffic.

"I can make my suggestions to staff and I will be doing the same thing to the applicant," said Pearson.

It is expected planning staff will be deciding on the site plan application at the beginning of May.

Residents in the area remain frustrated at the lack of opportunities for input from the community about the proposed development that will have a major impact within the neighbourhood.

Vivian Saunders of the Lakewood Beach Community Council, stated they have requested a public meeting be held to discuss the development.

"Citizens want their voices heard," she said.

A number of residents have already been approved to speak at the April 16 planning committee meeting on the issue, even though the development will not be on the agenda for discussion.

"It's unusual, but no other option was provided," she said. "It's only fair that people are given a forum to speak (and) ask questions. Especially due to the sheer size and the impact it will have on our community."

Pearson said she has considered hosting a meeting on the issue, but since the development isn't before the planning committee, she didn't believe there was a need.

"I don't want to stir up the neighbourhood," she said. "There is nothing to see."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2019, 3:18 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Looks like this one is done and dusted and will go forward provided the sales are there to make it happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2019, 3:18 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,590
This is pretty glorious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 3:35 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 3,961
will be a good gateway on the east end.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 10:23 PM
StEC's Avatar
StEC StEC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 161
I love how the NIMBY's in this case are pretty much getting a big ole F'u haha!

I'm all for this development, I just hope the North Service Rd somehow can be widened, with good traffic management and also the addition of HSR Transit!
__________________
Living in and loving Hamilton since Jan. 2014!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 4:04 AM
HamiltonForward's Avatar
HamiltonForward HamiltonForward is offline
Forever forward.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 513
So, as is evident from the Spec article and the now online meeting agenda, the site plan application for this project won't be discussed on Tuesday. Rather, it will just be an opportunity for residents to speak their opinions on the project.

I usually hold off on submitting my delegation request until I am able to read the agenda for myself - for situations like this. I am not sure whether it is a good use of my time to attend Tuesday because I will have to re-attend in early May for the official site plan application debate.

I might make it to the DRP tomorrow, I am considering whether I can fit it in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2019, 3:20 AM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Anyone know what happened at the DRP today?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2019, 7:07 PM
HamiltonForward's Avatar
HamiltonForward HamiltonForward is offline
Forever forward.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 513
lol

Tim Smith of Urban Strategies, who was one of the City's witnesses against TV City, apparently complained at the DRP that these would be a failure of planning.

Proposed Stoney Creek residential towers called 'failure of planning'

EDIT: I've just submitted my delegation request. I am sick and tired of this insanity, and Mr. Smith's comments convinced me to make time to speak in favour.

I encourage you all to either delegate this Tuesday, send a letter of support, or delegate when it goes to the committee for Site Plan Approval in early May.

Last edited by HamiltonForward; Apr 12, 2019 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2019, 9:37 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Glad pearson is looking for transit north of the QEW. I’m still skeptical all 1800 units will be sold. Could see the project being scaled back a bit but im sure the developer has done their homework. Time will tell.

With regards to smiths comments, i think what he was getting at is that it was a failure that nobody really knew what the site was supposed to be planned for because the City probably wasnt fully aware of saltfleet townships designation.

I really wish these were being built in the core .
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

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 11:20 AM.

     

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