Mountain Plaza

[ryan_mcgreal]

The city has identified Upper James as a major corridor for future development in the GRIDS nodes-and-corridors model. It will be the route for a north-south rapid transit system and is intended to accommodate much of the intensification the city expects over the next few decades.

They can't do this without rethinking the role of parking; or to put it more bluntly, Upper James must become more urban in character, which means that parking in general needs to be de-emphasized in land use planning and zoning.

To the extent that the Mountain Plaza plan follows a big box model, it's inappropriate for the city's strategy, but the problem is not with the loss of parking.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

To the extent that the Mountain Plaza plan follows a big box model, it's inappropriate for the city's strategy, but the problem is not with the loss of parking.

This is exactly it! Smart Centres doesn't give a crap about creating a more urban environment!? Have you seen the new Ancaster Power Centre? One can't even get there by foot or public transit.

I say, if Smart Centres doesn't want to take advantage of a future Rapid Transit node, that's their problem. Sell the mall/land. I'm sure there are tons of developpers looking for a piece of future prime real estate! I imagine condos and retail mixed, kind of like Don Mills Ctr in TO.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Yeah, I`ve got lots of problems with their plan and their arguments.

For one it states only 200 spots are not usually used, but they want to eliminate 594. Huh??? Who is doing that math? I also like how they would like the area to be treated as urban. If they wanted an urban area they should have purchased property in the lower city.

And they talk about making parking more efficient, when that means they are making the parking spots smaller. Also, I like how it`s thrown out that many people either walk or take public transit. How many, is many, 5% 10%, 40%, etc? I`m going to guess it`s less (probably much less) than 5%. And when do these people come by foot, or public transit? At noon Monday - Wednesday when the place isn`t busy, or on a Saturday afternoon? Also, lets keep in mind the mall is changing from a place with covered common areas to outdoors, so the retired people who come during the week to walk the mall and meet for coffee and sit on a bench are not going to be around like they used to be.

And I hate how councillors are often reassured by consultant reports provided by the party with the most to gain, the developer. Is it not understood that reports generally support the view of those paying for the report?

I do not see any valid arguments put forward to change the parking rules. Smart Centres knew the rules going in and should abide by them. If they have to change their plan then go ahead change their plan.

I see nothing but valid reasons to change our antiquated parking rules all over the city, beginning with LRT, pedestrian friendly development, health, becoming a livable city, $135/barrel oil etc.....
I'll support anyone who wants to nix 500 parking spaces in their parking lot, especially along a future LRT corridor. This would be the first step to seeing this area become more urban.
Once LRT goes in, someone will surely redevelop this site again as a mixed-use 'Don Mills' etc..... we aren't going to get there in one leap. One step at a time is the likely approach, and eliminating 500 parking spaces is one nice step that I fully support.
Another nice step is having their buildings face Upper James, as proposed.
Another one is the 2-storey retail/commercial buildings proposed.

These guys, despite their crappy track record in Hamcaster, are making some nice steps forward on this site in the direction that I'd like to see us take all over the city.

[Jon Dalton]

I think this whole thing is hilarious and don't care how it turns out. If ShitCentres loses money, that's great. If Hamilton loses parking spaces, also good. It's a win/win.

[DC83]

^^ I'm not too confident w/ Smart Centres' intentions. They say there are street-facing properties, but where are the plans that show this? Last I saw there were two bldgs facing Upp. James, and they were the sides of the bldgs.

Until I see a plan proving that this will indeed be a urban/pedestrian/transit friendly development, I'm going to be very skeptical. Esp given their track record ANYWHERE. Why would they choose Hamilton to test out a new 'urban feel'?

It seems their intentions are to eliminate 500 spots somewhere in the back and add another bldg. I don't see how this will make it more urban? But again, I will have to wait until I see some site plans.

ps: This Ms Coté lady doesn't have a form of contact according to the smart centres site? Anyone know how to contact her/anyone to obtain a site plan?

[ryan_mcgreal]

I wrote this a couple of years ago, but the city should work toward turning Upper James into a European-style boulevard:

http://raisethehammer.org/article/231/

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

I think this whole thing is hilarious and don't care how it turns out. If ShitCentres loses money, that's great. If Hamilton loses parking spaces, also good. It's a win/win.

haha...so true.

[FairHamilton]

Hey, I'm all for a more "urban" feel and less parking. I don't see this coming from Smart Centres. And I'm against them wanting wholesale changes from the city with providing nothing to the city/community in exchange for the changes.

They aren't saying, "Hey, allow us to cut 597 spots and we'll throw a couple of hundred grand to local charities, Goodwill, City Kidz, etc". Or, give us the 597 spots and we'll 200 of the spots into a lovely green space/parkette. They are saying: "Let us cut 597 spots to allow us to boost our profits, and BTW if it negatively impacts the surrounding community, oh well...........

I for one am sick of hearing things like the following: "We will have to take a serious look at this development if we don't get this variance." That's developer speak from their broken record collection. Translation: "If we don't get our way, we'll take our ball and go home."

Call their bluff. Don't think for a minute that Wal-mart doesn't want a new store and Smart Centres is tied so closely to Wal-mart they'll do whatever they want.

[LikeHamilton]

Why not charge them a million or two and put the money into an A-line fund? Use it to build a station there. Set a good example for future development on James. You want a permit; you have to put money into rapid transit.

[stuckinexeter]

.......no matter what age you are.......
.......no matter whether you have a drivers license or not....
.......no matter if you are a couciller based on age and experience......
.......no matter if you live in the area....
.......no matter whether there are one or fifty-one consultant reports done......
.......no matter how much you approve or reject....

Its the BIG corporations with the BIG bucks with BIG ties to government who will win.... so why get frustrated..... LOL

[raisethehammer]

lol...so true, again.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Hey, I'm all for a more "urban" feel and less parking. I don't see this coming from Smart Centres. And I'm against them wanting wholesale changes from the city with providing nothing to the city/community in exchange for the changes.

Well said. If someone can provide me with an example of when they took urban life into consideration, please inform me.

This is nothing more than greed. Just b/c Walmart's on board doesn't mean they're above the law.

So don't be fooled by their "we want an urban feel" BS... it's just that, BS! They want less parking so they can build more big, ugly, stucco-covered steel frames places somewhere in the back of that giant lot!
This wouldn't be the case if they were 'developping' a big open farm somewhere.

[raisethehammer]

very good points.
I guess my reasons for agreeing with this proposal is because either way a Walmart is going to be built on that site.
I figure we might as well take one with 500 less spaces.
Sadly, Hamilton makes no demand for decent architecture, so you can be sure the buildings will be ugly whether smart centres developes them or rio-can, losani etc.... they all suck.

Check out this proposed walmart by Smart Centres in TO.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/429150

It's being fought tooth and nail by locals and the city.
In Hamilton, I'd think I died and went to heaven if they ever proposed a development like that. City hall needs to up the ante and start demanding better.
Stinson's tower would sure help up the ante.

[markbarbera]

This really is a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

First off, there is some confusion over the amount of parking spaces being lost. The proposed redevelopment's current site has nearly 1300 parking spaces, even though the property's zoning calls for nearly 1700 spaces. The redevelopment will have just over 1100 spaces, which is nearly 600 fewer than what it is zoned for, but actually only 200 fewer than it currently has.

Now, having been here to do shopping several times during the year (including a couple December weekend visits), I can attest to the fact that the current lot being underused - there's never a problem finding parking, especially in the lot hidden away on the east side of the mall. If the redevelopment has 200 fewer spots than the current site, this will not be an issue at all. If it was, you can be rest assured that Walmart would be calling up SmartCentres telling them to find the extra parking spots so not to upset their customer base.

[raisethehammer]

for fricks sake....it's only 200 less?? screw em then!!! lol

[FairHamilton]

Let's not forget they are adding 70,000 sq. ft to the development, while wanting reducing the number of parking spots. I think more square footage = more shoppers.

Here's a solution. Do it with the required number of parking spots, and if reality shows the spots aren't required then they can eliminate the spots by building a Tim Horton's, Henry's, or whatever on them...........

Or, don't give them anything, without getting something we need in return. They knew the rules going in, and the rules shouldn't change during the game. Think about what they'd say if the city came to them after they'd bought the property and said, "Oh, we need to change the number of parking spots by adding 500 to the site." They'd scream bloody murder and want major compensation from the city. Why shouldn't we demand at least the same for a reduction.

Remember, they aren't wanting the change for the good city. It's only for the good Smart Centres (and Wal-Mart, Shoppers, etc.)

[SteelTown]

If you wanna increase the retail space and still keep the number of parking space perhaps you ought to join the big boxes together instead of having independent boxes that waste land (parking space).

Oh wait! I think that's called "traditional malls" nowadays lol.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

If you wanna increase the retail space and still keep the number of parking space perhaps you ought to join the big boxes together instead of having independent boxes that waste land (parking space).

Oh wait! I think that's called "traditional malls" nowadays lol.

hahaha That's exactly it!! If you look at any big box development (plans or existing one w/ Google Maps Sat Imaging), you can easily point out where they are wasting space.
I like the idea of village-type shopping centres, but hate how the 'village' is usually an island in the middle of a sea of parking.

I was at Walden Galleria in Buffalo last week, and noticed they're turning their parking lot into one of these 'villages' eliminating parking and replacing surface lots with parking garages.

Neat to see... especially in a stagnant city like Buffalo.

[realcity]

Let them go by the 'urban parking requirements' but then make them design the buildings to fit the 'urban requirements', minimum two-stories, maximum setback from street etc.

[Millstone]

I went to the Meadowlands for the first time last night and was supremely underwhelmed. You know you're in hardcore suburbia when there's trailblazers for the 403 and Linc right in the parking lot. I can imagine what a disaster this is at Christmas.

Anyway, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.