71 Rebecca St | 97 m | 30 fl | Proposed

[SteelTown]

If they are worried about the sun shadow than it won't be a problem with the park at the north. There will probably be a shadow on the east and west side of the high rise, however on both side it's a parking lot.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

If they are worried about the sun shadow than it won't be a problem with the park at the north. There will probably be a shadow on the east and west side of the high rise, however on both side it's a parking lot.

Yes but as we all know parking lots are rapidly being gobbled up to become new high rises..

[Hawrylyshyn]

So we don't want to build high rises because it'll cause a shadow on empty lots (parking lots) which will eventually be turned into high rises that will cause shadows themselves? By that logic let's just never build anything tall. LOL

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

So we don't want to build high rises because it'll cause a shadow on empty lots (parking lots) which will eventually be turned into high rises that will cause shadows themselves? By that logic let's just never build anything tall. LOL

the key is to stagger heights so that you don't end up with a downtown that is permanently in shadow like you have in toronto.

And that is pretty much why not much tall WAS built in hamilton.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

And that is pretty much why not much tall WAS built in hamilton.

Do you have any evidence for this? Is there a book on Hamilton's architectural history which talks about this? Love to read it.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

Do you have any evidence for this? Is there a book on Hamilton's architectural history which talks about this? Love to read it.

Well hamilton has always had the unspoken rule that nothing is to be built higher than the escarpment.. and in the past things weren't built super tall simply because they couldn't be, and also because the style and aesthetic didn't allow for it.

Mind you, saying that, toronto did build taller buildings of the same architectural styles. I'd have to do some digging to find out if there were standards in place for height or if there was an overall urban planning precedent set for the overall look for hamiltons expansion..

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

Do you have any evidence for this? Is there a book on Hamilton's architectural history which talks about this? Love to read it.

I can't cite anything specific, but as someone who has been a keen observer of politics and development in this city over the last 30 or more years, I can say that a big part of the problem in this city is the political and bureaucratic interference. It seems anytime a developer proposes building something that might help lift the city out of the funk it was in, either the politicians or bureaucrats tried to put their stamp on it by demanding unwarranted changes.

Like I said, just a personal observation. If you went back in the archives of the Spectator you would probably find plans for some sort of development on every long term parking lot in the downtown. It got to the point back in the 70's and 80's where it seemed that the city was intentionally sabotaging development with ridiculous demands. The result was big developers abandoning the city and taking their money to others places. It has taken 25 years to get to the point we are at now with outside money wanting to invest here once again. Unfortunately, it seems we still have the same mindset at city hall as we had back then.

[Chronamut]

The problem is hamilton has a bit of an identity crisis - it wants to be seen as a big city but it doesn't want to BE a big city- the concept of turning into toronto scares hamilton I think which likes its blue collar vibe, but at the same time the continued decline of hamilton scared it too - clinging to its glory days and not wanting to advance.

Hamilton has to make a decision of what type of city it wants to be imo, and what it wants to be known for. We are no longer the steel city, so we have to reinvent ourselves, while not losing our soul at the same time.

[eatboots]

Durand and Beasley seem to forget they are both located in downtown Hamilton.

[LRTfan]

Hamilton has never had any rule about building taller than the escarpment. We've had buildings taller than the escarpment since the 1970's and nobody even noticed or cared until this year.
Some city-hall connected NIMBY's seem to have gotten to some of the planners and are trying to get this rule on the books now. There's zero reason for it.
We only have a tiny downtown in which to go tall. We need the density, housing options, tax base and residential growth in the lower city. Any progressive planning staff would ensure great design, street-level interaction and not worry about the height NIMBY's.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

Hamilton has never had any rule about building taller than the escarpment. We've had buildings taller than the escarpment since the 1970's and nobody even noticed or cared until this year.
Some city-hall connected NIMBY's seem to have gotten to some of the planners and are trying to get this rule on the books now. There's zero reason for it.
We only have a tiny downtown in which to go tall. We need the density, housing options, tax base and residential growth in the lower city. Any progressive planning staff would ensure great design, street-level interaction and not worry about the height NIMBY's.

I'm not a height NIMBY, but there are legitimate reasons not to build above the escarpment. There's tons of planning best practices that specifically say not to build taller than natural features like an escarpment.

[anactualalien]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm not a height NIMBY, but there are legitimate reasons not to build above the escarpment. There's tons of planning best practices that specifically say not to build taller than natural features like an escarpment.

What is the main argument for that?

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm not a height NIMBY, but there are legitimate reasons not to build above the escarpment. There's tons of planning best practices that specifically say not to build taller than natural features like an escarpment.

What if the escarpment was only 100 feet tall? This isn't much of an argument.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm not a height NIMBY, but there are legitimate reasons not to build above the escarpment. There's tons of planning best practices that specifically say not to build taller than natural features like an escarpment.

The escarpment runs about 20 km's through this city. Even with a handful of tall buildings in the downtown there will be plenty of places with unobstructed views. The whole obstruction of the escarpment argument is nonsense.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The escarpment runs about 20 km's through this city. Even with a handful of tall buildings in the downtown there will be plenty of places with unobstructed views. The whole obstruction of the escarpment argument is nonsense.

actually there are only a select few places along the escarpment that are not blocked by trees where you can see an unobstructed view of the downtown. I realized this one day when I wanted to go see fireworks and realized to my dismay that there were barely any spots to see them along the escarpment.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Like that old height restriction in Ottawa. What was the point of that exactly?

[LRTfan]

we surely can't have any buildings taller than the edge of the escarpment. Upper Gage and Fennell..... https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Upp...!4d-79.8390552

[LRTfan]

this isn't some wild, untamed nature preserve. we are a split level city. All one needs to do is head to York Blvd and look back at Hamilton from the High Level Bridge. Buildings line the top of the escarpment already. Buildings in the lower city are taller than the top of the escarpment already. It's a city, not protected nature land.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

this isn't some wild, untamed nature preserve. we are a split level city. All one needs to do is head to York Blvd and look back at Hamilton from the High Level Bridge. Buildings line the top of the escarpment already. Buildings in the lower city are taller than the top of the escarpment already. It's a city, not protected nature land.

Actually all of the green belt along the escarpment IS protected land - a mile deep all the way across.

And personally I don't want to live in toronto - where half of the city is always blanketed in shadow and wind tunnel effects blow down streets.

And that's the main argument you are going to get - those that want progress and see hamilton rise, and those that fear it becoming like toronto and becoming a cold city. Take a side

Personally I believe, like many things, there needs to be a balance, staggering etc.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

i think that the argument of Hamilton becoming Toronto or having so many skyscrapers that the views are blocked is laughable .... Hamilton is growing, yes .... but not at any rate to be concerned.... we should always have good planning in mind while growing but stopping progress for fear of becoming a mega city is like not drinking orange juice because you're allergic to grapes.... just doesn't make sense or apply to our situation ;P