HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2019, 7:34 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-Bur-gher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Burlington
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
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 .
Given the proposals and progress along the lakeshore farther east out to Grimsby, I don't think selling the units will be an issue.

Pearson seems to be trying to make chicken salad out of the city's zoning chicken-boner. I applaud that, though I'm sure those living nearby won't... but too bad so sad for that.

I thought this proposal was a joke but I do stand corrected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 3:17 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,598
Yeah given Southern Ontario's population growth I don't see a problem with these condos with a lake view selling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2019, 6:26 PM
HamiltonForward's Avatar
HamiltonForward HamiltonForward is offline
Forever forward.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 520
For everyone saying this is a done deal, today proved why that is unfortunately not the case.

Planning committee voted to remove the delegated authority on the site plan from planning staff meaning they will ultimately vote whether to approve the site plan or not.

Clearly, many councillors were very opposed and had issues with the height and density, shocking. Some even suggested that if this made its way to LPAT the City would win, which is absolutely, completely false in my opinion.

Sigh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2019, 11:46 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 733
The city would so lose any challenge to the intent of this plan, maybe slow it down , but let's be honest, the developer is building based on the framework the jurisdiction put in place. It won't really matter who approves the site plan, they have to work within the lines that they drew.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 12:43 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
this city is embarrassing. Someone wants to build housing units that cost roughly 50% of detached homes and suddenly all the NIMBY groups care about whether there's anywhere to walk to or good transit. Meanwhile not a peep from anyone while we keep doing this.....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 2:12 PM
TheRitsman TheRitsman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 567


This has to be my favourite quotes from the )planning Committee meeting from someone. Oh no, it will reduce housing prices so maybe some people can afford them.
__________________
McMaster University Graduate Political Science, Minor in Geography.

My goal is to improve my community, the transit we use to get around it, and the health and happiness of everyone in it, and I realize these are all interconnected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 3:25 PM
ChildishGavino's Avatar
ChildishGavino ChildishGavino is online now
Childish Gavino
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 102
Hot take: Just because there's a tall building doesnt mean the entire city is going to uproot it's 200 year old downtown core to gravitate towards it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 5:53 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonForward View Post
For everyone saying this is a done deal, today proved why that is unfortunately not the case.

Planning committee voted to remove the delegated authority on the site plan from planning staff meaning they will ultimately vote whether to approve the site plan or not.

Clearly, many councillors were very opposed and had issues with the height and density, shocking. Some even suggested that if this made its way to LPAT the City would win, which is absolutely, completely false in my opinion.

Sigh.
Just because council will now vote doesn’t mean that they can negate the developers rights I.e. SPA approval.. they cannot control height or density, only site configuration and material selection.. and if they ignore their obligations under the planning act, the developer can go to the board and get it promptly approved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 6:51 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 3,982
https://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-st...n-thorne/?s=n1

Hamilton’s general manager of planning Jason Thorne said there is no done deal to allow the construction of three controversial towers along Stoney Creek’s lakeshore.

-
here goes Thorne doing what he does best....stubbing down high rises.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2019, 10:31 PM
LRTfan LRTfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
https://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-st...n-thorne/?s=n1

Hamilton’s general manager of planning Jason Thorne said there is no done deal to allow the construction of three controversial towers along Stoney Creek’s lakeshore.

-
here goes Thorne doing what he does best....stubbing down high rises.
killing investment...keeping us stagnant...acting like hicks, blah blah
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 4:01 PM
fuller fuller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRTfan View Post
killing investment...keeping us stagnant...acting like hicks, blah blah
That could be it, but I've also heard the limit defended as providing an avenue toward eventual Section 37 negotiations for local benefits to be secured in return for higher and denser developments. If height is given as-of-right, then what is the City to bargain with?

Jason Thorne has also argued the height limit serves to ground expectations on land values that are otherwise *unlimited* in the minds of land holders who would to sell to potential developers.

These lands could sit forever undeveloped while current owners bide their time holding out for even higher hoped-for returns that nobody can pay. So the land sits, empty and unproductive.

The next problem is that even if a sale price is agreed upon, then, the new owner will have paid so much the land that they'll be unable to attain financing to build the project under the market conditions of the time.

So then the land remains empty but under new ownership, waiting for the right market conditions to form, to obtain financing to build. This can go on forever...

Any new development that actually gets built will bring in new revenue to the City.

Lands that are being held by land speculators or are held by actual developers who can't build, generate minimal tax revenue and probably represent a net loss to the municipality (that's us).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 4:19 PM
HamiltonBoyInToronto HamiltonBoyInToronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuller View Post
That could be it, but I've also heard the limit defended as providing an avenue toward eventual Section 37 negotiations for local benefits to be secured in return for higher and denser developments. If height is given as-of-right, then what is the City to bargain with?

Jason Thorne has also argued the height limit serves to ground expectations on land values that are otherwise *unlimited* in the minds of land holders who would to sell to potential developers.
These lands could sit forever undeveloped while current owners bide their time holding out for even higher hoped-for returns that nobody can pay. So the land sits, empty and unproductive.

The next problem is that even if a sale price is agreed upon, then, the new owner will have paid so much the land that they'll be unable to attain financing to build the project under the market conditions of the time.

So then the land remains empty but under new ownership, waiting for the right market conditions to form, to obtain financing to build. This can go on forever...

Any new development that actually gets built will bring in new revenue to the City.

Lands that are being held by land speculators or are held by actual developers who can't build, generate minimal tax revenue and probably represent a net loss to the municipality (that's us).

This is assuming that Jason Thorne has some insight and experience far greater than the people of Toronto, New York, Hong Kong, Paris, London, and any other great city of the world who have decided to build up instead of out and have decided that public transit is the future of a well run city .... In Hamilton we thing that skyscrapers and density cause traffic ....but putting 100 000 people in the farms and making them drive into the city works perfectly fine for us ....as long as it doesn't block the escarpment or the lake
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 5:14 PM
King&James's Avatar
King&James King&James is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 733
So one could effectively remove speculation by capping height of all sites at current level, then create a suggested height / density level, and have an published index/scale of density/height bonus above that for developments that meet set criteria of "public good" within the city (affordable units, park space, rec facilities, funding for libraries, you name it give it a bonus factor. Only developments bilding to the submitted proposals can build, otherwise anyone can happily build to the current height/density of the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 6:12 PM
TheRitsman TheRitsman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 567
I think the height limits are actually good for all the reasons listed there, and by Thorne, but the city also needs to allow hieghts greater with benefits to the community, and it also needs to set a city wide minimum height. Problem is that the city denies 11 storeys beside the Go station and in other places in the city they are denying medium density, so 5he growth will happen anywhere there is space, so with the current demand in Hamilton, we are seeing massive heights in a small section of the city.
__________________
McMaster University Graduate Political Science, Minor in Geography.

My goal is to improve my community, the transit we use to get around it, and the health and happiness of everyone in it, and I realize these are all interconnected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2019, 10:40 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,182
The city tried this nonsense back in the late 70's. Height restrictions, demands for a certain percentage of low income units, park space and a number of other ridiculous things and the developers abandoned this city for 30 years. Do we really want them doing that again.

There are so many other city's in this area that will welcome these investments with open arms, restriction free that these developers won't think twice about taking their money elsewhere. They will gravitate to areas of least resistance and they will continue to sit on the property's here until a more business friendly city hall is in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 1:20 AM
HamiltonBoyInToronto HamiltonBoyInToronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 205
This is exactly why a small city like Burlington continues to blow past Hamilton in nice development...and we are here with our heads up our asses telling developers that they are wrong and the nimbys are right ....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 5:35 AM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 3,982
Burlington new mayor Mariame Ward is like Jason Thorne wants small town feel downtown.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 3:08 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyhamont View Post
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.
New Horizon built the 22-storey Bridgewater that Jeff Paikin plans to call home, though they took that over when it was already in progress.

Aside from the 12-storey City Square, New Horizon also built the six-storey Sapphire At Waterfront Trails a stone's throw from this proposal.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 5:28 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,632
This type of development is out of place here - I don’t think it’s hard to say that it’s a good idea to push Hamilton’s condo market’s limited supply in this completely auto dependant transit inaccessible location. It’s just not an appropriate location for 50 storey skyscrapers.

That said, I think it’s hilarious how council is left in the dark essentially as this is as of right. It’s a big F U to the modern planning regime in the province.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 10:31 PM
HamiltonPlanning HamiltonPlanning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 37
I agree, this is not the place for this type of development!
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 6:58 PM.

     

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