181 James St. N. | ? | 7 fl | U/C - Page 2

omro · #21 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 4:56 PM**

I've nothing against the height, just the aesthetic. As I said, if it had the three story and then step back, like the terraces on King, it might look - from the ground level - more in keeping with the street.

In my opinion, any investment, even purely speculative investment in the downtown is a good thing.

Zaz · #22 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:01 PM**

That blog post is very passionate. It's good to have passionate people paying attention to things.

highwater · #23 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:50 PM**

SABBATICAL! · #24 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:57 PM**

It is pretty large. I'm not so concerned about flow of the street, though that is somewhat a concern, but I'd say the more important consideration for me would be shadow. This is a north/south street so tall buildings will block a lot of sunlight, and one of the best characteristics of James North is how nice and sunny it is during the day. I'm sure a shade study would be ordered by the city for something like this, but I don't know what their standards are. Might not even really have any. Anyone know?

I do agree with the blog writer you posted to that the whole thing smacks of exploitation, rather than a natural extension of the building community momentum in the area.

emge · #25 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 9:19 PM**

I'm not too concerned. Sure, they could always improve the design (setting back the upper stories), and I'm sure there will be lots of feedback, but I think it's great they're doing a condo there.

The first thought that crossed my mind was the potential for appreciation, but the second was that it's the exact location I'd actually consider buying a unit in.

Perhaps that's because I'm one of those Toronto transplants, but I think the article talks out of both sides of its mouth... they're concerned if it causes over-gentrification, and concerned if it becomes a big empty eyesore. In short, they're concerned about something like this no matter what time it comes along, and no matter if it's a success, failure, or something in the middle.

I for one don't care much about people's motivation for doing a project like this. I'm much more concerned with what the final product looks like.

Sure, it may be trendy to put in vegetable gardens and fireplaces, but as long as those features are in, who cares why? Those are great things to have in a building. And the motivations of the designers (for profit or to improve the street) won't much affect who buys the units, except as it affects their advertising and marketing plan.

And if it causes over-gentrification along one tiny area, that's too bad, and I would be disappointed for that loss... but then revitalization will spread quicker to adjoining areas that capitalize on it, and we've got a whole lot of city. We certainly won't end up with one posh street and retain a ruin surrounding it. (with exceptions of course, but the potential for revitalization in most of Beasley and along Barton is astronomical, not to mention other areas...)

thistleclub · #26 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 10:42 PM**

Also, branding yourself as a cultural hot zone does little to slow the engine of gentrification. You can't very well go about promoting the community assets, cultural activity, entry-level real estate availability and awesome potential far and wide and not reap some sort of bittersweet. Besides, James North already its momentum in part to out-of-towners, whether gallery owners who moved to Hamilton, the Art Bus, the artists who've emigrated to the scene or the "cool kids" who can't afford Toronto. The suburban partners in Hotel Hamilton and out-of-town clientele eyed for this project are just another permutation. And even if Central becomes Durand North, it's hardly the end of the world.

realcity · #27 Posted **Jul 25, 2009, 2:15 AM**

omg.... okay you guys suck now...

this is (or it was) SKYSCRAPERPAGE.... emphasize on the 'skyscraper' part... so anything under 10 floors sucks. this project ... brilliant as it is..... the only thing wrong with it ... is 10 more floors. Seriously.. get off the 'set back' thing, get off the shadows, and get off my herbs. It's a measly 7 floors. "Set Back" as a "term" and as an "urban planning" rule, was invented by idiots ...... and is now repeated and enforced by idiots.

"Set back" regulations make about as much sense as "parking regulations"

bigguy1231 · #28 Posted **Jul 25, 2009, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity

omg.... okay you guys suck now...

this is (or it was) SKYSCRAPERPAGE.... emphasize on the 'skyscraper' part... so anything under 10 floors sucks. this project ... brilliant as it is..... the only thing wrong with it ... is 10 more floors. Seriously.. get off the 'set back' thing, get off the shadows, and get off my herbs. It's a measly 7 floors. "Set Back" as a "term" and as an "urban planning" rule, was invented by idiots ...... and is now repeated and enforced by idiots.

"Set back" regulations make about as much sense as "parking regulations"

I agree totally.

What alot of the newcomers to this city don't realize is that this type of petty whining about what developers should or should not do has cost this city billions in developement over the last 30 years. There has been, and I am not exaggerating, hundreds of proposals in downtown Hamilton that have been withdrawn because of a couple of complaints by vocal citizens opposing whatever is being proposed.

If you want developers to spend money in the downtown, you have to make it easier for them to spend it. Thats not to say there shouldn't be certain standards and requirements, but those standards have to be reasonable and not add to the cost of the developement. Those standards have to be in place before the planning process begins not once a proposal is submitted.

drpgq · #29 Posted **Jul 25, 2009, 4:19 AM**

Yeah, I have to say I would much rather this project than the empty lot that is there now and I frankly don't get the set back thing at all. The old federal building is nearby and more than three stories and I'm glad it isn't set back.

Also I would much rather this project aimed towards some slightly more affluent people than another Spallaci government subsidized social housing project.

astroblaster · #30 Posted **Jul 25, 2009, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

Yeah, I have to say I would much rather this project than the empty lot that is there now and I frankly don't get the set back thing at all. The old federal building is nearby and more than three stories and I'm glad it isn't set back.

Also I would much rather this project aimed towards some slightly more affluent people than another Spallaci government subsidized social housing project.

i agree.

this thing looks decent. and i dont think the scale is too crazy considering its across the street from the armoury

this is even somewhere astroblaster would consider living if its truly "priced for the hamilton market"

FairHamilton · #31 Posted **Jul 25, 2009, 8:24 PM**

I think it's okay, diversity in building height and type is good. As mention earlier it's way, way better than what's there currently. This development will be a big plus for the neighbourhood and downtown in general.

Now lets hope it gets past the announcement phase, and lets see it built!

SABBATICAL! · #32 Posted **Jul 26, 2009, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

What alot of the newcomers to this city don't realize is that this type of petty whining about what developers should or should not do has cost this city billions in developement over the last 30 years. There has been, and I am not exaggerating, hundreds of proposals in downtown Hamilton that have been withdrawn because of a couple of complaints by vocal citizens opposing whatever is being proposed.

If you want developers to spend money in the downtown, you have to make it easier for them to spend it. Thats not to say there shouldn't be certain standards and requirements, but those standards have to be reasonable and not add to the cost of the developement. Those standards have to be in place before the planning process begins not once a proposal is submitted.

Agree with the second part, but the first part of what you're saying is a little weird to me. Citizens should have a right to voice concerns, and if those concerns are valid, have them valued. You think other cities don't have people complaining about developments? I can't imagine that, in your words, "a couple of complaints" are really all the difference in whether large developments go through. There are NIMBY's everywhere. (Not that I'm generalizing all complaints as NIMBY.)

SABBATICAL! · #33 Posted **Jul 26, 2009, 2:05 AM**

And on another note, I would probably like to live in this building. Indoor/outdoor fireplace = sweeeeet.

realcity · #34 Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 11:33 PM**

so what does everyone think? add this to heap of stales?

LikeHamilton · #35 Posted **Nov 24, 2009, 3:10 PM**

I talked to John last night. It is moving along smoothly and the city has been very cooperative. They did not ask for a re-zoning of the property and have move straight into site planning. He hopes to have the shovel in the ground sometime next year. He does not like to commit to an exact date as there is so much that is out of his control.

realcity · #36 Posted **Nov 24, 2009, 3:13 PM**

that's great news. thanks...

what does "did not ask for re-zoning" mean? It already is zoned for residential and commercial? and I think they would call this high density

LikeHamilton · #37 Posted **Nov 24, 2009, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity

what does "did not ask for re-zoning" mean? It already is zoned for residential and commercial? and I think they would call this high density

Sometimes the property may be zone for a certain density, type or a maximum height or all of the above. If it does not fit the mould, the city will make the applicant apply for a rezoning and anyone can object to it.