Tivoli Theatre | ? | 22 fl | Planning

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by durandy

so what's the plan for the theatre? I can't make it out. Will there be public access through the condo or is there a new entrance planned off Hughson?

Looks to me that the the theatre entrance is the main entrance on James with the big overhang labelled "TIVOLI", and the condo entrance right beside it to the south labelled "Tivoli condos" in smaller letters.

[Davis137]

Wow that looks awesome...there's no reason why Hamilton can't have a proper nightlife and entertainment district in the future...

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Originally Posted by Davis137

Wow that looks awesome...there's no reason why Hamilton can't have a proper nightlife and entertainment district in the future...

Agreed. Gorgeous. I'd love to see that sucker rise.

[ihateittoo]

I don't think james street north could/should be a "nightlife district", but King William is making great strides in that direction.

[king10]

Originally Posted by ihateittoo

I don't think james street north could/should be a "nightlife district", but King William is making great strides in that direction.

Absinthe, 77/Dirty Dogs and Baltimore House are always very busy. A lot of other smaller pubs as well. King West and Queen West in Tornto isn't the "club district" but there are quite a few "hipster bars" which I could see on James St. Hopefully nothing like Hess Village though. Perhaps more like Augusta.

[ScreamingViking]

If they maintain a good mix of uses, I think James and King William can have the nightlife without becoming Hess Village.

The problem with Hess is that its original character was altered too much, along a single dimension.

[interr0bangr]

Saw this on the site when i walked by today.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Nice. Still don't trust these developers, though. We'll see...

[LikeHamilton]

From the agenda of the PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT for March 3rd meeting.

That Zoning Application ZAR-15-001, by Diamante Investments Ltd., Owner, for
changes in zoning to Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 from the Downtown Prime
Retail Streets (D2) Zone, the Downtown Mixed Use (D3) Zone and the Downtown Multiple
Residential (D6) Zone to a modified Downtown Prime Retail Streets (D2) Zone for lands
located at 108 James Street North and 111 and 115 Hughson Street North, in order to
permit a 22-storey mixed-use building, consisting of commercial and residential uses,
accommodating a maximum of 106 units, and a total of 69 parking spaces provided
through combination of surface (17 spaces) and stacked (52 spaces) parking, for the
lands shown on Appendix “A”, be Denied on the following basis:

(i) That the proposed changes in zoning are inconsistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement, and contrary to the policies and intent of the Urban Hamilton Official
Plan and Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan, with regard to matters including but
not limited to, character, design and management of cultural heritage resources;

(ii) The development would fail to preserve and enhance the character of the existing
area, would represent an over-intensification of a mid-block site and set an
unsuitable precedent for the design of tall buildings within Downtown Hamilton.

http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com...da&itemid=6316

[davidcappi]

shocking.

In my opinion this space should either be fully dedicated to being a theatre, or the theatre should be demolished and a new mixed use building built in it's place. It doesn't make sense to have the two. They'll never get their moneys worth out of it.

[thomax]

I found some new renderings, they might be pointless by March 3rd now though...


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

shocking.

In my opinion this space should either be fully dedicated to being a theatre, or the theatre should be demolished and a new mixed use building built in it's place. It doesn't make sense to have the two. They'll never get their moneys worth out of it.

Ottawa has a condo tower with a theatre in podium that seems reasonably successful.

[mattgrande]

"would represent an over-intensification of a mid-block site and set an unsuitable precedent for the design of tall buildings within Downtown Hamilton."

Two questions about this statement:

1) How is this over-intensification when it's about three blocks from other tall buildings? This is directly downtown. It's not like we're talking 50 storeys here.

2) What unsuitable precedent are they talking about? Building tall buildings in Hamilton?

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by mattgrande

Two questions about this statement:

1) How is this over-intensification when it's about three blocks from other tall buildings? This is directly downtown. It's not like we're talking 50 storeys here.

2) What unsuitable precedent are they talking about? Building tall buildings in Hamilton?

Excellent questions. What nonsense from the City! This kind of intensification is exactly what is needed in the core. James North is in dire need of an influx of new residents to support the retail sector. The street shows too few signs of being in great economic health.

[king10]

Originally Posted by mattgrande

"would represent an over-intensification of a mid-block site and set an unsuitable precedent for the design of tall buildings within Downtown Hamilton."

Two questions about this statement:

1) How is this over-intensification when it's about three blocks from other tall buildings? This is directly downtown. It's not like we're talking 50 storeys here.

2) What unsuitable precedent are they talking about? Building tall buildings in Hamilton?

that reasoning sounds ridiculous. over intensification? unsuitable precedent for design of tall buildings? what does that even mean? they dont want theatres with condos?

[HillStreetBlues]

I read the report. I’m not sure I agree with the final recommendation, but I can see some of their reasoning. I’m surprised that this is Hamilton, actually. For instance, it speaks directly to the enclosure afforded to people on foot, and I can see the point.

“Unsuitable precedent for design of tall buildings” seems to refer to the fact that not enough effort was given to preserve “the consistency of built form that exists north along both the east and west sides of James Street North.” For instance, Staff write that, after a step-back for the fourth and fifth stories, “the elevation of the building returns almost to its previous position (2 m from James Street North) and thus limits the overall purpose and benefit of the step-back.” As a result of that, they deem it incompatible.

The report also contrasts this development specifically with the one on Vine- four stories, brick, quality. It discusses the fact that (because of building codes), there would be few windows on the north and south sides of the building, which would negatively impact views along James.

There is also reference to the fact that City staff believe that part of the Tivoli (more than what the proposal suggests) would have to be demolished. I am pleasantly surprised that they would care.

I’m not sure how to feel, personally. I tend to feel that mixed-use mid-rise structures are better than tall towers. Given the specific location (mid-block), maybe they’re right not to allow it. Possibly a little shorter would be better.

[davidcappi]

I personally just find the design really out of character with the street. It's an ugly tower, and I don't think it would age well. I want to see brick mid-rise construction along James. Something more in line with this:

Solid infill that interacts well with it's surroundings and pays homage to the architecture of the neighbourhood.


It also has a tiered design which is nice:

[oldcoote]

^ I agree. I'm all for condo development on James N., but it has to be in scale with the street. 22 storeys is just too high here. Nothing else is over 3 storeys. Something half the height would suffice.
Leave the 20 + storey developments for the King / Main corridor.
Look at the Acclamation Lofts. Those are perfect.

[markbarbera]

While I can see where you may be coming from, I would hesitate to say the proposed building is too high for this particular location. Sure, buildings north of this address are comparatively squat, but such is not the case immediately southwards. Phase two of the Lister Block (aka the Artizan) will be a 20-storey building and is less than two blocks south of the Tivoli site. Commerce Place four blocks from this proposal and is 16 storeys, and the condo two blocks further south at the corner of James and Jackson will be 30 storeys tall.

With the imminent opening of James North GO Station, I would expect more projects of this height to appear along this stretch of James. I have absolutely no problem with this, as long as the streetwall remains preserved. In the case of the Tivoli, this can easily be accomplished with a more appropriately designed setback to the upper floors.

The city should be collaborating with developers by recommending design changes like this, not denying proposals outright. Did the city not create a design review panel to do exactly this? Is this panel not active at all?

[Jon Dalton]

It would kind of stick out on this part of the street but I still think it should be allowed. The first 3 or 4 stories can be built to compliment the existing buildings but the rest is going to look different whether it's 8 stories or 20. I live in the area and I'm fine with it.

We have to add density along our commercial corridors. It's part of our plan to handle population growth in a sustainable way. We can add a certain amount by rebuilding vacant lots and repopulating vacant buildings, but that won't meet our targets. If we are going to add significant density to downtown, building heights have to go up. If not here, then where? There are only so many streets.

While I don't agree with the decision, I am impressed that the city is considering heritage and urban design aspects and not just developer $$$. I don't know if it was because of the design review panel or there were 'activists' involved or if this was just planning staff doing their job. I hope they can use this kind of fortitude to keep more buildings standing.