[Stoney Creek] 310 Frances Ave | ? | 44fl, 37fl, 34fl | Approved

[MichaelStJean]

I don't see the big deal. We have no problem approving thousands of sprawling single family homes which are inefficient and contributing to our massive infrastructure deficit. Why are we not building neighbourhoods in the sky? How does this affect traffic anymore then Summit Park on the mountain? or any other subdivision. It's time we start building 'communities' like these. Hamilton was a MAJOR city and should be once again. Why do we continue playing small?

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by MichaelStJean

I don't see the big deal. We have no problem approving thousands of sprawling single family homes which are inefficient and contributing to our massive infrastructure deficit. Why are we not building neighbourhoods in the sky? How does this affect traffic anymore then Summit Park on the mountain? or any other subdivision. It's time we start building 'communities' like these. Hamilton was a MAJOR city and should be once again. Why do we continue playing small?

Totally agree. Although I disagree on one point (although I suspect you agree. lol) - there is NOTHING that contributes to awful traffic more than single family subdivision sprawl with 2 car garages and long windy streets that are totally unwalkable.
It's always ironic to hear people who live in such homes point to a development like this and cry "BUT TRAFFIC!" It's a proven fact - with ANY sort of transit service, or nearby retail amenities, people who live in multi-storey buildings drive less than those in homes. Also, people in high-rise buildings won't own 2-3 cars per household like virtually every single house in this area between the QEW and the lake currently do.

I totally share your frustration with the fact that Hamilton used to be a major city and now we're happy dwindling away to smallish town status while everyone around us fights hard to grow and prosper.

EDIT: I've spoken with many successful business owners in the city who were shocked to learn about our insane height restriction added last minute to the downtown secondary plan. Do what you will, but I continue to suggest that such business folks make your voices heard at city hall. Neighbourhood associations have a disproportionate voice among our city leaders. People actually creating jobs and generating wealth deserve to have their voices heard too.

[LRTfan]

Design Review Panel meeting scheduled for April. Haha….keep the paramedics nearby…some of those guys might keel over at the thought of a big-city development in the Hammer
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9...s-in-hamilton/

[Innsertnamehere]

I think a lot of people are confusing the opposition to the density and the location of the density. 1,800 units is a ton for a highway service road. It's almost comical - nothing else exists like this on the continent. These 1,800 unit would be so much better located downtown or really in any area that's a bit more walkable and transit friendly. This spot just isn't one to put some of the tallest buildings in the country.

[ScreamingViking]

Exactly. On a 2-lane road, 2.5 km from the nearest interchanges on both sides... even the nearest north-south streets accessing the city road grid are each 1 km away (Grays and Millen). No urban amenities close by.

We should be building up more than we do, but not in locations like this.

Is the developer's real goal to swap a serious downgrade in density on this site for much more permissive zoning somewhere else in the city?

This would be much better near the new Confederation GO station. Fairly close access to future commuter train service, a major arterial nearby with great QEW access, and I imagine there will be improved bus service on Centennial to the future LRT at Eastgate once it's built. There is at least retail in the area (albeit the ever-pedestrian-hostile big box "smrt centre" variety). And a long-term vision to redevelop the Centennial Pkwy corridor into something much more dense and "urban". The developer may not own any land around there, but could the city try to help out? I think it would be in their interests.

[LRTfan]

I think a project like this can be used to push hard for new transit service similar to what residents in Humber Shores have done in TO.... would be very easy to develop a new HSR route that connects with Confederation GO, and Eastgate Transit Terminal.
In fact, I'd suggest this might be the ONLY way transit will get added to this part of the city...it sure won't happen if nothing but single homes with 3 cars each is all that ever gets built there.

https://www.toronto.com/news-story/8...co-go-station/

Humber Bay Shores has added great density, and new retail space in the bottom of condo towers such as grocery stores etc..... it's a perfect parallel to what could happen here
https://www.blogto.com/city/2016/04/...rastic_change/

[king10]

Originally Posted by MichaelStJean

I don't see the big deal. We have no problem approving thousands of sprawling single family homes which are inefficient and contributing to our massive infrastructure deficit. Why are we not building neighbourhoods in the sky? How does this affect traffic anymore then Summit Park on the mountain? or any other subdivision. It's time we start building 'communities' like these. Hamilton was a MAJOR city and should be once again. Why do we continue playing small?

This effects traffic more because its 1800 units on a single corner emptying out to a single lane service road. Summit park over a wider area with access to rymal road, new rhvp extension fletcher rd etc. Plus that area has hsr service.

And just because summit park was horribly planned doesnt mean we should justify contiued shitty planning.

[LRTfan]

this seems like the right thread for this planning nugget

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

this seems like the right thread for this planning nugget

how many of those high rises are on public transit lines which this proposal is not. If theres no public transit, no matter how dense the building, residents will have to use cars, especially if there is one parking spot per unit.

This development needs a public transit line and better road access for those who do choose to use vehicles.

[LRTfan]

oh 100% this area needs transit, and this project should be used by the locals to fight for it. With transit, folks in high-density housing will use it far more than folks in houses.

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

oh 100% this area needs transit, and this project should be used by the locals to fight for it. With transit, folks in high-density housing will use it far more than folks in houses.

agreed

Need to look at removing transit area rating or else places like Ancaster, Binbrook, Stoney Creek and Waterdown won't have the money to increase service.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by king10

agreed

Need to look at removing transit area rating or else places like Ancaster, Binbrook, Stoney Creek and Waterdown won't have the money to increase service.

yes! Area rating is a ridiculous system. It's harming our city more than probably any other policy.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by king10

Need to look at removing transit area rating or else places like Ancaster, Binbrook, Stoney Creek and Waterdown won't have the money to increase service.

Area rating has given councilors like Fergie-baby the perfect excuses not to increase transit service in the suburban areas.

He can say the town is not well served by the existing HSR system, so his fiefdom should not help support the old city's transit by paying the rate it would if area rating were removed. He can also proclaim that it would be too expensive to introduce more transit in Ancaster, given that the town would foot the bill under the area-rated system. So transit is not an Ancaster concern by either logic. As a bonus, he can note that his rural subjects shouldn't bear the transit burden at all so dropping area-rating would be unfair for them (they don't pay currently but wouldn't anyway, since the idea is an urban/rural rating system not equal rate across the entire city... but I doubt many homeowners actually understand what it all means).

Conveniently makes transit a "Hamilton-only" issue and chin-wag fodder to keeping the old ward divides alive.

Perhaps LRT votes should be area-rated and weighted too.

[drpgq]

What's the hourly capacity of the service road? I don't really see the problem.

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by drpgq

What's the hourly capacity of the service road? I don't really see the problem.

In general terms, urban streets can carry 10,000 cars per day/per lane. I have no idea what the current load is along there.
Nor do I care all that much…we NEVER go through this whole charade of acting like it'll be traffic armageddon when we approve 2,000 homes along a 2-lane West 5th or Stonechurch Rd etc….. the double standard when it comes to dense development in this city is astounding.
The real push should be for transit service to this whole area.

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

In general terms, urban streets can carry 10,000 cars per day/per lane. I have no idea what the current load is along there.
Nor do I care all that much…we NEVER go through this whole charade of acting like it'll be traffic armageddon when we approve 2,000 homes along a 2-lane West 5th or Stonechurch Rd etc….. the double standard when it comes to dense development in this city is astounding.
The real push should be for transit service to this whole area.

Past poor planning doesn't justify continued poor planning. I 100% agree on the transit service piece though.

[king10]

Originally Posted by drpgq

What's the hourly capacity of the service road? I don't really see the problem.

How can you say you dont see a problem while in the same breath admitting you don't know what the current usage rate of the road is versus capacity?

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

The traffic argument is not valid ....have you ever sat in front of or actually lived in a condo ? Not exactly a freeway of cars coming in and out ...more cars are using shopping plazas then coming in and out of condos ! The problem here is small mindedness and fear of growth and letting a few local residents keep city growth hostage

[LRTfan]

Originally Posted by king10

Past poor planning doesn't justify continued poor planning. I 100% agree on the transit service piece though.

taking a fraction of the land to add the same number of housing units is not a 'continuation' of acres and acres of sprawl needed for the same number of units.
High density development is FAR smarter and better for a city's economy in every way imaginable.

[king10]

Originally Posted by LRTfan

taking a fraction of the land to add the same number of housing units is not a 'continuation' of acres and acres of sprawl needed for the same number of units.
High density development is FAR smarter and better for a city's economy in every way imaginable.

I was speaking more towards the planning issues of lack of transit, road capacity and no sidewalks.