Raise the Hammer
After working closely with the Durand Neighbourhood Association on a plan for City Square, the developer has since applied for a zoning variance that breaks his earlier commitment to the community.
By Kelly Foyle and Simon Kiss
Published May 12, 2013
this article has been updated
Durand residents packed a room in the Ryerson Community Center last week to attend a meeting on the proposed zoning amendment for New Horizon's City Square development at the corner of Park and Bay Street.
City Square building 1 under construction (RTH file photo)
While Jeff Paikin, President of New Horizon Homes, was in attendance, he stood at the back of the room for most of the meeting, allowing GSP Groups, his hired planning consultants, to host it.
They explained that New Horizon has applied for a zoning amendment for the third and smallest remaining block. This block is currently permitted to host a four-storey building with twelve units. New Horizon wants approval for 17 storeys with 159 units.
The entire site is currently approved for 188 units. Thus, they are asking to almost double the number of units on this site.
In addition, most of the space between the buildings that was previously allotted as green space will now be replaced with surface parking. Between these parking spots and the underground parking lot, over 340 parking spaces will be part of this plan.
While these amendments are shocking, perhaps most shocking of all was the disregard and disrespect for the Durand community and the Durand Neighborhood Association (DNA).
The planning consultants from GSP Groups were clearly unprepared for the meeting. They seemed to have no knowledge of the history of the project and when asked simple questions like 'how many parking spaces will there be' were unable to answer and gave 'rough guesses'.
They also presented incorrect information, claiming that DNA had met with previous owners but never New Horizon, which is completely untrue.
They told the current DNA president, Janice Brown, she could leave her contact information with them and they could try and address her concerns. This was quite insulting, considering the DNA has worked closely with New Horizon for years.
Through all of this, Paikin stood at the back and let these consultants muddle their way through meeting. Finally, when asked by a resident, he came to the front and stated that while he had met with the DNA, he had never made any 'promises' about the third block.
Several board members were surprised to hear this, given that we had met many times. In fact, the DNA supported New Horizon's past zoning amendment to the second tower to allow for two more storeys (nine to eleven).
Paikin met with the DNA board in April 2012 to discuss this amendment. At the time, he explained very clearly his intentions to build either townhouses or no units at all at the third site. He also explained how important it was to him to maintain an open dialogue with the community.
Yet in the Fall of 2012, he applied for the zoning amendment for the third site without informing the DNA, or any owners of the other two towers.
It was deeply troubling to see him state so clearly that none of the previous conversations and commitments had transpired. He was also quite clear that he fully intended and expected this amendment to pass and that there would be little we could do.
Naturally, the residents in attendance were quite upset. Many brought documents illustrating previous plans presented by New Horizon, which never depicted a 17-storey tower.
At least three owners of units in Tower 1 were in attendance. They expressed their dismay and disappointment at these changes. However, they were unable to voice much opposition because they had signed a clause in their contract forbidding them from opposing any zoning amendments.
Many residents felt betrayed, and at times the meeting became quite heated. Only one resident seemed to voice approval for the project, but his approval seemed to focus mostly on the success of tower one. It was not clear if he supported the amendment.
So where do we go from here?
It was clear to those in attendance last night that Jeff Paikin and New Horizon are not as 'committed to the community at large' as they claim, and as is stated on their website.
Based on the high demand for Tower 1 and 2, they have decided to try and build the largest possible tower on the third site. They apparently want to maximize their profits and don't care about the community at all or the residents that have bought units in the other towers.
At this stage, the application will go to city staff. They will present their recommendations to the planning committee, which will then either approve or disapprove the application. From there it will go to council, which will vote on the amendment.
Duranders and the DNA will continue to oppose this amendment and could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) if it is required. It is imperative that the community mobilize to express their disappointment with this developer.
The decision will most likely be made at council, and it is not clear how councillors in other wards will react, given that this new development will mean more tax revenue for Hamilton.
One can only hope that they will want to send a clear message to developers that they need to work with the community to develop projects that will balance density with neighbourhood needs, something Paikin once promised us he would do.
with files from Nicholas Kevlahan
Update: the article originally stated that the DNA "fully indends" to appeal this rezoning to the OMB. This is incorrect: the DNA is considering an OMB appeal but has not made a formal decision. RTH regrets the error. You can jump to the changed paragraph.
By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted May 12, 2013 at 11:57:35
That's at least two articles by the DNA. Is it possible to get Paikin's/New Horizon's take on this?
By fmurray (registered) | Posted May 13, 2013 at 13:46:55 in reply to Comment 88654
Paikin's/New Horizon's position was fairly clear at the public meeting: We're denying any knowledge of planning or agreeing to a four-storey building on Park and we need to maximize ROI (e.g. we had no idea sales would go so well). Also, the sun shadow study on surrounding properties is negligible and there is no need for a traffic study!
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 12, 2013 at 15:47:14
One of the most frustrating things about the GSP and New Horizon presentation (besides the lack of preparation and obvious tone of condescension) was the way they used progressive urban design catch phrases in a sort of cargo cult manner.
They talked about the advantages of density in terms of leveraging existing services, without recognizing that the 300 or so residents of the original proposal already more than achieved the 'densification' goal, and that the effects of density are nonlinear: no new services or upgrades up to a certain density, and then a need for significant upgrades beyond a certain level. The new plans imply around 520 residents on a 0.78 Ha site with zero current residents ... this might indeed require upgrades or redesigns.
GSP talked about how they had opted for towers rather than slabs to preserve views and a better streetscape, in a weird sort of parroting of Vancouver tower and podium designs. In fact, what we have is an ad hoc risk minimization design of a succession of 1970s style towers with no podium surrounded by surface parking. And the obvious dishonesty that the current design was only (apparently) dreamt up after towers 1 and 2 had been designed, and takes up the entire surface of block 3. They couldn't have built a slab there if they wanted to, or, equivalently, they are building a 17 storey slab!
The most telling aspect was the complete absence of the architects.
I've interacted with architects quite a bit, and I know they are
typically passionate about their projects and love to explain why their
design is so great for the site and purpose. There was no mention at
all of architecture, and Paikin himself was clear that the architects
remit was simply to cram the biggest cheapest building possible onto the
small block 3 site (maximize margins and take advantage of demand).
If the design really is so great and responds
so sensitively to the site, let's have the architects themselves tell us why!
After looking at their website http://www.knyarchitects.com/, it is pretty clear why they weren't present: they seem to specialize in anonymous corporate style architecture where the main concern is to provide a 'solution' to the developer.
I'm surprised that some of their buildings were actually architect (rather than builder) designed, such as Spencer Creek Condos in Dundas and this Hampton Inn http://www.knyarchitects.com/portfolio/h... and other suburban and ex-urban chain hotels. There are a couple of good projects (the Gowlings restoration and the concept for the Riccio towers). Compare and contrast with KPMB ... http://www.kpmb.com/
Maybe the nameless architect responsible for the block 3 design would like to write something on RTH to try to convince us why this is a great design!
By moylek (registered) - website | Posted May 12, 2013 at 16:54:42 in reply to Comment 88667
After looking at their website http://www.knyarchitects.com/, it is pretty clear why they weren't present: they seem to specialize in anonymous corporate style architecture where the main concern is to provide a 'solution' to the developer.
One needn't even scroll through their web site - simply take a quick look at their headquarters at Harvester and the South Service Road in Burlington.
PS Sorry about the double post - for some reason, I could not delete or edit the one at https://raisethehammer.org/article/1852/... Editors may feel free to delete that one.
By textbook (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2013 at 11:19:53
Density! Density!! Density!!!
Why does everyone feel the need to fight everything? You're the same people that complain that Hamilton isn't developing.
This is great news! And from what I can tell, they are going through the APPROVED processes properly!
By DMF (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2013 at 15:54:42
At the meeting, the developers claimed that the 4-story plan was proposed by the previous owners and that it wasn't something that they ever thought feasible. Yet they knew this is what the property zoning supported when they purchased. Now all of the sudden, they want it changed.
We heard from people who had already purchased Phase 1 units who were horrified to learn of the change, claiming that the developer told them it would be 4-stores in phase 3. Additionally, the majority of the promised green space has been turned into (visitor) surface parking to accommodate the increased density. All in all, a very different development than what they bought into.
This is old bait and with. It's a shame - the developers have an opportunity to build something special with this development but it appear that they're throwing away their chance for the sake of extra profit.
By jason (registered) | Posted May 14, 2013 at 18:51:41
Just so everyone is clear, nothing underhanded is happening here. The owners of the property are applying for a re-zoning of that parcel of land.
Land rezoning is available to all of us should someone ever desire to add a business to their property or turn residential into commercial etc....
it is a straightforward, public process. Residents and city planners are given the chance to weight in on the proceedings and then a preferred recommendation is made to city council.
Who knows what will happen in this particular case, but one good piece of news can be taken out of situation - clearly, there is a demand for quality condo units in downtown Hamilton. We're seeing the first condo projects built in 2 decades downtown and the continued demand is great news for all of us.
By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted May 17, 2013 at 14:53:01
A few observations
By Homophones (anonymous) | Posted May 22, 2013 at 01:09:48
Is Paikin a relation to TVOs Steve Paikin ?
By Ceftomicelief (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2013 at 04:05:55
Benefit regarding Discussions
Many individuals have experienced in order to resort to help debt consolidation loan to counteract personal bankruptcy. In fact, credit cards ensure it is easy for individuals to create behavioral instinct purchases. As a result, it’s not necessarily exactly amazing of which numerous folks from the U. Ohydrates. also have to help record Page 13 or perhaps Page 7 personal bankruptcy. Regrettably, overspending is actually encouraged upon credit cards, exactly what having reduced preliminary premiums in addition to bare minimum obligations. Also, bank card holders who have acquired too much personal debt tend not to tackle the situation until eventually it’s also later. Consequently, it’s essential, to be able to be able to work out with your lenders, also to get in touch with all of them on the primary sign of a check trouble.
Require a decrease in the interest Price
Most often, if you have recently been making use of a card for quite a while, then you can definitely often request the particular credit-based card company to reduce your rate of interest you're forking over. Start the procedure by educating this credit card organization which various other the creditors have got dispatched you offers regarding lower-interest bank cards and see if the corporation may offer you a equivalent fee. This step, within along with connected with themselves, is a good thing to do prior to a better interest forces a person in a situation connected with forking over your balance past due as well as lost a few repayments.
Ask for the Credit limit Enhance
Consequently, if you do feel the interest rates in a couple of your current charge cards is increased, get in touch with each and every credit card firm to determine should the prices could be lowered. Or maybe, if you’ve achieved the borrowing limit upon a couple of greeting cards, discover if the credit-based card issuer may enhance the borrowing limit. Doing so can avoid over-the-limit expenses by appearing on your own statement – charges which furthermore glimpse undesirable using a credit history.
Stay away from staying Regarded as a superior Chance Borrower
You intend to stay away from the preceding circumstances since when you finally neglect any late repayment or perhaps cost in excess of ones credit limit, you will additionally possibly be considered a higher possibility debtor. In order to get some sort of take care of on the financial debt after that, rank your own charge cards in order regarding the number of interest placed on the greeting card, with all the greatest fascination plastic card towards the top of your list along with the lowest fascination credit card at the quite conclude.
author debt consolidation loans for bad credit
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?