Raise the Hammer

Arguments of character and context are interesting to me. Seems to be quite subjective, and also implies that particular areas should exist in some sort of stasis according to the built form predominant at the time of inception. If that is the case, and we deem tall buildings in the downtown core in a major mixed use street nearby important local and regional transit connections, then where should they be built, on greenfield development? I think the precedent has already been set with the Connoly development about 750 metres away, no? On things like parking though, bang on. Lower rise infill will have a tough time being viable with structured parking requirements.

22 stories? This isn't downtown Branftford. I propose a 30 story minimum for all new james street developments. Too many small time developers doing small time builds. It seems like they're under compensating for something,

I agree with everything in this article. I don't believe the Connolly "sets a precedent" for all of James Street. James South and James North are two different districts, neighbourhoods and heritage environments.

There is not an either/or decision here on developing the Tivoli site or "greenfield" sites. As stated in the article, there are plenty of poorly developed or parking lot sites within spitting distance of the Tivoli that would better suit a development of this kind.

And, since the Diamantes basically received this site for free, I don't understand the math behind the "22 stories and 106 units are required to make this development worthwhile".

I agree with the BNA and planning staff on this. Good luck with your efforts to have a better design for this site.

So if the developer had just built it a few hundred metres away on the parking lot at say Hughson and Wilson that would be OK for context? I find it neat as an observer watching the tension between an existing built form and pressures for the city to change and evolve...

Still my main thinking is we all agree that intensification is a good idea, but then go and make it hard to intensify. There's actually an argument in the City's documents that while the downtown should intensify to a level of 250 people and jobs per hectare, it doesn't have to happen on this particular site. Well then what is the point of the downtown UGC? That argument could theoretically be applied anywhere downtown!

Another reason why I like tall buildings is affordability - greenbelt has done a tremendous job limiting single-detached development, driving up the cost of those types of homes. To keep housing costs reasonable, infill needs to pick up the slack, which it has to a degree. But then restricting them too through zoning or other means (not just Hamilton but across the GTHA) just drives up their costs further, eroding affordability across the region.

I am all for mid-rise development and would gladly live in one for the rest of my life, but thanks to our zoning regulations we just make that housing product hard to construct. There's clearly a market for mid-rise in the age of the greenbelt. With cheaper and easily developable land and a real downtown, just think of the competitive advantage we would have for this market if we actually had a package of the most progressive mid-rise zoning/transit oriented development regulations in the GTHA (in tandem with rapid transit). So my take on the Tivoli is while I do agree with the above sentiments, bigger picture for me is that until we get our mid-rise act together it is a good way to ensure that 100+ units get built vertically as infill rather than up on the mountain as horizontal sprawl.

Comment edited by higgicd on 2015-03-30 08:37:14

Beasley has it right, time for Jason Farr to start listening to the people, his tactics are always aggressive in my opinion. This does not suit the area and if Jason has his way we are in trouble on James North, down will come buildings to make way for others to follow.

A few thoughts:

1. The built form of James St. North didn't come around from one single time period but across over a century of architectural decisions by a wide range of people (including the brand new development across the road). So it's not just perpetuating one architectural idea but many interacting ideas.

2. The value of perpetuating these ideas is pretty clear, since James North is a very successful urban space. The 3-storey street-wall is tight knit and has a human scale and variety that makes it enjoyable to walk, encouraging the kind of economic activity that has made it one of Hamilton's biggest success stories for revitalization. In other words, _it works_. Its not just about preserving historical ideas but preserving a successful urban space (I will grant that this point isn't strongly made in this letter).

3. The objections here aren't really about height so much as about setback. The podium style of high-rise design is very popular precisely because of how it allows for tall buildings without destroying the intimacy of the street. It also reduces the amount of wind tunnelling that pedestrians experience as a result of high buildings, which makes the street more comfortable in winter. This proposal pays lip service to a podium design but the setback is too small to really be effective. As the letter states, they could literally move the tower back on the same lot and achieve an acceptable scaling.

4. The Connolly site is not in an environment that has a successful, continuous human scale to it in the same way as James North. There is much less street activity, most buildings are 4+ stories with no setbacks, and there is a lot of variety already. There is no obvious urban form to conform to there; it won't be interrupting anything that works for a particular reason, which is why its a much better place for a tall, imposing structure with no setback or podium.

So if the developer had just built it a few hundred metres away on the parking lot at say Hughson and Wilson that would be OK for context?

Absolutely. They could build this exact tower but fronting on Hughson (i.e. on the sight of the theatre itself), and the difference in context would be huge. There isn't already an active, vibrant successful space happening there, so there is much more freedom to define the space.

very interesting issue here. Well written submission by the BNA.

Few random thoughts I have:

• street context is hugely important. Old retail streets with the 2-4 storey street wall like Locke, James north of Wilson, Ottawa, Kenilworth, King East etc.. should maintain access to sunshine on the sidewalks while allowing new density. Think Queen West, Roncesvalles, Queen East (Beaches) in Toronto. In our climate, access to sunshine is important. Go to downtown Toronto in mid-winter on a sunny day. Dark, freezing cold and windy. Yet I'm all for new density in our city. It's imperative if we are to thrive again. I like this type of thinking on these streets:

https://rgordonarchitect.wordpress.com/2...

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/...

• as far as 'precedence' goes, we need to protect the heritage building stock on these streets and their historic retail sidewalks. One could use the same precedence argument if this proposal was 10 stories or 50. Mass demolitions and block-busting. It simply can't be allowed. At the rear of properties, or on parking lots, go for new density. Acclamation condos seem to get the scale correct for this district:

http://residencesatacclamation.ca

• we need to build housing and buildings in Hamilton, not parking. Seeing that land space is being wasted on a parking stacker, instead of allowing a setback on the taller portion of the building is ridiculous. Hamilton needs to stop with the parking requirements. Had they been able to purchase the corner property, a taller tower could go at the corner of James/Wilson and step-back north along James:

http://torontolivings.com/wp-content/upl...

Also, by using the available land for a larger footprint building instead of parking stacker, the same density could be achieved without impacting the street. Setbacks at the 6th, 8th and 11th stories:

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/fil...

EDIT:

I should add that I'm completely in favour of tall towers downtown where not in the middle of these low-rise retail/pedestrian streets. The Connolly could go 50 stories and I wish it were, if for no other reason than making some new bold statements downtown. Ditto for Connaught site, Vranich-ville etc....

A local example of a development fitting in perfectly with it's current street, while adding needed density would be this on King William:

http://www.templarflats.ca

This is a perfect modern interpretation on the Paris model. 6th floor set-back and everything.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-03-30 09:33:19

If this goes through on a requirement for parking, that would be a shame. There is literally a parking structure across the road.

Bang on!

The BNA has no opposition to density or to tall buildings: we welcome both. We simply ask for a reasonable height at the streetwall (in this case, 6 stories is permitted as of right) with appropriate stepbacks deeper in the lot.

Although the Tivoli property is quite small, it could accommodate a tower immediately in front of the existing theatre building with much less impact on the streetscape. However, that's not what the developer proposes. Rather, they want to waste the interior space on a parking structure and put the tower right out at the road.

(Ninja'ed by AnjoMan. I agree with all of his comments.)

I agree with the difference in context, but that's not the entire story.

If the developer had acquired the parking lot that stretches from Hughson to John, we'd still want a human scale (i.e. not 22 stories) at the streetwall, but there would be lots of room in the interior of this lot to rise quite tall with stepbacks. As Allie points out, the same would be true if they had acquired the Centre Point strip mall immediately adjacent to the Tivoli property.

John

I am disappointed neither of you has commented on the bigger picture arguments I laid out, which puts you perilously in the position of NIMBYism. Towers are great down the street, but not here. And while I would agree that James N 'works', I feel only to some extent as living here the street can be a bit of a dead zone at times. More people need to live in the area to support enough businesses to fill the remaining vacancies you see all along the street.

Chris, it's not NIMBYism to ask that the podium be in front of the tower rather than the other way around. My point in mentioning those other two properties was just that a larger property allows higher rise with stepbacks. There would still be plenty of room for a fairly high building on the Tivoli property starting with 6 stories at the street, but that's not what's proposed.

The BNA is, as far as I know, the only neighbourhood association in Hamilton that's pushing back against minimum parking requirements that disincentivize mid-rise development and affordable housing.

I'm no expert, but I think that urban planning is a bit more complicated than the binary poles of "anything goes" vs. "we don't want any development in our little enclave." I'm disappointed that you've raised the NIMBY canard in response to specific, remediable issues identified not only by our neighbourhood association but also by the Planning department.

Reading your comments again, I overlooked "at streetwall" so for that I apologize and think we agree in principle on that. It just irks me at all the opposition to infill development unless it fits exacting requirements. I have never disagreed with them as laid out in the article, but see them in light of other realities around. Mid-rise is a tough sell and even in Toronto it is only now starting to happen, we all want more people downtown, but land prices are such that it is still more profitable to operate a parking lot than build something more useful, this is a GO hub and future LRT corridor, etc. What better place for adding density.

I assume we all want the same goals of environmental sustainability, economic/tax efficiency, neighbourhood vitality, a bigger voting base for urban issues, etc. but through both awful zoning regulations that codify the unachievable paradox of mid-rise yet auto-friendly development and local opposition to change we also shoot all of that in the foot then collectively complain about sprawl, traffic, and high house prices.

I'd be interested to see if the developer would actually build with no parking, as while a solution to the above problem it might be something they think a portion of their target market values. Too much push back though and things just go to the OMB which is unfortunate for all involved, but also in my opinion a godsend for achieving the big picture benefits of infill. US metro areas would kill for an institution like that.

Awesome looking tower. Places to Grow Act. Build Up not Out.

The public has put a lot of subsidy into this property over the past decade:

1) Waiving the costs of emergency demolition ($300,000) because it was given to a charity (who then sold the property to the husband of a board member, who is the condo developer)
2) $75,455 grant for stabilization
3) $50,000 interest-free loan

And very likely, the developer will also apply for a number of incentives through the downtown renewal division if the development goes ahead.

Doesn't the public have a right to have "exacting requirements" of this development?

Hi Chris, thanks for that. Honest mistake on reading my comment.

I agree that we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I'd also prefer not to make the terrible (surface parking lots and sprawl development) the friend of the bad (a 22 story tower at the front of a lot with the podium behind?)

The Beume building across the street and the Templar Flats proposal on King William are excellent examples, in my mind, of how mid-rise and even low-rise buildings can achieve density in a downtown core. The BNA supports the proposal to provide no on-site parking at the Templar Flats. If all of the vacant space in our neighbourhood were developed with a similar form, we would be as dense as many large European cities.

The best way to encourage intensification in Beasley would be for the city to immediately sell all of its surface parking lots after rezoning them to prohibit surface parking and eliminate parking minimums. Mid-rise (or high-rise in deeper lots) mixed-use redevelopment would then be economically viable. Underground parking might be part of some builds but it would need to be able to sustain itself financially.

The Tivoli is, in my mind, the answer to the wrong question.

I'm not questioning your motives. I agree that we share the same goals. I suspect that we'd agree on our response to most development applications. (For example, I'm sure you'd support the BNA in its opposition to further expansion of the Hamilton General Hospital parking sprawl at Robert and Cathcart!)

HHS does unfortunately seem to be a voracious consumer of land for surface parking, and rapid transit proposals kind of miss the boat on better serving that hub.

Interesting idea re parking - though doing that might drive up the profitability of remaining private lots in the interim. A nefarious move would be the city doing the opposite and making all their lots free, thereby eroding the business case for private paid parking as a downtown land use!

As for the Tivoli I hope the issues raised in the article can be addressed without a trip to the OMB because they are all very reasoned. But as you've mentioned at root here is still outdated zoning that results in these battles occurring in the first place. Happy to see you guys fighting the good fight and if there is any way for a Jamestown resident to help lobby for the changes you're after I am on board. LRT may be turfed for the foreseeable future but reforming these more fundamental planning elements are key to truly remaking the city.

In my mind, the A-line shouldn't go to the waterfront. No one needs rapid transit to the waterfront. It should go east on Barton at least as far as HGH, and HHS should be asking for this.

I agree with your point re: profitability of private parking lots. Actually, I was kind of keeping quiet on that because you're right that it is totally unfair. The most fundamental solution would be to reform property tax as a land value tax, but good luck getting that one done. A simpler fix would be a tax on downtown parking. Either way, developing the city's half of the downtown parking lots would still make things way better than the current state.

When this is proposed, there is very little discussion.

and we get -

When this is proposed, there is very little discussion.

and we get this

But when the Tivoli project is proposed, we get immense push back.

Heaven forbid we give a developer a chance to build a building with enough density to allow them to build an attractive building that doesn't give us more crap in the skyline.

An attractive building that fills a vacant lot, keeps the historic building and takes on an urban form. Why are we fighting this?

We let absolute shite get built, but jump all over a developer that shares their vision, tries to bring people on board with the project and allows for public input. Keep this up, and nothing of any note will get built, ever.

Parking is required by zoning, not by common sense. They must provide parking no matter what surrounds the land.

To be clear: I, like you, think that they should build a tower here; I just don't want to see them screw up by not including a setback. It's not like fixing this design would be costly. The tower only has to move a few metres for it to work.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2015-03-30 13:27:24

Doesn't the public have a right to have "exacting requirements" of this development?

Yes, but part of the problem is that some of our representatives think 'exacting requirements' should consist of building parking, even if it requires a robotic parking garage be built.

Yeah, thats what I mean. The fault is be with the city --- do you think the developers would be paying for a robotic parking garage if they didn't have to?

IMO a building that cuts short the James North streetwall would be 'absolute shite'.

How does this cut it short? Matches exactly the building next door, has two shops at grade, and a residential entrance.

This is a street wall.

So is this

Comment edited by WhyohWhy on 2015-03-30 13:48:18

Regarding #1 - Wasn't that Sam Sniderman's property at that time of property deterioration and that's why he sold it for $2? I also heard via grapevine that other bids for the property were received, but "husband of board member" was highest. My info was grapevine, so I ask do you have other information which is fact?

Regarding #2 Seems fair for a heritage building (the theatre)

Regarding #3 Loan repaid in full, so what's the point?

Many developers get public benefit in many forms, seems that acting as a caretaker for 10 years on a heritage building should get something too. The city never showed any interest, look at the heritage buildings they have responsibility for care taking they are all falling down because no money (little) has been spent.

I guess you should have bought the property from Sam the Record Man for $3.

it's happening again.

150 Main West complex was proposed to look like this:

http://150mainwest.com/condo-amenities/c...

transparent and blue-tinted glass.
Instead they are installing glass as we speak and it's gross dark brown. Just what our skyline needs.

There's a reason Vancouver outright banned dark glass during it's building boom the past 30 years. This is Canada. We need light, airy, welcoming buildings in our cities, not more drab grey, brown and darkness.

Here's another that proposed a light-coloured glass:

http://www.knyarchitects.com/portfolio/r...

And here's what we got. Welcome to the 1980's USSR:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2j4o5g4&...

When will the city start enforcing the drawings and renderings that are presented when buildings are approved??
We need a ban on dark glass, like Vancouver, immediately.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-03-30 15:10:15

The James North street-wall is now short, with the gap that has existed since Sam the Record Man let the building deteriorate until it had to be torn down.

To me this building fixes the street-wall and as an added bonus I won't have to look at that horrible siding on the Dominion Furniture building.

I've found that Clr. Farr to be pretty forward thinking with participatory budgeting, etc.

Look at the McMaster Health building vs. the renderings, bait & switch extraordinaire.

A couple of things trouble me with this article.

1. Are the author, Allison Chewter, and support John Neary a couple? I ask as they appear together as a single Author on RTH. If not a couple then very close and John should have made that known when commenting in support of the author's views.

2. This author seems to be the very definition of a NIMBY as her Twitter account profile - twitter.com/alliechew - has a picture of Melbourne illustrating exactly what she's opposing in Hamilton. A new tall building in an urban environment with older lower buildings. Okay in Melbourne, but not okay in Hamilton? Huh?

Good comments. I'm glad to see a quality discussion on intensification taking place ... one that recognizes that this isn't a one-size fits all issue.

I too think tall building have their place in the core, and that there are sites not far from the Tivoli that i could see being appropriate for a mix of tall and mid-rise buildings ... the sea of parking at John and Wilson could eventually turn into something really interesting. We can hope, at least. Anyone noticed the innovative project proposed for the Honest Ed's site in Toronto?

But, yes, Acclamation is a good model for James North ... flexibly applied in terms of exact scale, massing, and design, of course.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-03-30 19:10:18

The other renderings looked nice and we got shite (although I think City Square is a nice looking building).

So the rendering for James St N looks like shite already and should we expect it to look nicer once it's built?

Acclamation is a good model for James North ... flexibly applied in terms of exact scale, massing, and design, of course it's not built yet.

RobF, I finished it for you.

"And, since the Diamantes basically received this site for free, I don't understand the math behind the "22 stories and 106 units are required to make this development worthwhile"."

A few things, so that some mis-information isn't further perpetuated.

1. I believe you'll find it was the Canadian Ballet Youth Ensemble which purchased the property for a $1 from Sam the Record Man after he ran from a crumbling building which he allowed to fall into a state of disrepair.

It could have been purchased by others for $1, but they didn't want the risk.

I know Mrs. Diamante is the CEO of the Ballet, but still for the record it wasn't the "Diamantes" who received the site for "free".

1. The 106 stories over 22 storeys are necessary to fund a business case for the renovation of the theatre, which the Ballet has basically acted as care-keeper for over the past 11 years.

I'm not surprised the author doesn't know the plans for the theatre, because in early March she thought the development plans included it's demolition. The author mis-informed people without a public apology/retraction in this CBC article, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...

That lack of retraction/apology, even acknowledgement of spreading mis-inforamtion, in this article clearly calls into question the author's character and motivations.

Only then the theatre would be demolished...

"As Allie points out, the same would be true if they had acquired the Centre Point strip mall immediately adjacent to the Tivoli property."

If it were for sale. I know a minor point...

"but there would be lots of room in the interior of this lot to rise quite tall with stepbacks."

But that would reduce the number of units making the project financially unfeasible.

It can't move a few metres, there's a 100+ year old theatre in the way.

Agreed. Though, it is NIMBYism...

"I'm not questioning your motives. I agree that we share the same goals. I suspect that we'd agree on our response to most development applications. (For example, I'm sure you'd support the BNA in its opposition to further expansion of the Hamilton General Hospital parking sprawl at Robert and Cathcart!)"

But, it's 17 surface parking spots that are forming your basis for objection.

"The Beume building across the street and the Templar Flats proposal on King William are excellent examples, in my mind, of how mid-rise and even low-rise buildings can achieve density in a downtown core."

Neither of those examples are building around a 100+ year theatre which requires funds for renovation. Also note, Beume sat on that empty lot using it for surface parking for years and part of that development footprint had a building which was demolished due to neglectful ownership. I'm not sure if he owned that building, or not.

Says someone who is commenting anonymously....

I'm sure some in the north end will oppose anything proposed, but for those really looking for the best fit for this location, I wonder if something like this would work if the floor plate was extended back to the theatre, instead of wasting land for a parking stacker?

http://www.to-condominium.com/uploads/3/...

If it were for sale. I know a minor point...

Most things are for sale at the right price. The Diamantes are free to try to buy land on the open market from landowners other than the Canadian Ballet Youth Ensemble.

But that would reduce the number of units making the project financially unfeasible.

No, it wouldn't. The area wasted on a two-storey podium between the tower and the theatre could be put to much better use. Even reversing the position of the podium and the tower would be much better.

You have to be kidding me. Minus the Hampton, hamilton's downtown could be Pyongyang's. Wait, scratch that, that's an insult to Pyongyang! our Downtown is so derelict! I live in a luxury Apartment overlooking the City Square development. It has done no wrong. It has breathed green air into the city. The factor's are leaving, and so should the disbelievers. Condos are part of very complex Pedestrian-orientated atmosphere. We should be working towards this! infact, I'd challenge every single person who has a better idea for the graffiti filled dump that is the current Tivoli. 22 Stories. think about it. Toronto is going to have a 88 Story tower [Mirvish + Gehry]. Who in there right mind would argue with a simple 22 Story tower?

Neither is the Tivoli.

Well I don't speak for others in the North End, but I'm not interested in opposing things for the sake of opposing.

I read the staff report on the Tivoli ... it's pretty damning. For Councillor Farr to basically mow down Jason Thorne and PED is the most troubling aspect of this whole affair.

The focus is entirely on the wrong aspects of the file. This isn't about whether we want intensification and development in the core or West Harbour. Most of us, myself included, do. There are lots of ways to make something work on this parcel, but the current proposal isn't it. Not all proposals are good and not all intensification produces good urbanism. Of course, it's all academic now ... the die has been cast and we'll get to debate the results later.

The big picture is what message did Councillor Farr and his colleagues send to concerned residents, neighbourhood associations, local businesses, and developers?

Basically this is a gift to the property owner. It won't go unnoticed.

I'm curious to see what they come back with now that the podium is going to be 5 stories, and the first setback will be much greater from the street with a 2nd setback halfway up the building. It just might work if it turns out something like this:

http://itc-group.com/sites/itc-group.com...

I tend toward the view that Loren Lieberman expressed on the OShow tonight. This was about enriching the property owner. This is no different than when Wal-Mart buys cheap industrial land and gets it re-zoned for commercial use as a big-box store. Changing the rules of the game on the fly is very profitable. We're all playing by new rules on James North now.

For future reference the photo I have as my twitter background is of this intersection in Melbourne's CBD. I keep it as one of the best examples I've ever experienced of varied massing in an urban context. The building at the foreground (Florsheim Shoes) is 2-3 stories. The buildings directly abutting it are both 3 stories. The buildings next to those are 4 and 6 stories. The next are 8 and 12. And up and up in height and density with the tallest tower located in the centre of the block. If you read the article you'll see this is very similar to the suggestions I provided for the Tivoli site. This image is a good precedent image and should be considered a best practice when introducing increased height and density in a historic low-mid rise context.

No doubt design wise this would be an improvement. Not sure I'm as enamored with "tall" as you are. Densities can be achieved many different ways. The desire to over-intensify particular parcels is driven by a different logic than good design or urbanism. I suppose my ideal city would favor mid-rise scale and form given a choice, with some strategically chosen locations for tall flagship projects (preferably vetted for architectural distinction, which should be a key criteria for needing extra height).

agreed....I attempted to post similar thoughts a few comments up with all the links.
This location isn't suited to a tall building without the corner property to take the brunt of the height.

And don't even get my started on architectural distinction. Drab brown glass manufacturers are going to love the new building boom in Hamilton.

We can dream. I know you are an advocate for good urbanism, and excellence in design and architecture -- among other things.

Incidentally Jason, here's a link to the latest development proposal for the Honest Ed's parcel in Toronto: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...

Not sure if you've seen or heard about this project. A lot of really interesting and innovative ideas. I imagine some day if we're lucky something like this might appear on the sea of surface parking around Wilson and John.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-03-31 23:08:28

What are the odds that this thing actually gets built?

This, as with the Connolly project, is one of the most worrying aspects.

There is a very good chance that the project will never get built, but rather the land will be flipped after several years at a big profit to another developer along with the increased height zoning (from 6 to 22 stories). Clearly the huge increase in height has greatly increased the value of the land.

I hope that the increased height zoning is only for this current site plan, not any future project, and that the zoning would revert to 6 stories if the land is sold. It would be helpful if someone from the City could confirm this.

And, as with the Connolly, if the current project does not go ahead it would be argued that it was the "heritage preservation" part that made the project uneconomical and so the new owners could very well end up getting the 22 stories without having to preserve what remains of the Tivoli (which was the original argument for increased height in the first place).

And, as others have pointed out, even in the current 22 stories + Tivoli arrangement there are much better ways to mass the development (i.e. with an actual set back!) to better integrate with the street.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-04-01 09:12:25

yes. I've been following that project. You are so right. Our empty parking lot district has so much potential. We don't even need to keep all through streets. Imagine that entire parcel of land as a blank slate. I'd love to see something like the Honest Ed's proposal, combined with a version of Portland's 'park blocks'.

For those not familiar, the Park Blocks are exactly as they sound. Several blocks in downtown Portland - one section in the north side of downtown, one in the south side, that were converted to linear parks.

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonian/ph...

They are narrow, yet house open passive lawns in the sun, walking paths, benches, kids playgrounds, sculptures and a strong focal point of large growth trees that line the central walking pathway.

http://avedapdx.com/images/CampusLife/pa...

http://culturaloregon.com/portland-art/

Imagine adding a linear park like this through the centre of our parking district with future development framing either side of it?

Potential exists for others such as along Caroline St from York to Bayfront Park as part of the Barton/Tiffany redevelopment district.

Also, I'd love to see Jackson Street closed, torn up and converted to a linear park from John to City Hall, with all parking at city hall put underground to create a massive urban park framed by MacNab, Hunter, Bay, Main.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-04-01 10:04:51

I like the Park Blocks idea.

I vaguely recall seeing panels in Central Library a few years ago that detail green ribbons or linear parks somewhere in the core, but i don't remember the specific plan or project.

And yes, the planned green corridor on Caroline in the Barton-Tiffany Urban Design Concept is excellent.

The James North GO Mobility Hub Study also includes a greenway corridor on Strachan from Bayfront thru to the Keith and beyond eastward ... the open space corridor is already in place thru the North End, what is needed is political will and resources to implement it. And for people to ensure that other projects don't happen in its path that would later complicate or thwart it. It is supposed to link with plans for Ferguson, which you've mentioned before.

Then the Tivoli is step one. Or, is a small creep to that density preferred? The result is the same.

Let's lay it out. Less than a month ago you were quoted by the CBC that you opposed the development as the theatre was to be torn down.

Obviously, you had little understanding of the project a month ago, but opposed it no matter what. I see the theatre tear down objection has morphed into "Governance". If you want to know, ask the developer...

I don't like objection based on not knowing. It's pretty simple, just ask.

"fmurray" - psoliverio.

Happy?

yes, these are important links and potential additions to the city-scape. We need to start lining these areas, and all streets with large growth trees.

It's really amazing how small Hamilton's tree canopy is in the urban areas.

Agree on the importance of the tree canopy and green space in the literal sense. But I was also thinking about the role of some of these corridors as dedicated multi-use pathways ... as vital connective tissue for so-called alternative transportation across the City. Caroline street and the Strachan greenway/corridor double as these in plans now on the books at City Hall.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-04-01 11:33:36

totally. Any green ribbon, linear park should have that feature for mobility.
We can do it here, but the will at city hall is so weak. You can imagine their eyes glazing over if someone proposed a city-connecting network of greenways that would connect seamlessly to our rail trails, waterfront trails and escarpment trails. Most cities would kill for such opportunity. Here we're happy to build parking lots at trail-heads and force everyone to drive to them.

"Most things are for sale at the right price."

That is a naive point-of-view and very easy to say when you don't know the owner of that property Here's a challenge, go and ask the owner of that building how much they'll sell for...

Yes, I've noticed the lack of will/interest on council for this sort of stuff ... perhaps, with the exception of a couple of councilors, one of whom is no longer on council.

Another concept for massing that doesn't overwhelm the street, protects sunlight on the sidewalk and is much less intrusive than a straight slab of 22-stories would be something like this:

http://www.mybesthome.com/gallery/nSal00...

I'm not suggesting this _should_ be done, only that if it _were_ done it would completely change the impact of the tower on how James North and Hughson each function (or don't) as public spaces. As this article points out, there is already enough room on the site itself to accomodate both the theatre and a more suitable setback.

Are you sure we are looking at the same proposal? The lot depth is around 45 meters from the sidewalk to the theatre building --- only half of which would be taken up by the actual tower proposed in the plan above. So the tower could be moved back at least 20 meters without affecting the theatre building at all. That would have a huge impact on how the tower was percieved from the sidewalk.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2015-04-01 14:48:16

I think we're a long way from shovels in the ground on this thing and many others. There are a fair few proposed condo developments in downtown Hamilton and while there seems to be quite a bit of demand for condos in the city I wonder what the ceiling is. Many of these projects are far bigger than anything that's built in this city for 30 years.

I can't imagine that all of these plans go through at their proposed scales. I'm prepared for many of them to stall indefinitely. I would have more confidence if I saw more job growth in the core to help support all these residential units or perhaps these developers are counting on baby boomers looking to downsize.

In any case, you raise good questions about the legacy of these zoning amendments on future developers and developments.

Lol, neither of those examples show a 20-story condo extending from the top of one of the buildings, which is why they work.

Also, matching the building next door is not necessarily something to aspire to, since it is one of the few buildings on that street with a big glass facade. The building across the road is new but has orange brick that matches the historic buildings.

I think The Tivoli has the best chance for actually being built. I think Atrizen, The Connolly and Acclamation are all longer shots, and in that order.

It's my believe (without first-hand knowledge) the Diamantes have an emotional attachment to seeing the development succeed. I think their work with a permanent home for the Youth Ballet provides the drive to get the project completed. Also, I saw a media tweet yesterday from the PC Meeting yesterday that said that financing was apparently already in place for the development.

With regards to the following, "i.e. with an actual set back!" I think you'll find the theatre prevents more of a set back from taking place.

I sincerely hope that's true. Farr's proposed compromise included a larger set back ... but I couldn't find out how much it was increased.

The CBC article stated the following:

"Allison Chewter, co-chair of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association's planning and development subcommittee, wanted a deferral too. The association believes the tower is incompatible with the neighbourhood, she said. It also doesn't like that the project adds more surface parking and doesn't include plans to incorporate the historic theatre."

I never said that the proposal included tearing down the theatre. I simply mentioned that in the plans submitted by the developer there seemed to be little information regarding the actually restoration of the theatre and as such we as a neighbourhood association had fears that it would be found structurally unstable and potentially be removed. Following the interview with CBC I spent over an hour talking to the architect and planning consultant getting more information about the project. When the article was released I noticed the lack of clarity and potential for confusion in the above section, which was paraphrased by the CBC, and was in again in contact with the architect, planner and developer to explain the context of my statements. I apologized and they accepted my apology.

I'm curious: have you read the City Planner's report? Or the applicant's Urban Design Brief? Planning Justification Report? Heritage Impact Assessment? Or the City's Peer Review of the proposal? Our objections and concerns are not based in ignorance but in the realities of the proposal, good planning practice, and our past experience with developers in Hamilton.

That's a beautifully designed building.

Yes, thanks!

It is, but it requires a significantly larger footprint and is a more costly design.

same concept can be applied on any footprint. And remember, there is a large footprint in front of the Tivoli. They are simply choosing to waste half of it on a parking structure.

You call it a waste but parking is a city and logistical requirement. I assume with above ground parking they're not going below grade much at all. This saves the developer millions and no doubt is what makes the project feasible. Developers want to make their buildings as beautiful as possible, it means they can sell units for more, but it has to be balanced with the bottom line. Neither they, nor the banks lending to them, have any desire to lose money.

Comment edited by Dylan on 2015-04-02 07:31:09

We do not have a parking deficit here. Wtf is wrong with council? They are incapable of planning ahead with transit but their vision is razor sharp when preparing for future road and parking demand... how about instead of forcing developers to build car elevators, we get started on transit. We could put in a bus lane to start.... oh wait

This is parking for residents, not the public. Providing parking for condo owners is a requirement in all municipalities. And why would a developer limit their sales market by telling potential buyers that there is plenty of parking downtown, they just need to walk a couple blocks to their car every day?

"Providing parking for condo owners is a requirement in all municipalities." Nope, just backwards municipalities.

thestar.com/business/real_estate/2015/03/16/condo-buyers-in-enormous-shift-saying-no-thanks-to-parking.html

Well they still do in Toronto, a city whose downtown is less car dependent than Hamilton's.

Even if it was not a municipal requirement A certain percentage of prospective condo owners want on site parking. Not offering it could hurt sales and jeopardize the project as a whole. Objecting to a building offering parking in its design is just silly in my opinion.

I'm objecting to them wasting land for their parking. Put it underground like every proper development in every city on the planet.

I think the point is if the city let the developers choose the amount of parking to include as part of their business plan, they would not waste as much land on parking.

I don't like the land being used for parking either, but going underground a couple of levels means millions more in construction costs. The profit margins on these developments are not so great that the city could mandate such a thing without jeopardizing the feasibility of the project as a whole. Unless of course they allow them to build taller, but that's obviously also a point of contention.

They do in a way. The City allowed for The Connolly to have fewer than 50% parking. I believe that was a first and is a hopeful sign for the future.

But the bylaw still has the ridiculous parking requirements so every project needs to go through a whole appeal process, and there are cash fees in lieu of parking and other idiocies that need to be corrected. Some applications trigger parking requirements that would require more square footage than the building that actually houses the business... it's not physically possible for a real city to be built that way. The bylaws need to change NOW.

How do you not understand the math? It costs 5 million just to restore the theatre ALONE!

It's my understanding that the theatre restoration is to be funded separately through non-profit fundraising.

"doesn't include plans to incorporate the historic theatre."

- But it did than and does now. So how informed were you on the project, before stating your opposition?

"Our objections and concerns are not based in ignorance"

- How many meetings have you had with the developer, prior to your published objections? Clearly you've had little knowledge with the finer details of the developer's plans. That ='s ignorance.

"our past experience with developers in Hamilton."

- That explains a lot, you view all developers as the same. Very telling.

"I apologized and they accepted my apology."

- Great, but you could have (should have) issued a public clarification. It took my pushing for you to do that here.

Anyways, I'm glad that the project is moving forward and I'm sure that a successful project will contribute positively to our city. All the best.

The building across the street has large 21st century orange blocks, not bricks of the 20th century type. I wish they spent a little more on labour at put in actual bricks. It would have looked even better.

To me it looks like a nonstandard brick size, which I think actually makes it appear older. Just my impression though, not sure if that makes any actual sense.

I hate set-backs. There is an opportunity to build something that looks like it came out of Amsterdam. Funky, tall and skinny.

This is not going to be an imposing building like some NIMBYs are making it out to be. First 22-stories isn't that tall, it's a normal tall like Hamilton's 70s stock of high rises and secondly it's a relatively small footprint...it will take a pedestrian 30 seconds to walk past it.

The project is up and about to be running and the council has approved it. Go Hamilton Go! I say build it higher and more of them. All you nay sayers have nothing better than to be pessimistic about the growth of this city by small infractions or whatever you want to call it. Tell ya what, go buy a shack down by the water and stay off the internet and youre life will be great, just as ours will be with growth and economic development bringing this city on the map.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...

some credit to the above