Raise the Hammer

A small patio café in front of 149 Main St West would fit nicely except for one "minor" issue. Who would want to sit at an outdoor café beside a 5 lane expressway?

I hate those townhouses on Young St. Trying to blend LA Modern with the local Georgian vernacular.

Bang-on. There's some 'sore thumb' infill in our neighbourhood too that has resulted from this. While the infill is good, the setbacks compared to existing buildings are just laughably out of place. Optimistic these rules are going to be changed by PED.

I like them. I have long thought that there's so many opportunities for such infill all around this city. Here's my favourite candidate: Isaac Brock Rd.

That excessive width (space for 5+ lanes!) is almost North Korea-like in its barrenness. What do you think the cost per resident is for all that pavement? You could fit a whole row of these in there after cutting it down to a reasonable size.

Comment edited by higgicd on 2015-11-06 16:29:12

North Korea-like in its barrenness

Perhaps, except the locals will probably fight you tooth-and-nail if you try to change it. Not a planning problem at this point, but a political one.

The NIMBY story is not a new one, and until people pay the real costs for things they will have less incentive to change.

I look forward to seeing what PED comes up with in terms of zoning by-law reform. I don't envy them. Assessing the possible impacts of zoning-bylaw changes is notoriously difficult. You solve one problem and create two new ones.

Really the problem is with zoning in the first place. It arose out of nuisance bylaws and has always been a blunt instrument that privileges technical as opposed to substantive planning. Zoning for the most part is still based on the legal framework developed a 100 years ago to protect residential districts from the intrusion of "incompatible" uses. The problem is we now understand that greater flexibility is needed to address contextual factors, and that aesthetics and design criteria are vital to outcomes, but don't mesh well with prescriptive and uniform rules. We actually have to let planners, architects, and urban design professionals use their expertise creatively. Current zoning and other building regulations work against that. Except for a very talented few, most simply become interpreters of rules.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-11-06 17:57:59

When you get down to it everyone is NIMBY. The label is not overly helpful and is over-used, IMHO.

I wouldn't advise laying things out in the manner that Issac Brock Dr is, and personally having grown up in a similar like environment I have different preferences ... I'm well aware of the shortcomings.

But the basic tension is harder. How would you impose intensification? You're not going to bull-doze the entire subdivision urban renewal style, even if blowing up the suburbs is many an architect-planner's wet-dream. More modestly, in some old, inner-ring suburban places I know on the westcoast land is scarce and valuable enough for economic self interest to push individual homeowners to cash out if they live on frontages way out of whack with the now urbanized "suburb" around them. That doesn't work in a context where land as you say is plentiful.

There's a reason that most intensification pressure in Hamilton is focused on spaces that are already fairly dense. The type of people, including myself, that want to live in more compact, denser neighbourhoods aren't looking to live in a compact house or townhouse off Mud Street.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-11-06 17:54:05

I don't know when the last time you've been up to mud street is, but there's a ton of new townhouses. And so long as the greenbelt continues to exist, land will not be plentiful and there will be demand for intensification. As for retrofitting the suburbs, history is rife with planning decisions overriding the feelings of local residents, both bad and good. Furthermore, in my experience, your assertion that everyone is a NIMBY isn't true at all.

For reference, I am also referring to the potential for the city to convert some of its ROW on the left side of the image into townhouses, not having owners on the right sell frontage.

Most planning decisions override the feelings of local residents. That is often necessary as individual interest often does not align with collective interest and something has to give. That's almost a given.

How much ROW is available for infill in the photo? ... I see excessive space, but not enough to build townhouses without encroaching on the adjacent properties. I'm not contesting whether suburban retrofits are possible ... anything is possible if the resources and political will exists to do it.

I suppose the townhouse comment was editorializing. I know they have townhouses in that area. I'm also well aware that suburban housing in the GTHA and Metro Vancouver is getting more compact and denser for several reasons. I wouldn't describe the overall neighbourhood form as compact or dense, however. All things being equal i'd prefer to live in a compact, denser neighbourhood in the lower city. I can't picture being able to be a one or no car household off Mud Street. That is quite possible in many parts of the lower-city.

What I meant by "when you get down to it everyone is NIMBY" was very specific. We all don't want certain things in our backyards, out our windows, or next to our balconies. More than that we all view what happens nearest to us with greater scrutiny.

In my view the term NIMBY is often used to shutdown open and frank discussion. I favour intensification if it enhances my neighbourhood. I've had to defend that position in front of an unfriendly audience of neighbours. But that support is not unconditional or abstract. It must include a discussion about how much, in what form, and with what impact ... and for whom will that impact be felt most.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-11-06 22:44:06

Zoning bylaws are legally enforceable. Hamilton's existing comprehensive zoning bylaw may contain regulations that we find less and less helpful where urbanism is concerned, but zoning itself remains the linchpin of Ontario's planning framework ... it is the primary means thru which you implement your official plan. And every square-inch of Hamilton is zoned. Want to do something not permitted by the zoning, you need either a minor variance or zoning bylaw amendment.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-11-07 23:10:11

Personally I think the variance should be needed to do something that doesn't quite fit the neighbourhood. The defacto code should call for new developments built to the existing streetwall. If someone wants to push their project back from the existing built form they should need to apply for variances and make their case.

Here it's opposite. The building code mandates buildings be way back from the sidewalk like those gross semi-townhomes.
They would have to spend $ and waste time to ask permission to simply build in line with the neighbourhood.
Completely backwards.