Raise the Hammer

Hamilton planners do not balk at the thought of doubling the Downtown density. It's just not reasonable to arbitrarily adopt that target.
There are some restricting factors such as underground rivers which prevent you from digging a foundation deep enough to support a high enough building. That's why the Crown Plaza, formerly Ramada, has above ground parking. That's why Hi-Rise-Liuna had difficulty committing to the size of the proposed seniors' residences next to Lister.
You also must consider the proximity of mature residential areas, whose inhabitants need to be engaged in the discussion of how big the elephant living next door will be. Downtown Toronto is at the 400/ha level and having lived and worked there, wouldn't propose it for Hamilton, certainly not in the form it has taken. We can make in Hamilton our own solution and the density should not be pre-determined. This constant harangue against everything we do has to rise above blog-rant. The big problem is that sprawl was approved because of pressure from developers, and the tax-subsidies to support it along with the loss of industrial and commecial assessment has compromised our financial maneuverability. Having said that, there are some forward thinking people on the planning staff and council who shouldn't be constantly plinked at like targets at a carnival shooting gallery.

Hey Bob and Ryan,

There is very easy and ample opportunity to increase Hamilton's core density and we should be striving to do it as soon as possible. A few well-placed 'towers' would be nice and acceptable on locations that can house such buildings. Otherwise, let's look to Brooklyn and Paris as a model to follow for the rest of our density increases. Brooklyn is more dense than Toronto with very few towers. Most of the city is brownstone walkups and 3-6 storey streetscapes with shops on the bottom and apartments above. We could add tens of thousands of new residents downtown simply by building these sorts of projects on all the empty lots and parking lots. There's no need to go several stories underground for a 5 or 6 storey building.

Find out which sites can handle large towers and zone them appropriately. Otherwise, let's stick to a Brooklyn-style of development that will not only increase the density, shopping opportunities and residents, but will also rebuild streetscapes and comfortable walking connections between downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods such as Corktown, Durand, Central and Beasley. There's wonderful housing stock and residential neighbourhoods in the Catharine North area, north of Wilson. Yet look at the horrendous walk one of those residents has to get down to King St. Rebuild those streetscapes and suddenly we're connecting our downtown neighbourhoods again.

Cheers

Jason, when the city removes its zoning restrictions you're going to be amazed at what the free market will do for Hamilton.

While I agree that we can work on increasing the density in the core, I truly believe we need to be a bit more intentional in how we do this. Particularly I think it is important that planners make a concerted effort to build buildings that are family-friendly. We have an overabundance of one and two bedroom units. I would like to see more three or four bedroom units for families. There is so much downtown to offer to young families and if more young families move into the core I believe that the downtown businesses would benefit.
I like Jason's idea of keeping the Brooklyn style of development focusing on 5-6 story buildings rather than the monstrosities that are being pushed in Toronto.

ASmith....would removing restrictions give us the same fabulous results we've seen on Wall St recently?? Lol.

Jason, when the city gives the market freedom to grow we will see more of everything. More high rises, more mid rise buildings and more single family homes. Over time, increased population will dictate that development goes up rather than out, allowing mass transit to become economically viable, even without government subsidies.

Bob,

Have planners look at what the density would be if we built four story buildings, to the curb, on all the land that is now surface parking. I think you'll find it's a very reasonable target.

Has anybody bothered to ask if there actually is demand among the public to live in high dense areas? Downtown Hamilton is currently pretty dense and the place has been declining for decades as people move to more less dense areas. What makes you folks think that people are interested in high-density living in Hamilton? As much as Jason and Ryan would like to, you can't force the public to live someplace they don't want to.

Wiccan, you must be new here. Why would Ryan and the crew actually take into account what people want? He knows what is best and that is what we should aim for. Do you hear people saying that they WANT to live in a Brooklyn style neighbourhood? Does not matter, Ryan and others like him have decided that is what is best, therefore that is the way Hamilton must evolve. Just ignore the fact that most people actually want their own house. Given a choice who would want to raise kids in a high density sea of brownstones compared to the classic house with the white picket fence in the burbs? Why would anybody with little kids want the bother of their own backyard? As soon as people stop buying new houses developers will stop building them, just look around it certainly has slowed down in this economic climate.

The constant refrain of cram them in downtown and then give them high speed rail will soon dull your senses.

Ryan, if living downtown is what people wanted then they would move there of their own volition. The downtown core would be a busy, thriving, growing neighbourhood. Instead we have a place most people are trying to avoid. That is not my prejudice it is what people are doing. I think you are the one who is letting their prejudices cloud their reasoning. If you are living downtown and like it then enjoy it just realize that you are in the minority and stop trying to force your values on the rest of the world. Sure there are good things about living downtown but it is not something that appeals to the vast majority of people. You have a very strong sense of what the world should be like. The one thing that is missing from most of your ideals is reality. It is not hard to figure out what people want. Where do people strive to live? Where do they want to shop? It sure is not downtown.

You have on several occasions mentioned subsidies for roads and now for houses. Where does all this money come from? Where does the city, any city, get there money? Where do the provincial and federal governments get their money? Could it possibly from all those motorists paying huge amounts of taxes when they buy a car, gas and repairs? I do not agree with all the money that the U.S. and Canadian Governments are putting into the Detroit three but that is why, the car industry is a huge contributor to our economy. How heavily subsidized are those amenities you say you enjoy, the library, the churches and the pools? It is the people in Ancaster paying huge property taxes that pay for a lot of your amenities. Have you not heard their complaints about exactly this?

It is obvious by reading your posts that you are an educated and intelligent man, if we could only give you a little dose of reality.

Ryan >> when society changes the balance of incentives and disincentives, people adjust their decisions accordingly

From 1975 to the end of 2008, home prices, adjusted for inflation, went up approximately 1% per year. Assuming that these figures are roughly the same for Canada, this means that living in Hamilton, with tax rates at 1.6%, a property owner faces a real dollar net loss of .6% of the biggest asset in their portfolio every year because of taxes. If you live in Toronto, you actually make money in real dollar terms by owning a property, gaining about .15% every year in increased net worth.

Is it any wonder that the housing stock in Hamilton is less cared for and more run down than in Toronto and other jurisdictions that have lower tax rates? Why would anyone invest in a home, if by doing so, you end up with a higher net loss on the deal? If the city was smart, it would realize that people do indeed adjust their behaviour based on incentives and disincentives and they would cut rates to less than 1%. By doing this, the city would make owning and investing in housing a winning proposition, not only for the homeowner, but also for the city's tax coffers.

Ryan >> when society changes the balance of incentives and disincentives, people adjust their decisions accordingly

I think this also applies to our elected officials. If we want them to do a good job for us and make wise decisions, we need to pay them accordingly. I like the idea of tying their compensation to property values, perhaps a percentage of the increase in home prices as judged against the national or provincial average. That way, if the homeowners of Hamilton saw their net worth climb faster than the average, our local politicians would deserve to share in that added prosperity. If property values grew more slowly then the average, they would simply collect their base salary.

It seems we all want prime rib political decisions making, but at ground beef compensation. If we were willing to share the wealth from increased property values, I think both the residents of Hamilton and the politicians would be far better off.

despite all the massive government money given to sprawl development over the past several decades, it's interesting to note that Hamilton's downtown had one of the highest growth rates in the entire urbanized city over the past 10 years. In many locales from Charlton/James to Inchbury/York to Dundurn/Aberdeen to BaySt North, house prices have gone from $100,000/$175,000 up to $275,000/$400,000. It seems that even with massive incentives directing people out of the city, folks are rediscovering it, paying more for it, and loving the heart of the city.