Hamilton Wilson at Academy | 30.6m | 8s | Spallacci | srm Architects

You can snicker at Ancasterites, but this thing looks like Bombay Beach, Salton Sea detritis compunded together like the male and female angler fish with nuclear fission fallout.
 
Pulkvedis Pods said:
You can snicker at Ancasterites, but this thing looks like Bombay Beach, Salton Sea detritis compunded together like the male and female angler fish with nuclear fission fallout.
Click to expand...
If the only complaint was that it's ugly, I'd support their comments. Ya it's kind of hideous, but massing, height and density is all completely acceptable in my mind.
 
Chris R. said:
If the only complaint was that it's ugly, I'd support their comments. Ya it's kind of hideous, but massing, height and density is all completely acceptable in my mind.
Click to expand...
But some of the other compaints nevertheless are valid, too. I concur with those who say it is out of scale. Density can be achieved with classical village buildings too. This type of residential is detrimental to the area, much like those King Street boxes in Dundas. Depressing. And this assault on the eyes will achieve nothing better in Ancaster Village.
 
Pulkvedis Pods said:
But some of the other compaints nevertheless are valid, too. I concur with those who say it is out of scale. Density can be achieved with classical village buildings too. This type of residential is detrimental to the area, much like those King Street boxes in Dundas. Depressing. And this assault on the eyes will achieve nothing better in Ancaster Village.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. Again, aesthetics aside, the density is fine.

1) I agree that "classical village buildings" would look better, but until Ontario allows regulation based on aesthetics, it's a moot point.

2) We continue to be in a housing crisis, we can't really afford to be picky.

3) In reality, without amalgamating, Ancaster would likely be insolvent without this kind of redevelopment, it's only fair that Ancaster take some of the demand of mid density housing. Ancaster doesn't get to be an exclusive community of low-rise mansions. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure they don't get that, that's not the Canada I want to live in where the haves get to live in some suburb with no "undesirables" or land uses that they just have personal issues with. You don't get to dictate what others do with their private property like that. I agree that there have to be limits, but the limits have been overly restrictive to now. And until we have mass rezoning to allow low rise apartments in "established neighbourhoods" Central districts and more urban areas will take the majority of the demand.

Places like Europe, Japan, certain US cities and places like Edmonton can limit density like this because they allow true apartments on previously or never planned single detached land.
 
Chris R. said:
I don't agree. Again, aesthetics aside, the density is fine.

1) I agree that "classical village buildings" would look better, but until Ontario allows regulation based on aesthetics, it's a moot point.

2) We continue to be in a housing crisis, we can't really afford to be picky.

3) In reality, without amalgamating, Ancaster would likely be insolvent without this kind of redevelopment, it's only fair that Ancaster take some of the demand of mid density housing. Ancaster doesn't get to be an exclusive community of low-rise mansions. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure they don't get that, that's not the Canada I want to live in where the haves get to live in some suburb with no "undesirables" or land uses that they just have personal issues with. You don't get to dictate what others do with their private property like that. I agree that there have to be limits, but the limits have been overly restrictive to now. And until we have mass rezoning to allow low rise apartments in "established neighbourhoods" Central districts and more urban areas will take the majority of the demand.

Places like Europe, Japan, certain US cities and places like Edmonton can limit density like this because they allow true apartments on previously or never planned single detached land.
Click to expand...
Well you didn't really make a convincing argument, and especially point 2 would readily lead (and this goes for life, choices and any processes of many kinds) to Haste makes waste. Offering ugly schlock has cost society much more in terms of mental health, environmental damage, etc.
What is the term for it, but nonetheless, I certainly WAS NOT arguing for low density yucky mansions. I'm a democrat as far as housing goes. I'm for the missing middle, I'm FOR as Strong Towns and other likeminded people advocate classic architecture, transit-possible, walkable build up and out. This submission is too big, too ugly, too destructive.
Ancaster would be no worse off if it were separate (I wasn't around these parts in 2000) because how could you argue that Hamilton governance is a penny more competent or transparent than whatever Ancaster may have had in the past?
 
Does it even have OLT dates, would be nice to get it settled once and for all, this one and the one at Wilson and Rousseaux
 
Pulkvedis Pods said:
Offering ugly schlock has cost society much more in terms of mental health, environmental damage, etc.
Click to expand...
I think the lack of housing has probably cost society more.


This could be alright. The modern floating corner bit is quite jarring to my eyes but at least they made an attempt with the stone. Mind you if this is just precast "stone" it'll be quite ugly and cheap looking. I think the density could be an issue if they aim for 1:1 parking and I'm not entirely sure what the transit situation is like here.
 
Not to say I oppose it entirely, but the main planning issue I’m seeing with the proposal is how out-of-scale this is. It’s so out of whack with what’s ever remotely been allowed or approved, that this what-appears-moderate density is really quite aggressive. Particularly the lack of stepbacks, which would do plenty. On the part of the developer, not sure how much they’re hoping to achieve with such a zoning envelope out the gate. It would be a bit of a silly density precedent for an area with overall mediocre transit and low road capacity.
 
1772575031724.png

AI generated image of what fits on a .77 Hectare lot. This is close to what I'm thinking.
 
Certainly no worse than what is currently planned for this site. And it's not too far off in terms of lot size, Granted not entirely accurate. But you could be less snide.
 
That's also like optimistically 25 units compared to 169 in the real proposal..

also - 0.77 acres is 33,000sf. That little rendering AI shot out of it's proverbial a** is ~25 ground related units plus a public square and parking lot.. that leaves only 1,300sf of ground area per unit even ignoring the public square and parking lot.. A development like that would likely be looking at around 5-6 acres to accommodate. Just the parking lot alone is going to be about half of the 0.77 acre allocation - the rule of thumb for parking lots is around 100 spaces an acre and that looks like around a ~30 space parking lot..

Lets leave the planning to the actual architects and not AI.
 
Oh, yeah. If by "real architects" you mean the people who designed 90%+ of the buildings in the lower city, then I suggest you reevaluate that sentiment...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top