Hamilton 310 Frances Avenue | ?m | 44s | New Horizon | Graziani + Corazza

innsertnamehere

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
19,309
Reaction score
22,642
Here's a real fun one.


59 Floors in Hamilton in some suburban hellscape - on as of right zoning! someone at the city let some site specific by-law slip with no maximum densities or heights.. which means New Horizon has shot for the fences with a nice little SPA application for over 1,800 units..

The as of right zoning by-law for your reading pleasure is here: http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7EBF8CB6-BDA5-492B-8B1B-886AECC1D6D6/0/10027.pdf

Dy6uL-qXgAIsTF5.jpg
 
Last edited:
I love this. It's shooting a big huge hole in our terrible height limit (30 storeys). Can't wait for the push-back on these from the local NIMBYs. Not the greatest design but this is just too perfect.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
I love this. It's shooting a big huge hole in our terrible height limit (30 storeys). Can't wait for the push-back on these from the local NIMBYs. Not the greatest design but this is just too perfect.
Click to expand...
The best part is that the NIMBY's can do literally nothing. The city has a legal obligation to process the SPA Application and issue permits. Presuming of course that New Horizon can actually sell enough units here at a price per square foot high enough to finance a 59 storey building.
 
Oh this is going to be good! I've got my popcorn ready to watch the amount of fireworks that will be going off with this one. Can anyone bring some lawn chairs along as well? My hands will be full with the buckets of popcorn.

In all honestly though, this proposal wont even get to half of the propsed height limits just based on where this is located (ie: the demand will be sorely lacking).
 
Yes, let's cheer on this utter crap all just to stick it to those NIMBY's. /s

Yes, Hamilton needs more density. No, it doesn't need this form of density with such an utter lack of architectural though.

But by all means, go on supporting the exact type of crappy, profiteering, give-nothing-back "urbanism" that creates NIMBY's in the first place. Why anyone with any sort of planning know-how would suggest that this is the right type of housing typology or density is beyond me. You could certainly get a job working for this developer though!
 
.dwg said:
Yes, let's cheer on this utter crap all just to stick it to those NIMBY's. /s

Yes, Hamilton needs more density. No, it doesn't need this form of density with such an utter lack of architectural though.

But by all means, go on supporting the exact type of crappy, profiteering, give-nothing-back "urbanism" that creates NIMBY's in the first place. Why anyone with any sort of planning know-how would suggest that this is the right type of housing typology or density is beyond me. You could certainly get a job working for this developer though!
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly disagree that Hamilton doesn't need "this form" of density. We could benefit greatly from more high-rises. I do hope the architecture is improved, though.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
Wholeheartedly disagree that Hamilton doesn't need "this form" of density. We could benefit greatly from more high-rises. I do hope the architecture is improved, though.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with you when it comes to density in this area but not this much. They'll probably knock off 20 storeys on each tower before they approve it. Making the tallest building roughly forty storeys. Which is a little more than twice the size of the condos that are beside it.
 
cd concept said:
I kind of agree with you when it comes to density in this area but not this much. They'll probably knock off 20 storeys on each tower before they approve it. Making the tallest building roughly forty storeys. Which is a little more than twice the size of the condos that are beside it.
Click to expand...

It is an odd location for such high density, but not the worst location. New Horizon clearly believes there's a market since they're planning these. However, they already have zoning for unlimited height and density so I don't see how they'd be shot down in height.

If these were proposed in say, the Downtown, our planning department would be hell-bent on downsizing them all to 30 storeys, because god forbid anything ever be built higher than the escarpment. :rolleyes:
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
It is an odd location for such high density, but not the worst location. New Horizon clearly believes there's a market since they're planning these. However, they already have zoning for unlimited height and density so I don't see how they'd be shot down in height.
Click to expand...
I was wondering if the residence in that location have any rights to say what's getting built beside them.
 
This is beyond stupid development. It's in the middle of nowhere with poor local transit. 1800 units is subway density. The heinous design is fitting. Hopefully, people aren't stupid enough to buy here should the developer have found a loophole.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
It is an odd location for such high density, but not the worst location. New Horizon clearly believes there's a market since they're planning these. However, they already have zoning for unlimited height and density so I don't see how they'd be shot down in height.

If these were proposed in say, the Downtown, our planning department would be hell-bent on downsizing them all to 30 storeys, because god forbid anything ever be built higher than the escarpment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The escarpment is a defining natural landmark of Hamilton. I agree with planners. This is higher order stuff to protect views from 60 storey KirKor, G+C garbage blocking the views.
 
There seems to be this pervasive idea - even among planners, who often are not taught various housing typologies - that our only available housing typologies are the following:
- detached house or townhouse
- midrise with corridor access
- point towers with corridor access, on podiums

The idea that for the sake of densifying cities, our only choice is to accept crappy developments like this, is false. It's creating a false dichotomy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top