Hamilton 58 York Boulevard | 94.59m | 28s | Belmont | srm Architects

[Chronamut]

This most likely won't get built "as is" due to the concerns brought up over developing the building next door - not in line with the historical character of the surroundings, risk of damaging the foundations of the historical structures around it with vibrations during construction.

They'd most likely request a podium redesign to have it be more in line with the surrounding buildings a la core urban design or something.

 

[Chris R.]

This most likely won't get built "as is" due to the concerns brought up over developing the building next door - not in line with the historical character of the surroundings, risk of damaging the foundations of the historical structures around it with vibrations during construction.

They'd most likely request a podium redesign to have it be more in line with the surrounding buildings a la core urban design or something.

They did provide some podium options that included brick, but I'm doubtful they'd suggest a heritage facade treatment. Usually the DRP nor the city doesn't want actual heritage facade with newer old architecture style as it detracts from the actually historic building. I suspect the DRP will suggest putting units facing the street, perhaps a smaller lobby and more retail. We'll have to see though.

 

[Chronamut]

They did provide some podium options that included brick, but I'm doubtful they'd suggest a heritage facade treatment. Usually the DRP nor the city doesn't want actual heritage facade with newer old architecture style as it detracts from the actually historic building. I suspect the DRP will suggest putting units facing the street, perhaps a smaller lobby and more retail. We'll have to see though.

Yeah should be interesting to see how this one goes - even if the podium had some faux stone facade to kinda keep it in line with the church next door would be cool.

I mean one can argue the church's stone facade is "historical" now that I believe a century has passed since it was added I suppose..

 

[LocalCPT]

I think this a good proposal for the area. Would love to see the height increased considering how central it is and the surrounding amenities, but know that won't happen unfortunately. Aside from that, the only strange thing is that its right next to GS Dunn which is a mustard mill and often has a very strong smell to it which could ward away potential buyers or tenants.

 

[BrenWilson]

Yeah the podium is bad, I echo Chris' statements. More commercial and a smaller lobby, increase bike parking to 1:1 and reduce the car parking, hopefully the podium options were better looking.

 

[Undead]

One of the biggest issues with the supply side of housing issues is the time to approve. These types of developments should be approved in a couple weeks or months like you say. Many are very similar, and the rules should be clear. If you do that it would vastly reduce the cost to build housing and the speed and elasticity of the housing market which would provide a much more agile process that can better adjust to housing demand.

I believe there's a significant amount of units approved across the region, but developers sit on them because of market conditions or not enough labor.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I believe there's a significant amount of units approved across the region, but developers sit on them because of market conditions or not enough labor.

Approved is a very different thing than zoned. Zoned is not approved at all despite what municipalities like to claim.

The entire downtown of Hamilton is already pre zoned for 30 storeys, including this site. In that sense, this development is “approved” already.

The site plan approval process is what takes another 1-2 years atop zoning and is what is really “approved”.

 

[Chris R.]

I believe there's a significant amount of units approved across the region, but developers sit on them because of market conditions or not enough labor.

Sure, but many others would love to get started but are stuck wading through years of bureaucracy.

1) Just because some developers get approval then don't do anything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to speed up the process for those who want to build.

2) We could institute fines, taxes or increase existing ones for developers who sit on property that is zoned or has site plan approval but choose to do nothing. If a developer gets a zoning amendment for example they shouldn't be able to just flip the property to another developer, it should revert to the prior zoning after a period of time.

By taxing, or fining the things we don't want (vacant land on prime economic real estate **coughwilsonblacnhardcouch**) and approving quickly and supporting things we want like housing starts, increased property tax, more efficient use of existing infrastructure assets, increased active transportation residents, increased economic activity from additional residents with disposable income, employers seeking employees, additional commercial space, we can get housing built, impact the housing crisis, bring economic vitality to the city, and bring in tax revenue to support those who cannot support themselves.

What Hamilton instead does is tax new housing through high Development Charges (not as bad as Toronto mind you) that absolutely over tax the cost of building new infrastructure, take forever to approve units, increase amenity and other requirements on larger more desirable units, and charge little to nothing on vacant land because its value is low because it's got nothing on it (I know this is more the purview of MPAC).

 

[Undead]

Approved is a very different thing than zoned. Zoned is not approved at all despite what municipalities like to claim.

Yes and I believe the claim is that many are actually approved, though I don't have a source off the top of my head.

 

[spaghettisam]

When projects take longer to get approved, the financials are also outdated as costs have gone up.

 

[KingJames]

Sure, but many others would love to get started but are stuck wading through years of bureaucracy.

1) Just because some developers get approval then don't do anything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to speed up the process for those who want to build.

2) We could institute fines, taxes or increase existing ones for developers who sit on property that is zoned or has site plan approval but choose to do nothing. If a developer gets a zoning amendment for example they shouldn't be able to just flip the property to another developer, it should revert to the prior zoning after a period of time.

By taxing, or fining the things we don't want (vacant land on prime economic real estate **coughwilsonblacnhardcouch**) and approving quickly and supporting things we want like housing starts, increased property tax, more efficient use of existing infrastructure assets, increased active transportation residents, increased economic activity from additional residents with disposable income, employers seeking employees, additional commercial space, we can get housing built, impact the housing crisis, bring economic vitality to the city, and bring in tax revenue to support those who cannot support themselves.

What Hamilton instead does is tax new housing through high Development Charges (not as bad as Toronto mind you) that absolutely over tax the cost of building new infrastructure, take forever to approve units, increase amenity and other requirements on larger more desirable units, and charge little to nothing on vacant land because its value is low because it's got nothing on it (I know this is more the purview of MPAC).

I would love to see a vacant land tax on any serviced parcel of land that sits within the urban boundary, one that escalates 2x or more for every year that it sits vacant, no cap - based on vacancy rates (in whichever respective category the property sits). There way too many vacant parcels of land in Hamilton and Council does not want to expand the urban boundary - get the urban lands in the hands of developers or agencies that actually want the city to flourish.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yes and I believe the claim is that many are actually approved, though I don't have a source off the top of my head.

From what I remember municipalities were referencing zoning approved sites.

There is a number of site plan approved sites, but it’s not overly large as few developers bother with SPA unless they are intent on building.

 

[Chris R.]

I would love to see a vacant land tax on any serviced parcel of land that sits within the urban boundary, one that escalates 2x or more for every year that it sits vacant, no cap - based on vacancy rates (in whichever respective category the property sits). There way too many vacant parcels of land in Hamilton and Council does not want to expand the urban boundary - get the urban lands in the hands of developers or agencies that actually want the city to flourish.

Vacant land costs Hamilton taxpayers a lot of money and puts massive downward pressure on our economy impacting jobs both in the service industry but also good paying office jobs.

 

[TheHonestMaple]

I would love to see a vacant land tax on any serviced parcel of land that sits within the urban boundary, one that escalates 2x or more for every year that it sits vacant, no cap - based on vacancy rates (in whichever respective category the property sits). There way too many vacant parcels of land in Hamilton and Council does not want to expand the urban boundary - get the urban lands in the hands of developers or agencies that actually want the city to flourish.

What's stopping the city from doing this?

 

[KingJames]

What's stopping the city from doing this?

I suspect that this might require the municipality to have special taxing policy like how Ontario granted Toronto same. I would think Council would love to see the extra revenue and or development.