Hamilton Gore Park Condos | 106.9m | 32s | HBSC | KNYMH

I am not aware of anything that BBS has built or partnered in building. Just commercial industrial real estate transactions. I would put this exercise in that bucket, a facilitation of a sale to a real developer like Core Urban or even Liuna/Hi Rise, would be welcome.

Still think there should be a vacant building and surface lot tax that exponentially increases each year unused.
 
KingJames said:
I am not aware of anything that BBS has built or partnered in building. Just commercial industrial real estate transactions. I would put this exercise in that bucket, a facilitation of a sale to a real developer like Core Urban or even Liuna/Hi Rise, would be welcome.

Still think there should be a vacant building and surface lot tax that exponentially increases each year unused.
Click to expand...

That could motivate some extremely badly designed buildings to be built on it though if that was the case.. I'd rather good things come to those who wait..

but yes in this case I think they should be penalized for sitting on this area for so long - this is a crime to those buildings.
 
Chronamut said:
You are correct, I am not happy, but it's really hard to know how unhappy to be because I don't know if they are tearing down the buildings or not..

*edit* ok it looks like they are keeping the heritage facade, but whether they actually build something or are just trying to run out the clock on these remains to be seen.. also I thought giant heights were no longer allowed on this side due to the shadows they would cast on the park? Or are these set back enough?

It's always been my suspicion that they never wanted to keep these buildings and have just been sitting on the property until they rot enough to collapse, then they can demolish the entire lot and build something tacky and modern looking..
Click to expand...
I would like to think that as per many heritage retentions in Toronto, the above structure will be treated to a relatively high-quality execution in order to lessen the impact of a 30 storey structure. If you can afford to work around heritage structures, I'd also presume you have the money to make everything else work with it visually. Vrancor for instance wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole because of those prohibitive costs, but someone with deeper pockets might recognize an opportunity (and the implicit expectation of working in such a sensitive area...) to go fancy.
 
Sunnyside said:
I would like to think that as per many heritage retentions in Toronto, the above structure will be treated to a relatively high-quality execution in order to lessen the impact of a 30 storey structure. If you can afford to work around heritage structures, I'd also presume you have the money to make everything else work with it visually. Vrancor for instance wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole because of those prohibitive costs, but someone with deeper pockets might recognize an opportunity (and the implicit expectation of working in such a sensitive area...) to go fancy.
Click to expand...
isn't this Wilson blanchard that owns this though? Not very promising..
 
Chronamut said:
isn't this Wilson blanchard that owns this though? Not very promising..
Click to expand...
Kinda forgot that. Letting some of the older local players retain these sites has never turned out well for us (see Stinson, the Connolly) so let’s hope he’s struck a deal with someone better. I’d think you’d have to to increase the sites scope like this?
 
Sunnyside said:
Kinda forgot that. Letting some of the older local players retain these sites has never turned out well for us (see Stinson, the Connolly) so let’s hope he’s struck a deal with someone better. I’d think you’d have to to increase the sites scope like this?
Click to expand...
Not sure, weren't they the ones that originally proposed the 25 story one? I'm just not convinced they are in this for the quality - I think they just want the spot - once it crumbles theyll just build something cheap like all their other rentals.. they're basically gonna have to prove me wrong - if this hadn't sat for so long already maybe they'd have a better leg to stand on but as it stands this feels as doomed as the church around the corner..

and it's so sad because it's in such a prominent spot - this area of the city should be the MOST lively and the most populated and alive - it's our CORE - it's THE core. It's the oldest part of hamilton - everything LITERALLY grew out of this area. And now it rots, with 3/4 of everything around the park either empty boarded up or crumbling..

My heart hurts to see it, esp. since I know just how populated and alive it used to be, with fur shops, china shops, department stores, cigar stores, jewellery shops.. we've ghettofied so much and it's appalling.. now our only solution seems to be to hipster it up, and I am not so sure I find that much better..
 
RitsmaCW said:
So uhm, new Formal Consultation here...

FC-23-097:

"To facilitate the development of a mixed use 32-storey tower atop a 5-storey podium consisting of 478 residential units with 4372 sq m of commercial spaces from grade to the 5th floor. Includes 426 parking spaces."
Click to expand...
Does 32 stories “atop” a 5 story podium mean 37 stories or 32 total? Lol
 
cbizzle said:
Does 32 stories “atop” a 5 story podium mean 37 stories or 32 total? Lol
Click to expand...
Unless those ceiling heights are abnormally low, think 37 would break height bylaw.

We really don't have a super depth chart of quality / detail-oriented builders / developers in Hamilton. Given this site, really demands a deep pocket backer. They will be handsomely rewarded.
 
KingJames said:
Unless those ceiling heights are abnormally low, think 37 would break height bylaw.

We really don't have a super depth chart of quality / detail-oriented builders / developers in Hamilton. Given this site, really demands a deep pocket backer. They will be handsomely rewarded.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am definitely worried.
 
Photo from The Spectator story on proposal

Screenshot_20230902-093755.png
 
Branden Simon said:
Here’s the better design photo then the bad one
View attachment 503937
Click to expand...
Architecture aside, I like the massing. Quells my concerns a bit that the tower is completely set back on the lot behind the alley. While I’m not quite sure about the current form of the addition ontop of the structure fronting King, in concept it plays off the midrise office towers nearby and the setbacks are appropriate to let the heritage shine and not detract from the traditional street wall. I’m not getting an indication of architectural quality here but given it’s so early and the urban design has been handled well enough, it should get a pass for the time being.
 
I think the site, now extending back to Main Street and wrapping around 1 James South lends itself well to have a series of tiers along the northern and western facades. I do hope they partner with someone that actually builds rather than sucking up municipal resources on items that go nowhere.
 
I'll copy paste my response from skyscraperpage..

I am actually VERY pleased with this - yes don't all have a heart attack at once, as I have always felt the back end and side gaps in this block SORELY needed not only some buildings, but also some HEIGHT. THIS is the area of downdown that NEEDS to be big, as everything around it is big. I also like that it is stepped back, and the height is near the back, so that shadows won't harm the park (although there probably will still be shadows on the park so they may need to lower the height).

I also am pleased that the city is keeping such a critical eye on this - making it so parts have to be retained and other parts have to be replicated. I also love their 3 h's - height, heritage and housing. I like that vision. I don't mind height if it is in a proper place and I of course am all about bringing people living back in the core and heritage preservation. The great thing about the core is it has changed relatively little in 200 years, and it would be nice to keep as much of that timelessness as we can :)

I am really excited to see something go into the back area - as I often take the bus along this route - it will also be nice to have the bank building closed in and for this area to feel like a proper "block" once more :)

Overall pretty excited for this! I hope they really clean that stone, although as evidenced by the royal connaught cleaning it sadly does not keep it clean looking for long, one of the detriments of stone, it stains easily..

Only thing I may be critical of is what designs they plan for the side along james and the side along main - we can't see the main side design and the james st side is too small to see - I sincerely hope it has a heritage look and is not ultra-modern, although they could possibly get away with it because it will be right beside the corner skyscraper.. I like that that area of james is still relatively highly heritage looking, and hopefully they will be pressured to maintain that, although the bank across the street makes that a bit open ended..

also a little worried why they put the bank on the corner in red.. I hope they are not planning to demolish it.. because they are NOT, and I repeat NOT allowed to remove ANY of those types of buildings - the old bank buildings are off limits. > : (

..or are they building on TOP of it..? Hrmm.. I wish I had more renders and bigger pictures..

also of course we shall see if this ACTUALLY gets built - it has been a decade.. I am also surprised they are keeping the building roof on the left in the image as a 'green" roof - I would have expected they would have capitulated on any surface are they could to build height..
 
Last edited:
Looks like this isn't going to September DRP after all. Seems there was a decision to pull it based on how staff relayed the information. I suppose we may see it in October instead.

I did ask for any submission to be shared with me asap once they receive it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top