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

This is at Planning Committee soon - recommended for approval:

PED26063 - Planning Committee - March 24, 2026

pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com

1773838680968.png
 
Personally I think it's a bit hulking and insensitive to it's context, but it's far from terrible. 462 Wilson definitely does a better job of integrating into it's context. I'm not opposed to 8 storeys here at all, but this design just doesn't do it any favours.

The new location for the heritage building is also straight up weird, it should be staying on Wilson St.

Regardless it will be a good bit of density and make Ancaster feel more urban, fixing a dead spot on the street. I like it for that.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Personally I think it's a bit hulking and insensitive to it's context, but it's far from terrible. 462 Wilson definitely does a better job of integrating into it's context. I'm not opposed to 8 storeys here at all, but this design just doesn't do it any favours.

The new location for the heritage building is also straight up weird, it should be staying on Wilson St.

Regardless it will be a good bit of density and make Ancaster feel more urban, fixing a dead spot on the street. I like it for that.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. Developers can get a lot of buy-in from community or at least less opposition by literally doing any work to use good materiality and design, see; Core Urban. I don't even think it's a ton of additional cost to use affordable physical materials.

I think it's a mix of things, but general apathy from developers and a complete avoidance of the context is part of it. I can completely imagine many developers not even stepping foot in the area their developments will be going and just looking at a spreadsheet in some office. That and a general lack of taste.

Personally I imagine putting an extra $50,000-$150,000 into a better materiality would likely save more in legal, consultation, financing and property tax costs. If they still see opposition and have to go the LPAT cheapify it after that to recoup the costs, and discourage neighbours from frivolous complaints leading to an appeal.

Of note. The councillor here has posted that he will be requesting deferring the item to April so the community can have time to review and provide feedback.

I'm intending to provide feedback in support with some criticism of design as mentioned here.
 
I do feel bad for Spallacci here - they have been royally dicked around by both the City and the Province on approvals here. It's been absolutely years to get this to the finish line on what is really a relatively modest mid-rise building. I'm scared to know what their soft costs are here on consultants and holding costs while they have tried to get it through.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top