Hamilton 117 Jackson Street East | 126.47m | 39s | Dicenzo Homes | Graziani + Corazza

How appropriate is it to tune into these online meeting(s)? Popped in to see, and noticed no other guest viewers- only participating parties.
 
Amazing outcome, every property within 200 ft of Century 21 Landmark should now see an application for 30+ applications or revisions, and of course get them built
 
Didn't comment when I saw the news-- Holidays and all that... but yes! What a Christmas Gift! The future of the core just got brighter.

I bump without any info because the news must be spread- this is the watershed moment we've been waiting for, folks. Not only did this ruling smash through the height limit at the Provincial level; we even got direct shots at the policy in writing.

I foresee many landowners capitalizing on the increased development potential for their most valuable holdings. It's time to test my theory that many parking lots just haven't pencilled for anything at/under 30s (ahem, in the financial district...). And, for what's already on the books, I expect any proposals without issued permits to seriously consider appealing ASAP.

Cheers, everyone!
 
Imagine being so bold and self-righteous that you’re willing to block hundreds of millions of dollars in economic investment for Hamilton—just to protect a few trees in a rarely used park from getting a little extra shade a few times a year. That’s the priority of certain city staff and a few misguided members of our city council. Thankfully, the province stepped in with common sense and put an end to the absurd and impractical escarpment rule.

“The increase in shadowing is minimal and does not justify the refusal of the Applications,” Innus ruled. “The Tribunal is not persuaded by the position that the proposed shadows would adversely impact the park’s use and the health of the existing trees. The incremental shadowing should not significantly impact the function or enjoyment of the space.”
Click to expand...
 
TheHonestMaple said:
Imagine being so bold and self-righteous that you’re willing to block hundreds of millions of dollars in economic investment for Hamilton—just to protect a few trees in a rarely used park from getting a little extra shade a few times a year. That’s the priority of certain city staff and a few misguided members of our city council. Thankfully, the province stepped in with common sense and put an end to the absurd and impractical escarpment rule.
Click to expand...
I have long said that the basis of the height limit is a solid-sounding, but actually hollow, justification for managing the interests of the City against the Brow residents'. I get it, to a degree- Council and Staff have lacked the smarts, strength, cleanliness or integrity to address this then or now. But the doubling down with half-baked justifications has been offensive. Well-meaning folks who I would otherwise believe, like Jason Thorne, claimed it can 'disperse development' across the city, yet nothing backs this up. And if anything, land speculation has gotten worse since development really started. Both are reasonable aims if true, but nothing has suggested they are.

The time to have revisited the limit is now long gone. In its impressively-consistent short-sightedness, the City has failed to realize that if they didn't work out a better policy, someone else would. So congratulations, Hamilton. Once again, the decision has been made for us. But unlike with the first LRT saga, or Gore Park's buildings, or what have you, people are cheering.
 
This decision is a big deal. Notwithstanding the height limit, it directly tests the new Provincial Planning Statement and its language of optimizing underdeveloped sites, such as surface parking lots, located within key growth nodes like MTSAs, urban growth centres, and downtowns, and not merely intensifying them.
 
Milaisacat said:
This decision is a big deal. Notwithstanding the height limit, it directly tests the new Provincial Planning Statement and its language of optimizing underdeveloped sites, such as surface parking lots, located within key growth nodes like MTSAs, urban growth centres, and downtowns, and not merely intensifying them.
Click to expand...
Exactly what is needed to help direct growth where it’s supposed to be going.

Not distinguishing intensification from optimization has meant high rises in North Oakville, and height limits in Hamilton, because both plans foster intensification. Neither relates land to what makes it worthwhile in the first place- yet we minimize how much this warps the landscape. We just can’t reach optimal land uses if policy inflates or prohibits it.

I hope we see a wave of “optimal” proposals in Hamilton. I am very curious how tall developers will want to go, how much parking, etc. I think we will all be surprised by what comes into play.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top