Hamilton 1400 South Service Road | ?m | 16s | Losani Homes

Branden Simon

Branden Simon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,146
Reaction score
3,476
Location
Hamilton
1400 South Service Rd in Stoney Creek by Lonasi Homes is proposing a 7.2 hectares of land with two 16 storey (264 units each) with at grade and underground parking, two 8 storey (229 units each), one 3 storey office building, and two 1-storey commercial buildings with surface parking.

Renderings from MHBC
BAF80BFB-1CBA-4C18-8617-7F2A03B480D7.jpeg
6CC29F72-2422-45EB-A16A-37858E2053AE.jpeg
B7429B1F-5EE6-404A-8405-38DAC9ACD220.jpeg
455B6742-D89F-43E3-9065-34A5A5DBBD17.jpeg
5158BD05-2186-4132-AA0D-164127D57A9A.jpeg
 
Branden Simon said:
1400 South Service Rd in Stoney Creek by Lonasi Homes is proposing a 7.2 hectares of land with two 16 storey (264 units each) with at grade and underground parking, two 8 storey (229 units each), one 3 storey office building, and two 1-storey commercial buildings with surface parking.

Renderings from MHBC
View attachment 470258View attachment 470259View attachment 470260View attachment 470261View attachment 470262
Click to expand...
It’s “Losani Homes” but otherwise thanks for the contribution!

I agree that the proposal is a bit lacklustre with all its parking, but this is a greenfield development. By those standards, I’d say it’s pretty good.

I also really like the idea of a conceptual “transit hub” here, which I interpret as a GO Station. It would be quite nice actually, as spacing is reasonable and ~equidistant from Confederation and Grimsby. It could also be privately funded as a bare bones station. Would help serve the planned density and stimulate more of it, since there is relatively little developable land here and it’s a highly desirable area. The more we can incentivize local GO use within Hamilton, the better.
 
innsertnamehere said:
that's hilariously terrible and this is an absolutely awful place to put this kind of density in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The entirety of the Stoney Creek-Grimsby QEW area is just a poorly conceived mess, so I am cutting this some slack from the get-go.

I agree there Isn't much supporting this kind of density. But, the land constraints are quite tight here given the Niagara Escarpment and Greenbelt, and it's a fairly desirable location. I imagine the land actually costs a pretty penny here. It has all the 'suburban' fundamentals of great highway access and being undeveloped, while also being situated next to the water of course.

I just don't like when projects like these go for high levels of (surface) parking. I get people will need to drive, but if the site is desirable enough to go tall, we should be going all-in and trying to maximize density/lot coverage and minimize dead space. If we are going to 'give' a little here and allow the loss of employment land, we should get a nicer, preferably mixed-use development out of it.
 
most of the surface parking here appears to be associated with the office component, which is pretty standard and should be expected.

What makes this so terrible is the level of density in this location and how the residential area is laid out, with buildings overlooking surface parking, the central greenspace being interrupted by the parking ramp, the buildings not having a clear public street address, etc.
 
innsertnamehere said:
most of the surface parking here appears to be associated with the office component, which is pretty standard and should be expected.

What makes this so terrible is the level of density in this location and how the residential area is laid out, with buildings overlooking surface parking, the central greenspace being interrupted by the parking ramp, the buildings not having a clear public street address, etc.
Click to expand...
I think by any conventional glance this would be a “preliminary” site plan, but the way things go around here we run the risk of it actually being approved and built as shown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top