innsertnamehere
Superstar
because there's structured parking. Hamilton doesn't regulate it to below ground only like Toronto does, so most projects have it. Some projects do a good job of hiding it (Design District, Cobalt), some do a crap job.
Hamilton 175 John Street North | 46.2m | 12s | Darpel Investments | srm Architects
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
A sad sign of the times. Hamilton's early and mid-century design culture was superb and was not markedly different from Toronto's. It's unfortunate that some of Canada's second-tier cities accept so much less today (especially when folks like Core Urban prove you absolutely don't have to).
Sunnyside
Active Member
Design quality, especially in Ontario, seems extremely closely linked to land values/ROI. unfortunately the old world our cities inhabited is gone and the conditions to build relatively high quality structures anywhere is nonexistent. Maybe it’s because the economics of the structures we allow require high land values to even be viable, and higher to justify any kind of aesthetics. That explains the quality of projects in Toronto, to me. It’s all equations of balancing the cost to build with returns.
For my informed opinion now… Hamilton’s geography and soil conditions make building costlier, and often we require parking in new builds. So despite high land values downtown we still see shlock like this because it’s the only way to maintain a decent margin. Meanwhile, the 905 has no such geo conditions, and seems to build higher quality stuff in lower value markets. Its quite frustrating, as logically Hamilton’s core should be seeing builds that respect a downtown of its size and history.
Edit: a lot of Hamilton’s architecture can go toe-to-toe with Toronto any day. In some cases, it is even better.
Chris R.
Senior Member
Revised proposal:
catcher_of_cats
Active Member
Better then the original proposal. I love that its not grey.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Chris R.
Senior Member
I pulled it from the Ward 2 development map. I know they are dealing with the usual sources being down too so they aren't posting when they update files, but I check the map and a couple proposed spots. Here's the link:
Changes are as follows:
- Storeys decreased from 19 to 12
- Height decreased from 66 to 46.2m
- Total residential units decreased from 132 to 126
- Total vehicular parking decreased from 79 to 40
- Total bicycle parking increased from 70 to 105
Chris R.
Senior Member
Still wish it included commercial space. Seeing as it would be replacing a successful commercial unit, should include replacement. I also don't love the ground floor parking, but I'm glad to see a reduction in parking and increase in bicycle parking.