Hamilton 325 James Street North | 45.7m | 12s | Core Urban Inc. | Lintack Architects

FF407 said:
But I think I see a cornice.
Click to expand...
That's not a cornice- that's a crenellation! Lol

Wellllll.. the first floor I suppooose does have a cornice. The top podium is def. A crenellation though which hey.. kudos to them, they're normally only seen on castles so that's something - I think maaybe the one they built on Locke st. had a crenellation? They definitely are rare.
 
I have attached the side views of the building.
Chronamut said:
rip dormers, helllooo weird offset from center core urban design...

Look at it - LOOK AT IT! And tell me your mind doesn't subconsciously try to "nudge" it back over to the left.. like a weird game of jenga..

(屮`Д´)屮 WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

The question just becomes.. why.. why spend so much time making a perfectly symmetrical base just to ruin it with the tower..

I get why.. to maximize space on the one side, and for a proper offset on the other.. but it fails man.. it fails aesthetically.. I can say imo this is the first design "fail" of core urban. The lopsided tower will ALWAYS overshadow the beauty of the podium, and unless viewed from just the right angle draw all your attention to its lack of symmetry..

That and the pez-shaped toppers..
Click to expand...

west side view.jpg


Is there is photo realistic image from Barton street view point? This is the best I could find. Looks like there are no windows on the podium when you approach from Bay street on Barton. Are they assuming that another multi story building will be built to hide the solid brick wall?
 
I guess it is already butting up against a 2.5 floor house that will already block the majority of that wall
 
Chris R knows more, but I believe if a new development is within a certain distance of the property line then windows are not allowed - to account for potential future development.
 
TheHonestMaple said:
Chris R knows more, but I believe if a new development is within a certain distance of the property line then windows are not allowed - to account for potential future development.
Click to expand...
To be honest I'm not too sure here. I could ask Steve. He'll let me know if I ask.

That being said, I suspect there are three potential reasons for no windows:

1) What was discussed regarding development to the west. I suspect majority of the houses nearby are safe from development for the time being, but I wouldn't see it as too unlikely the property directly west and perhaps one more in gets redeveloped. The building right behind isn't a looker and provides little heritage value, and the block behind it includes a burned out building. Seeing as this area lies directly on the A-Line corridor and is within crawling distance of the Go station, it's very much a possibility. Despite this, it's technically in the Setting Sail Secondary plan, which doesn't designate density on the property, but I could see an owner using proximity to Go, and the east side of James St N on Barton as precedent for a 4-5 storey building.

2) The property pretty much abuts the existing house, so perhaps windows just aren't feasible as they don't currently exist and it would make sense to add them since the new building will be pretty close to the property line. From my understanding the city doesn't allow windows without special permission when the side of the building is too close to the property line, I think for fire related reasons.

1000004842.png


3) An attempt to reduce bothered neighbours who think they'll get a freak as a neighbour with a camera and binoculars pointed directly into their property.
 
Sighs.. such mixed feelings about this one..

..a thought just occurred to me.. how did this build get away with not needing a daylight triangle on the corner for the new build? Pretty much every new building does..
 
Chronamut said:
Sighs.. such mixed feelings about this one..

..a thought just occurred to me.. how did this build get away with not needing a daylight triangle on the corner for the new build? Pretty much every new building does..
Click to expand...
I don't know that it wasn't changed to include one after the renders seen. Steve did mention they will be making some modifications based on feedback from staff and the DRP.

Really wishing the development map page was up, but that's likely delayed as a result of the Cyber security incident.

Another possibility is that the building is set back enough from the street to not require a daylight triangle?
 
Chris R. said:
I don't know that it wasn't changed to include one after the renders seen. Steve did mention they will be making some modifications based on feedback from staff and the DRP.

Really wishing the development map page was up, but that's likely delayed as a result of the Cyber security incident.

Another possibility is that the building is set back enough from the street to not require a daylight triangle?
Click to expand...
I dunno man.. it doesn't LOOK like it's set back enough in the original design..

325-james-n-png.468556


I really hope one of the changes the staff made is to fit the uneven tower. Maybe we'll get to see some nice architectural details at the top - I think they stated those were more "general" designs. Knowing more changes are underway makes me optimistic :)
 
I will paste my recommended changes I proposed from ssp:

original:

Rx5CUNOh.png


my proposals:

kdEKOCD.jpg


or

U9J2tdi.jpg


Do my changes not give an immediate sense of relief as far as the harmony and balance of the design goes? You could even make the tower higher to accommodate the loss of volume on the right.

Also I've noticed in the past when I've complained about designs, sometimes they magically change for the better.. so.. it never hurts to try lol.. their original design looks like the building has a tumor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top