Hamilton King William Urban Rentals | 97.56m | 30s | LIUNA | Graziani + Corazza

07208526-3E39-43FE-AE0B-A1306F299C1D.jpeg
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
The official reasoning, IIRC, is about “protecting” views to and from the escarpment, because the escarpment is a important natural feature.

In theory, it sounds like reasonable policy.

In practice, at best it does nothing to support that goal, and at worst actually blocks more view, as separation distances between towers are reduced and tower floorplates made greatly larger, rather than build up.

It is a policy that, in my view, does not make sense and does not hold up under reasonable scrutiny. (I should note for full transparency that I am working on restarting soon an organization that will be pushing for the end of the escarpment height limit, and for the City to adopt other policies that support better urban development.)
Click to expand...
I have always supported ending the height limit, it’s great to hear there are others pushing for this. I look forward to hearing about it once you restart the organization.
 
These blocky towers will likely continue to be built after those heights limitations have been relaxed as they aren't a product of the height but zoning controls and an insatiable investor market that allow them. I do understand the desire to preserve panoramic views from the escarpment. I also don't think that the height limit is impeding growth in downtown Hamilton at this given point. There's plenty of opportunities for intensification. Skylines are the global identity of a city. I don't have an opinion on unobstructed views vs taller buildings impeding that view. I find them both equal in relevance and irrelevance
 
The reality of the height limit being equal to the escarpment height is that it blocks everything in the escarpment view that is below the horizon, so it’s an odd policy from that standpoint. Especially since there are now 7+ buildings approved or constructed in the lower city which are taller than the limit (2 existing, 1 under construction, several more proposed).

The height limit was silly from the start, really. Hamilton did something great by pre-zoning its downtown, which I think is a big reason for the explosion of construction downtown (only SPA is needed, no rezoning!), but the relatively low height limit has a lot of issues. The City would be better off focusing the “fight” on urban design issues and fighting for things like more street level retail which is sorely lacking in a lot of projects.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The reality of the height limit being equal to the escarpment height is that it blocks everything in the escarpment view that is below the horizon, so it’s an odd policy from that standpoint. Especially since there are now 7+ buildings approved or constructed in the lower city which are taller than the limit (2 existing, 1 under construction, several more proposed).

The height limit was silly from the start, really. Hamilton did something great by pre-zoning its downtown, which I think is a big reason for the explosion of construction downtown (only SPA is needed, no rezoning!), but the relatively low height limit has a lot of issues. The City would be better off focusing the “fight” on urban design issues and fighting for things like more street level retail which is sorely lacking in a lot of projects.
Click to expand...
Where is the project currently under construction that is higher than the limit?
 
innsertnamehere said:
The reality of the height limit being equal to the escarpment height is that it blocks everything in the escarpment view that is below the horizon, so it’s an odd policy from that standpoint. Especially since there are now 7+ buildings approved or constructed in the lower city which are taller than the limit (2 existing, 1 under construction, several more proposed).

The height limit was silly from the start, really. Hamilton did something great by pre-zoning its downtown, which I think is a big reason for the explosion of construction downtown (only SPA is needed, no rezoning!), but the relatively low height limit has a lot of issues. The City would be better off focusing the “fight” on urban design issues and fighting for things like more street level retail which is sorely lacking in a lot of projects.
Click to expand...
I was personally annoyed by the height limit of nothing taller than the escarpment. There are plenty of areas to view uninterrupted from the escarpment in Hamilton. Plus there are a few buildings already built that are higher than the escarpment.
 
I and some others on SSP was/are under the impression the height limit is for the goal of more evenly distributing investment across the city, not just in a few tall proposals. This is alongside preserving views and such to be the basis for the actual limit, but I believe it’s secondary to ensuring developments occupy more space. The height limit will probably be broken by higher forces sooner or later anyway (OLT) so I imagine the city isn’t gonna enforce it to a fault, only where it aligns with these goals. I can foresee certain projects being allowed to break the limit if they occupy a significant space, such as within the future entertain precinct or if the Hamilton City Centre Redevlopment changes and aims for height over quantity.
 
Ita was sàd to see the kresgies building close. Used to stop there in kindergarten with Mt great grandmother she would have tea. Me chocolate milk. I swear He knew everyone in Hamilton from working thr l&D floor at Henderson for 30+ years ¹
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top