innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
19,229
Reaction score
22,384
City:
Toronto
A developer is aiming to blow through the Hamilton height limit here, right beside the current tallest building in the city. This one is very preliminary:


117-Jackson-Street-East-Concept-Plan-Images-Fall-2020_Page_01.jpg
 
A developer is aiming to blow through the Hamilton height limit here, right beside the current tallest building in the city. This one is very preliminary:


117-Jackson-Street-East-Concept-Plan-Images-Fall-2020_Page_01.jpg

Hmmm, the architecture firm is not a promising choice for what would be a signature property.

Perhaps they can have a career pinnacle here..........
 
Currently it's dilapidated surface parking lot though. While I can't agree with the choice of firm here as well, it can't get any worse than whats already there...or lack thereof.
 
Currently it's dilapidated surface parking lot though. While I can't agree with the choice of firm here as well, it can't get any worse than whats already there...or lack thereof.

Oh, don't throw out a Jinx like.......G+C have done one or two that really would have been better as a parking lot...........

They've also done at least one nice one, and a couple of passables...........but.....it's long odds w/them that you'll see anything worthwhile.
 
Zoning changes for 117 Jackson St! New proposal will have 39 and 30 storey buildings and the height of both buildings will have 122 meters and 96 meters.

The Purpose and effect of this proposed official plan Amendment application is to establish a site specific zoning to increase the maximum building height from 89.0 to 93.0 meters to 122 meters and 96 meters and increasing the buildings base height from 7.5 meters to 16.0 meters to permit the development of a new mixed-use building consisting of two towers (39 Storey and 30 Storey) above a 3 Storey podium with 297 square meters of ground floor commercial, 751 residential dwelling units, and 366 underground parking spaces.

No new updated photo renderings yet
 
I’m going to include some of my comments on SSP here, to capture a bit wider of a response hopefully.

First, If the city somehow doesn’t approve this, at least we know the OLT almost certainly will.

It also looks suburban, like something you would see in Markham or Richmond Hill.

I’m curious as to how a height limit negatively affects margins for development. Ie, if you can only build to 30 floors, certain projects don’t pencil, like this. Or inversely, sites are being held because they don’t pencil yet at current prices and with only 30 floors to work with, while 50 floors might be profitable. I’m trying to understand if the notion that the height limit will distribute development across the city actually holds water.
 
I’m going to include some of my comments on SSP here, to capture a bit wider of a response hopefully.

First, If the city somehow doesn’t approve this, at least we know the OLT almost certainly will.

It also looks suburban, like something you would see in Markham or Richmond Hill.

I’m curious as to how a height limit negatively affects margins for development. Ie, if you can only build to 30 floors, certain projects don’t pencil, like this. Or inversely, sites are being held because they don’t pencil yet at current prices and with only 30 floors to work with, while 50 floors might be profitable. I’m trying to understand if the notion that the height limit will distribute development across the city actually holds water.
By having a height restriction on the land, current landowners can only sell for so much, as the cap makes the land less valuable. If the OLT allows projects to go beyond the height restriction though, sellers will notice and want more for their land. Ultimately of course it's up to the (potential) purchasers of the land to decide if the price is right, or not, as they'll only pay as much as they figure will still allow them to make a profit after selling their suites.

42
 
By having a height restriction on the land, current landowners can only sell for so much, as the cap makes the land less valuable. If the OLT allows projects to go beyond the height restriction though, sellers will notice and want more for their land. Ultimately of course it's up to the (potential) purchasers of the land to decide if the price is right, or not, as they'll only pay as much as they figure will still allow them to make a profit after selling their suites.

42
So the potential return on a parcel is less with a height limit in place, then. Thanks for the explanation by the way.

It seems projects are continually getting bolder with challenging the height limit. Many projects being built today were taller initially (Cobalt was ~35 & 25, Television City was 40 & 20, etc) but these were shut down and revised. However, 75 James went for 34 stories and succeeded, and now this proposal has a solid basis to challenge the limit as well, being next Landmark Place.

There is a habit of calling these incremental steps the ‘moment the limit was formally abandoned’ but it’s moreso a slow inch forward. If approved, this project validates existing height as a precedent now, not just the escarpment. The next step may be a developer who wishes to go for a similar height (40 floors) but elsewhere downtown where no immediate precedent exists. If that succeeds (city or OLT), then imo the floodgates are truly open.

There are a wide variety of surface lots that are likely more valuable than any site in play atm. They perhaps near demand something taller to justify redevelopment, but will not be with current policies limiting potential returns. Some of the best Parking lots here probably make a lot of money as-is…
 
So the potential return on a parcel is less with a height limit in place, then. Thanks for the explanation by the way.

It seems projects are continually getting bolder with challenging the height limit. Many projects being built today were taller initially (Cobalt was ~35 & 25, Television City was 40 & 20, etc) but these were shut down and revised. However, 75 James went for 34 stories and succeeded, and now this proposal has a solid basis to challenge the limit as well, being next Landmark Place.

There is a habit of calling these incremental steps the ‘moment the limit was formally abandoned’ but it’s moreso a slow inch forward. If approved, this project validates existing height as a precedent now, not just the escarpment. The next step may be a developer who wishes to go for a similar height (40 floors) but elsewhere downtown where no immediate precedent exists. If that succeeds (city or OLT), then imo the floodgates are truly open.

There are a wide variety of surface lots that are likely more valuable than any site in play atm. They perhaps near demand something taller to justify redevelopment, but will not be with current policies limiting potential returns. Some of the best Parking lots here probably make a lot of money as-is…
I've mentioned it before on a handful of projects, but everything is about precedent. It only takes one mid-rise to start a flurry of developments in a previously untouched (as in underdeveloped suburban) area, or one new project to change the course of architecture for the next decade. In the same way, it only takes one building to break through this height barrier to set a precedent for new developments to build off of. Developers will keep bending that rule until there is just no point trying to fight it anymore.

@interchange42 explained it really well. That limit was put in place as an indirect remedy to an issue which, although is a valid concern, I think it may be looked back on as a poor decision in 20 years.
 
I've mentioned it before on a handful of projects, but everything is about precedent. It only takes one mid-rise to start a flurry of developments in a previously untouched (as in underdeveloped suburban) area, or one new project to change the course of architecture for the next decade. In the same way, it only takes one building to break through this height barrier to set a precedent for new developments to build off of. Developers will keep bending that rule until there is just no point trying to fight it anymore.

@interchange42 explained it really well. That limit was put in place as an indirect remedy to an issue which, although is a valid concern, I think it may be looked back on as a poor decision in 20 years.
The limit made sense if the concept that development could be redistributed through it held up. It’s much more likely rising land values citywide has driven development, rather than a constraint on height that is pushing land costs up citywide. Every project that attempted to go taller usually just redistributed its GFA more evenly across the site rather than building elsewhere.

At the time of its implementation, many called the height limit (partly) a product of NIMBYism. I think there is a healthy dose of that alongside a planning depts’ misunderstanding of what drives development. I do empathize with the city’s desire to evenly distribute growth to cover more ground; maybe the limit has incentivized more of these full-block style projects. However, it is clear we do not need to as closely manage/direct height anymore… the long-foretold growth is arriving.
 

Back
Top