innsertnamehere said:
ultimately a big reason Hamilton has managed to attract as much development as it has is because it's so permissive with that kind of thing. Underground parking (especially in hamilton which has water table issues!) is over double the cost, and like it or not market demand for parking in Hamilton is still quite substantial. A developer needs parking to sell / rent their buildings and to force it underground forces millions of extra costs on the project.

If the parking can be effectively shielded from view I have no real issue with it. Cobalt, 75 James, McMaster Graduate Res, 1 Jarvis, and Design District all have large above-grade structures that are not overly visible and I have no real issue with. Even Marquee isn't too bad. The only one that really doesn't work from my view is 154 Main.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but at least disallow ground floor parking. It makes the most important floor to the ground terrible. This property's ground floor for example sucks.

If we do allow above ground parking, which I will contend is likely necessary in much of the lower city, we should limit it to a maximum. These newer developments should be built with goals of the city in mind, discouraging car use. There are already of dozens upon dozens of apartments available with ample parking available. I know some units downtown you can get up to three simply because other renters did not need a parking spot despite their rental coming with one.

When I rented my condo out in Burlington many years ago, my tenant didn't drive, but the unit came with a spot so it was able to be rented out to another tenant.
 
innsertnamehere said:
ultimately a big reason Hamilton has managed to attract as much development as it has is because it's so permissive with that kind of thing. Underground parking (especially in hamilton which has water table issues!) is over double the cost, and like it or not market demand for parking in Hamilton is still quite substantial. A developer needs parking to sell / rent their buildings and to force it underground forces millions of extra costs on the project.

If the parking can be effectively shielded from view I have no real issue with it. Cobalt, 75 James, McMaster Graduate Res, 1 Jarvis, and Design District all have large above-grade structures that are not overly visible and I have no real issue with. Even Marquee isn't too bad. The only one that really doesn't work from my view is 154 Main.
Click to expand...

Ugh 154 main's podium is just terrible - it was dated looking before it was even done.

And lol Chris not everyone can live the hipster bicycle life you live :p
 
Chronamut said:
Ugh 154 main's podium is just terrible - it was dated looking before it was even done.

And lol Chris not everyone can live the hipster bicycle life you live :p
Click to expand...
Not expecting everyone to, even I own and drive a car. But much of the lower city has an overabundance of parking stalls, so the fewer built, the better.
 
The more enjoyable it is to walk or bike around, the less you need abundant parking because you actually WANT to get out of your car. It's wild that Hamilton lives so close to several examples of this (not just Toronto), but refuses to internalize it.
 
Alf ( real) said:
The more enjoyable it is to walk or bike around, the less you need abundant parking because you actually WANT to get out of your car. It's wild that Hamilton lives so close to several examples of this (not just Toronto), but refuses to internalize it.
Click to expand...
It's a big reason I'd like fewer people with cars. When you offer car-free living, those with the means to live car-free will locate there, making the city better for those without cars. Hamilton isn't at a place yet where it's great for everyone to live car-free (hence my ownership of a car) but we live car-light. We have a single car for both my wife and I, and I walk or cycle to work, and she cycles in the summer to work. Our dentist is walking distance, our favourite cafes are walking distance. But much of our life still requires a car.

With fewer drivers downtown, living downtown without a car may become something we want or need to do. I'd like to get rid of the car altogether personally.
 
Notwithstanding debate around the merit of above-grade vs below-grade parking, if you are going to do above-grade parking, this is how you do it.

building.jpg

main.jpg

Source
 
Milaisacat said:
Notwithstanding debate around the merit of above-grade vs below-grade parking, if you are going to do above-grade parking, this is how you do it.

View attachment 726173
View attachment 726174
Source
Click to expand...
We will see how it actually looks. It certainly looks good in the renders, but it remains to be seen if it will look good in reality.

220 Cannon Street looks terrible for example, and the renders didn't look too bad.

1775137804123.jpeg
 
If this is the final ground level plan then I already know that parking access through the alley is going to create a conflict point where I have circled in the top right at Cannon.
People driving cars will constantly block the sidewalk and the bike lanes to get out. Mornings will be a mess I'm sure and with plenty of children walking to school this could get ugly.

1000006450.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top