News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 13K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.3K     0 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,331
Reaction score
13,814
City:
Toronto

reduced to 38, 44 and 33 storeys.

A second redesign of three proposed skyscrapers near the lakeshore in Stoney Creek will cut their height, although the builder still wants relief from seven city zoning standards.

New Horizon Development Group unveiled the latest proposed site plan for the condominium towers at 310 Frances Ave. at an online open house that drew more than 200 registrants.

The revised plan calls for buildings of 38, 44 and 33 storeys, down from an original 48, 54 and 59 in December 2018.


The development still features a 5-storey parking garage that will also include some housing, but reduces the total number of condo units to 1,346 from an original 1,830.

Nearly 90 per cent would be one-bedroom units, with the rest being two bedrooms.

“We’ve been evolving our plans over the last three years and we are now in a position where we feel we have a very good site plan in play,” New Horizon managing director Jason Garland told the Nov. 18 session.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
989
Well that's a shame. Was looking forward to having these buildings stand out from miles away.
At least lower it to 8 storeys not like 12 or more! I guess they have to keep to the hieght level's guide line of the escarpment even at that distance.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,331
Reaction score
13,814
City:
Toronto
Well that's a shame. Was looking forward to having these buildings stand out from miles away.
This thing will still be huge. 44 storeys will still make it the tallest building in Hamilton and tallest in the GTHA west of Mississauga. The new 20-ish floor building just finishing up in Grimsby dominates the QEW and this will twice that height with two more large towers right beside it.

It's just not as completely ridiculous as it was before.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,058
Reaction score
3,733
We might be even be able to still see it from our lake shore...
 

Creekside

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
4

Therion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
1,222
Reaction score
149
Is there no way to stop these towers from being built...who approved such tall towers. We don't want anything like these proposed buildings in Stoney Creek. Makes me ill thinking about them. Another urban ruinination project.

What exactly is your objection to these towers? There are already tall apartment buildings in the area.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
5,805
There is a point to be made here. It makes no sense that Hamilton limited development heights in the downtown core, meanwhile we're seeing skyscrapers proposed all the way out in Stoney Creek of all places. It really doesnt make much sense at all.

Next thing we know, we'll start seeing towers proposed at Eastgate Square that are taller than anything we see in Downtown Hamilton.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,331
Reaction score
13,814
City:
Toronto

Another article in the spectator today. Local councillor still doesn't love it but says this will be more common now that Hamilton has voted not to expand the urban boundary:

Coun. Maria Pearson says she expects the decision to freeze Hamilton’s urban boundary will see more controversial proposals in Stoney Creek like the one for three massive condominium towers near the lakeshore. A revised plan for the development at 310 Frances Ave. calls for buildings of 38, 44 and 33 storeys, down from an original 48, 54 and 59 three years ago. Pearson said she’s awaiting a staff report, but remains concerned by proponent New Horizon Development Group’s application for relief from city zoning standards on parking and amenity space.

The plan proposes 1.25 parking spaces for the towers’ 1,346 dwelling units, or 336 fewer spots than required by the standard of 1.5 spaces. It also only allots 8.8 square metres of indoor amenity space per unit, rather than the required 18 square metres each for the 1,208 one-bedroom units and 53 square metres for the 138 two-bedroom units, a shortfall of 17,214 square metres. Outdoors, the plan seeks to cut the two-hectare property’s minimum landscaped area to 36 per cent from the required 50 per cent. If there’s anything COVID has taught me, there’s not enough green space out there,” Pearson said, citing nearby condominium developments whose outdoor areas were “jam-packed all summer.” “It was horrible, the complaints I was getting about litter and people walking dogs and not picking up after the dogs, and people going and bringing firewood and having bonfires on the beach,” she said.

“I don’t know how I’m going to put another how many residents from 1,346 more units into this space. That’s what’s a little bit frustrating and that’s why their requirement is to have amenity space in their own facility.” But Pearson said she questions how calls to downsize proposals like the one on Frances Avenue will be balanced against the urban boundary freeze, which she opposed but passed by a 13-3 council vote. The move will require more housing in existing urban areas to meet population growth, straining water and sewer capacities, apart from riling neighbours, she said. “Now more than anything, this is what is going to be pushed,” Pearson said. “I can’t upsize the size of a pipe on King Street when the capacity downstream for that flow isn’t there to take it. Tell me how we do that without blasting out half the city.”
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
5,805

Another article in the spectator today. Local councillor still doesn't love it but says this will be more common now that Hamilton has voted not to expand the urban boundary:
I dont even know why the proposal to expand Hamilton's urban boundary was even floated. The current city limits are already massively large, and already has literally thousands of lots that are prime for development. This is all about councillors (those in the Mountain, Stoney Creek, and Dundas) opposing any densification in their wards so home owners can enjoy their pristine peace and quiet, and only bringing density via additional SFH's only. The best way they could do this of course? Expand the city limits so there's urban sprawl and no major development impacts their ward.

The antics that go on over at Hamilton City Council is just mind-numbingly stupid. And even more stupid is the Minister of Housing's response in supporting this idiotic proposal in the first place. Goes to show the PC's are really in the pocket of developers and couldnt care less to increasing housing supply.
 

Bjays92

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
891
Reaction score
2,486
People need to realise these towers wont be replicated. They're a result of oversight in city planning, where there are no zoning limits for this lot.

I did want to see 60s here, just cuz of how insane it would look but I'll admit that doesnt make much sense in reality. That said there's no reason the developer couldn't have stuck with the original proposal. There was no need for them to scale this back but they listened to community feedback and did.

There's no other lot in the city that can be zoned like this without requiring council approval. More tall buildings may be coming but these will most certainly remain outliers nonetheless.
 

Top