The argument that the height limit spreads out development is specious, frankly.

What has actually resulted from it? Density transfers within development proposals. Instead of taller towers on sensibly sized podiums, Hamilton is seeing gargantuan podiums in proposal after proposal:

- 75 James: with a massive amount of displaced density in the portion of it that is a stepped slab appendage on the side of the tower portion;
- Ferguson/Jackson proposal: of which *40%* of the height is podium;
- The Rebecca: which has about 10-12 podium levels;
- the City Centre redevelopment: again, with about ten storeys of podium;
- 18-30 King East: which has an approximately ten storey growth out of the main tower that looms over the heritage buildings on King, and a roughly 15 storey growth that extends from the main tower towards James (and results in the proposal enveloping the Landed Banking and Loan building at Main/James); and
- Corktown Plaza: which was two point towers and was modified to become one point tower and a massive 14-storey slab “midrise” along John Street.

This is something you are not seeing in other GTHA cities, for good reason: it’s bad urbanism that has a greater negative impact than taller, skinnier point towers. Hamilton hasn’t learned this, though. We’d rather stick our heads in the sand and ignore the impacts the height limit has, while celebrating quantity of development over quality.
 
Chris R. said:
LRT actually starting will blow KW out of the water. So many current proposals will get started, and many more will be proposed.
Click to expand...
And the GTHA spillover is already helping Niagara. Not only is every municipality building subdivisions and population rapidly growing in Niagara, Welland and Thorold, for example are growing at rates I can't comprehend. 😅

St. Catharines is starting to rise up.
Two 21 storey "luxury" modern Commieblocks were recently finished in the high-rise cluster called Towering Heights Blvd. Downtown, an 18 storey, 224 unit apartment (Carlisle Square) is under construction right off the main drag St. Paul St. A 30 storey, 276 unit (88 James) condo cleared the site for future construction. St. Catharines' waterfront, Port Dalhousie has a couple of projects underway. On the South end of Niagara on Lake Erie, little Port Colborne (population est. 21k) has a 9 storey condo under construction on West St.

Exciting times for Hamilton and Niagara.
 
Wigs said:
Have you seen Waterloo? The most hideous towers being constructed in possibly all of Canada aside from London, Ontario.

Hamilton is at least a step above that. (Most Hamilton developments are better than Kitchener also, imho)
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was shocked last time I was in KW, the towers are extremely ugly and bland. Especially around the university. Nothing to celebrate over there in terms of architecture. Nothing in KW like Television City, 75 James or Design District.
 
Wigs said:
Have you seen Waterloo? The most hideous towers being constructed in possibly all of Canada aside from London, Ontario.

Hamilton is at least a step above that. (Most Hamilton developments are better than Kitchener also, imho)
Click to expand...
Architecturally, I think we’re basically on par. Hamilton has put up a lot of clunkers. KW has too. Hamilton has put up a handful of nice projects, KW has as well. There is a need to do better in that department, as well.

However, my point with regards to the height limit was more regarding quality of urbanism, and in particular, massing. I think Hamilton has been getting massing that (rightly) wouldn’t be considered acceptable elsewhere — and there’s really one reason why that is.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
Architecturally, I think we’re basically on par. Hamilton has put up a lot of clunkers. KW has too. Hamilton has put up a handful of nice projects, KW has as well. There is a need to do better in that department, as well.

However, my point with regards to the height limit was more regarding quality of urbanism, and in particular, massing. I think Hamilton has been getting massing that (rightly) wouldn’t be considered acceptable elsewhere — and there’s really one reason why that is.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you on the urbanism. Point towers make a much better urban environment at grade level than these hideous monstrosity podiums do.
 
I think the argument for or against height limits causing anything whether a spread of density, lack of affordability, or change in architecture are all basically armchair urbanism. I have a preference for mid rise to 25-35 storey highrises, some others like taller buildings. Making economic arguments for either is rarely based on actual research.

We're all kind of talking out of our ass. What I do know, is that there is a demand curve for housing in Hamilton.

I think any of us putting our arguments out as fact, and calling the other wrong, is a feels over reals argument.

There's scant actual research on the effects of housing policy on what gets built and housing supply. What research does exist indicates height limits have little effect and it's far more relevant to focus on zoning, approval process, and red tape like parking minimums than the specific density of projects. I'd love to read otherwise though and change my opinion on the matter.
 
Interesting discussion here! Here are maps of Hamilton and Kitchener downtowns with buildings ≥35m. Grey = built, blue = proposed/approved, green = under construction. I can't comment on Kitchener, but Hamilton is missing at least 2 solid proposals here (one at 23 floors and the other at 30) as well as several others that are much more preliminary.
Note: both are zoomed out to the same distance/scale.

Hamilton:
Hamilton.png


Kitchener:
Kitchener.png
 
Last edited:
Quite a few missing in that, for example, the new condo at John and Main.

But it's pretty obvious in that map, Hamilton's density is considerably higher than KW. Similar number of proposals/under construction for both cities.
 
I say bring on the 30 storey proposals that actually get built, over time, we will see the need to keep under or level to the escarpment go away (such a silly measure). One can olny imagine what the height restrictions would be for a redevelopment of escarpment ridge buildings (at the top of the Jolly Cut or along Mountain Park Drive east of the Sherman Cut).
 
I think we are missing the forest for the trees here - I would say the measure for success isn't just the number of high-rises proposed. Having old bones does not necessarily make a great downtown. Hamilton has not seen the influx of institutional and commercial development in its core that KW has, and it does not yet have a rapid transit system. KW does not have the natural geography and regional rail/bus connections that Hamilton does. There are pros and cons for both.

I think both cities are on interesting and exciting trajectories and could benefit from a spirit of collaboration, not competition.

I have said this before though - putting another city down does not make your city better... it just makes you look insecure.
 
Last edited:
DavidCapizzano said:
I think we are missing the forest for the trees here - I would say the measure for success isn't just the number of high-rises proposed. Having old bones does not necessarily make a great downtown. Hamilton has not seen the influx of institutional and commercial development in its core that KW has, and it does not yet have a rapid transit system. KW does not have the natural geography and regional rail/bus connections that Hamilton does. There are pros and cons for both.

I think both cities are on interesting and exciting trajectories and could benefit from a spirit of collaboration, not competition.

I have said this before though - putting another city down does not make your city better... it just makes you look insecure.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think both cities have much they can learn from each other. KW does a lot far better than Hamilton does, and I think there's a lot to like there. I try to visit and ride the ION once a year at least. Lots of cool stuff to check out.

KW has Hamilton absolutely beat when it comes to white collar work though. Hamilton is a tough place to find a good paying job in the core. There are lots of jobs, but they pay as if it's 2010... My partner had a lot of difficulty 3 or 4 years ago, because she would end up at job interviews that required her skills, but paid like $40,000/year, and it was justified by the lower cost of living in Hamilton. Those "old bones" mean that people moved here decades ago and own their houses they bought for like $200,000 so nobody bats an eye at the crap wages if they've been here a long time. My partner ended up working for Toronto companies or one in Halifax until recently.
 
Yeah Hamilton is seriously lacking in the commercial/office tower developments. I wish some companies would locate their head offices or secondary satellite offices here. We need this to compliment all the residential towers in our downtown to fully breath life back into our core. KW has a lot going for them I can't really throw any shade their way.
 
Is that actually true though? (office space). I would bet Hamilton actually has more downtown offices than KW does. I wonder if there is any official stats on that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top