Special Report: Heritage

Surprise Demolition Permit for Gore Park Buildings

There is no way to stop the demolition permit for 18-28 King Street East unless Council convenes an emergency meeting before January 9 to designate the buildings.

By Ryan McGreal
Published December 20, 2012

In a surprise move, Wilson-Blanchard has filed for demolition permits for the remaining Victorian buildings lining the south leg of Gore Park between James Street South and Hughson Street South.

King Streetwall on the south side of Gore Park (RTH file photo)
King Streetwall on the south side of Gore Park (RTH file photo)

This emerged at today's meeting of the Municipal Heritage Committee, which debated what, if anything, can be done to save them.

Joey Coleman livestreamed the meeting.

No Barrier to Demolition

The buildings at 18-28 King Street East, some of which predate Confederation, are not designated heritage buildings but have been identified as properties of interest.

Because they are not already designated and do not contain residential uses, the City has no recourse but to issue the demolition permits for January 9, 2013.

The only way to stop it would be for Council to convene an emergency meeting to designate the buildings under the Municipal Heritage Act.

The Committee moved to designate the buildings, but Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who sits on the Heritage Committee, noted that Council would have to ratify the designation before January 9.

That would require interrupting Councillors' Christmas vacations and that it would be difficult to achieve quorum.

Councillor Brian McHattie, also on the Heritage Committee, expressed extreme frustration with the news. "This is a perfect example of how screwed we are" on protecting municipal heritage, McHattie said.

Later in the meeting, McHattie suggested that the non-Council members of the Heritage Committee should resign to protest Council's failure to take heritage seriously and protect buildings from demolition.

McHattie also proposed designating properties owned by the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) to prevent more buildings like Sanford School from being demolished.

Missing Tooth

The building at 30 King Street East was already demolished in May 2011 and the site has sat vacant ever since.

Missing tooth in Gore Park streetwall (RTH file photo)
Missing tooth in Gore Park streetwall (RTH file photo)

This past October, Wilson-Blanchard floated a proposal to build a new condo development in the block bounded by James, King, Hughson and Main that would include a grocery store and multi-level parking garage fronting on to King Street.

No more details have emerged from this proposal, but Wilson-Blanchard has clearly decided to proceed with the demolition of the rest of the King Street buildings anyway.

The Gore Park Master Plan envisions a pedestrian plaza on the south leg of King Street, which would provide ample surface area for patios. A pilot project this past summer was a great success at drawing people to enjoy their lunches in the park.

A grocery store and multi-level parking lot would destroy the pedestrian character of Gore Park, the centre of the downtown core, and effectively render the master plan moot.

with files from Joey Coleman

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. Ryan also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal.

152 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 13:55:58

I'm glad I've made the committment to be at every City Hall meeting. No other media showed up for this meeting. (But I'm confident they will have stories up shortly from watching my livestreaming. I wonder if they'll give credit for my work?)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:02:55 in reply to Comment 84231

Do you really wonder about the credit? I'm guessing not, you were only being polite.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:00:59 in reply to Comment 84231

No question: you've been an utterly invaluable resource for Hamiltonians who want to take an interest in what elected officials are doing on their behalf. Thank you for your commitment to attending and recording every meeting!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 11:28:05 in reply to Comment 84232

Just out of curiosity does anyone have numbers as to how many people actually watch the livestreaming? In a city of 600,000 how many will take that time? I have not and in all likely hood never will.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 14:15:41 in reply to Comment 84426

Bet that won't stop you from spouting an opinion about it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 13:16:03 in reply to Comment 84426

Just the facts please. Hamilton's population 505,000 inhabitants. Hamilton is now 25,000 short of the 2011 projections by the provincial government. As to how many are watching the live stream, here is a great quote by Noam Chomsky. "The general population doesn't know what's happening and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know." In your case you just don't care that you don't know!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:01:00

What an unsurprising surprise.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:04:26

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jorvay (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 16:53:12 in reply to Comment 84234

It's not just about heritage. My greater concerns in this case are when the new development will be built to replace these buildings and if that development will be the right fit for the location. There are far too many empty lots in this city as it is.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:27:22 in reply to Comment 84265

Exactly. I'm not really enamored with those particular buildings. I know the heritage is important to some, but I could live without them if we saw something awesome going in its place.

If we knew that as soon as the dust was settled we'd see a big condo-tower going up with similar small storefronts facing into the Gore, maintaining a proper street-wall for the pedestrian plaza?

Well, I'd prefer restored facades, but I could live with that.

But realistically, that's not going to happen. The buildings will get demolished and stay demolished for quite some time, while the developer tries to finagle the best deal for the remaining structures on the block and courts clients. And that could take a decade. The heart of our city sporting a big empty crater.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:31:11 in reply to Comment 84234

the 1950's called...they want your textbooks back.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By theninjasquad (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:10:25

I'm not sure why this was a surprise or caught them off guard. I thought the developer was quite clear in October that he was going to demolish them?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:32:00 in reply to Comment 84235

he was also clear that he had no plans yet. Him and his partner argued over what to possibly build there right in front of the media. Why demolish these buildings when construction could still be years away, according to them.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:37:03 in reply to Comment 84239

Honestly, after seeing his pictures and the way he talked about them, it sounds like he had plans for the grocery store and the parking structure... but all that other stuff was hastily duct-taped on as ideas to make it more palatable.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:38:13 in reply to Comment 84241

He has a proposal, not a plan.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:37:07

Thanks Ryan for quickly embedding the video.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:49:03

I'm confused by why Wilson-Blanchard believes these properties have no value and cannot be sold to people who would properly redevelop them instead of destroying them, and I'll tell you why.

Our company (factore.ca) was throwing around the idea of moving a couple of months ago, and we were looking at various properties downtown. We need around 4 or 5,000 square feet for it to be worth a move, and we'd love to own our own building.

We didn't see anything that was appropriate, but then we got an email from our realtor telling us that the Chester's building by Gore Park was up for sale. We checked it out - 5,000 square feet, tons of heritage value, some tenants in the building already - it was perfect! This was a Friday, and we contacted our realtor that day to see if we could go see it the following Monday.

She got back to us later that afternoon and told us, "I can try to book a tour for it on Monday, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. There are three offers on it already."

If a building on the next block that goes up for sale gets THREE offers on it the same DAY it goes on the market, I'm having trouble understanding why Wilson-Blanchard needs to demolish all of these buildings.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:11:28 in reply to Comment 84244

The reason there was 3 offers was that people knew Blanchard owned most of the block, giving a remaining property significant value.

Those with offers hoped to be able to flip the property and extort a significant premium from Blanchard for them to get the full contiguous block.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blanched (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 01:36:56 in reply to Comment 84286

Blanchard owns the Chester's building that was up for sale.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:07:17 in reply to Comment 84244

not to mention, Blanchard has managed to renovate some old buildings downtown and completely fill them, while his modern, boring office counterparts have crazy vacancy rates. He knows that restored heritage sells. I don't even care if he saves the buildings. Just the facade would work.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:48:12 in reply to Comment 84247

Spreading the wealth around...

http://www.bbsrealty.com/images/uploads/resources/MAIN_WEST_777.pdf

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By thisisINSANITY (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:49:56

What if Council insisted the facade be incorporated into the proposed development IF they have to demolish at all?

It's great that this city's heritage is being lost to developer's greed.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brendansimons (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 14:51:37

This is so typical Hamilton. Ten bucks says the site becomes a parking lot for at least five years. Why tear it down? The same reason every property owner downtown does: Less maintenance and liability costs, lower tax rate, and potential parking revenue. The incentives are all wrong.

Forget heritage designation, council should enact a new bylaw: No demolitions unless the property owner guarantees new construction within two years. The city loses value every time a building is demolished, so lets say the owner has to post a bond worth the value of the demolished building, forfeited to the city if (when) they don't rebuild.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:07:41 in reply to Comment 84246

I believe we have such a bylaw, and that it was written specifically in response to Blanchard's demolition of a building on this same block, fronting onto James Street.

Why we aren't able to actually use this bylaw is not clear to me.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:21:01 in reply to Comment 84248

Yes, it already exists. A condition can be put on a demolition permit for a new building to be constructed within a certain period of the demolition. So what the owner of the property does is demolish the building via neglect.

They let the the property decay to the point where the city's engineering department deems it a safety hazard and orders it demolished. Then the condition to rebuild vanishes.

That's exactly what Denninger's did with the property on the south-west corner of King & Wellington.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By brendansimons (registered) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 00:26:12 in reply to Comment 84287

No problem. Same bylaw - if a building has to be torn down due to neglect, then the owner is charged the same value as the bond would have been. Add it to their tax bill, and if they can't pay, the city seizes the property.

Make parking lots an expensive option, and landowners will stop creating them.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Fred Youngs, CBC Hamilton (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:08:57

In the interest of accuracy, CBC Hamilton attended the meeting. Cory Ruf is covering the story for us.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:45:01 in reply to Comment 84249

I join Ryan in congratulating CBC on covering City Hall.

Fred, in the interest of accuracy, your outlet arrived after the debate was done and the vote to designate the buildings taken.

I'm glad you quickly followed up and added to the story.

Looking forward to more coverage in the new year.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:25:15 in reply to Comment 84282

Burn. CBC seemingly has raised their game post Roger Gillespie, but just not far enough yet...

Definitely, looking forward to 2013.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 16:41:28 in reply to Comment 84249

Glad to hear it. It's great to see CBC Hamilton doing more civic reporting.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By pearlstreet (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:39:41

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By what the real project is (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:49:09 in reply to Comment 84255

Blanchard's pictures are not a "project". This is simply a tall tale that will result in an empty lot. We have seen this many times before. Once the demolition permit is issued, they come down and the land owner gets a big fat tax rebate and there's no way for the city to force them to build.

Property values then continue to plummet and the speculator buys more of them.

They want to buy the bank on the corner - one of the only properties they don't own on that block. What better way than to tear everything around it down and turn it into a wasteland. Then it's easy to buy the neighbours at a nice price.

They have no serious plan to develop this now. They will continue demolition until they own the whole block. THEN they will start shopping it out. They don't care how long it takes. Meanwhile the rest of us grow old and suffer.

They will continue this process until a huge chunk of money comes along - and all the better if it's publilc money.

If these buildings come down it will be at least a decade before anything is built - if ever.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Vacant Lot (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 16:02:43 in reply to Comment 84257

Apples/oranges, but the city's investing $3.5 million into rehabbing a former strip club at 95 King East. Maybe $10 million -- with a full slate of Lister-esque preconditions -- is a small price to pay to retain 18-28 King East, even if a more principled outcome would be much more palatable. Or, unbeknownst to us all, does the city have a progressive wild card they're prepared to play?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 09:24:11 in reply to Comment 84260

If only we had $10 million left in the future fund...but I think we've already spent all that money...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:47:13

After watching the entire video, one has to conclude that having Councillor Ferguson on the Heritage committee is like having Atilla the Hun in charge of our Health Care System! Just ask McHattie.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:14:34 in reply to Comment 84256

Oh, if these buildings were in Ancaster, Ferguson would be livid...he'd be encouraging everyone to quit etc. like Brian was (by the way, so good to see that fed-up passion from Brian. It has to be mind-numbing working with a bunch of visionless windbags).

Ferguson is your poster-boy parochial politician. If it's Ancaster he's up in arms...same thing could happen downtown and he doesn't care. We need term limits NOW

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Huh? (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 01:08:04 in reply to Comment 84276

Wouldn't Brian be turfed by term limits also?
I'm struggling to see how they would actually help anything. There's definitely dead wood that needs clearing, but, it needs to be done by energizing / educating voters, not arbitrary measures.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeeJay (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:50:34

Or like having PJ Mercanti's puppet in charge of the c@sino subcommittee?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By grahamm (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 15:58:47

Buildings I know off the top of my head where facades are saved, new buildings inserted behind -

http://goo.gl/maps/DxQjp

http://goo.gl/maps/6M0uu

In almost any other city, these would be saved, restored and incorporated. Why does Hamilton demolish then build new? Is it that the additional cost of saving these buildings means that projects aren't financially viable?

Comment edited by grahamm on 2012-12-20 15:59:22

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 22, 2012 at 01:27:51 in reply to Comment 84259

grahamm,

I worry that given Hamilton's track record with built heritage, we may end up with many shells of old buildings:

"...Facadism holds out a great temptation - it seems, on the surface, to give both sides what they want. The small, older buildings valued by preservationists appear to be saved, while the large new ones developers seek can still be built.

But while facadism pretends to a certain earnestness, it is at bottom rather pernicious. For the compromise it represents is not really preservation at all. To save only the facade of a building is not to save its essence; it is to turn the building into a stage set, into a cute toy intended to make a skyscraper more palatable. And the street becomes a kind of Disneyland of false fronts."

"This attitude may be better than treating small, older buildings with total indifference, but it is still not enough to make a civilized city. For the whole point is that [old] buildings... are not sentimental objects; they are real buildings.

"For the city is not a place of make-believe, a place of illusion where little buildings exist to be pinned, like brooches, on the front of bigger structures to which they bear only the most distant of relationships. To turn an older building of distinction into a fancy front door for a new tower is to respect neither the integrity of the new or that of the old, but to render both buildings, in a sense, ridiculous. ....This is not to say that there are not cases in which old and new construction cannot be combined successfully."

Hamilton has become a culture of many "false fronts". We call people from all over the world and the region to Hamilton for its opportunities, and then destroy their neighbourhoods and livelihoods with our parochialism.

Our life-term councillors and their shenanigans have ensured that we will never be able to move this city confidently towards the 'urban ideal' we all cherish.

Things are only going to get worse in the coming year as hyper-greed drives more short-term thinking by our fractious councillors, while the local media continues to polarize our residents by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Under these conditions, offering low hanging fruits such as "preservation of facades" to desperate speculators would be like offering a drink to an alcoholic.

I can see our narrow bandwidth councillors - our mayors in-waiting, jump with glee at such thinking and turn this into a new mantra! and very soon, we may have butt-ugly green-glass boxes soaring twenty floors high, fifteen feet behind the carcases of old buildings lining King and James.

Facadism, is a chance not worth taking in Gore Park, or elsewhere in downtown Hamilton which has already been raped beyond recognition by the neglect of our leaders... at-least not until we manage to figure out how to get some enlightened women/men into our council chamber who know or who are not afraid to learn how to rebuild urbanism for our times and for future generations.

Mahesh P. Butani

More on the practice of facadism.

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-22 01:32:28

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 07:43:50 in reply to Comment 84334

Do you really believe this? Why do you have a problem with change? With growth? A hundred years ago all buildings were 3 or 4 or 5 stories or less because elevators were not around. Now we have ultra fast elevators. Now we can build a lot higher. Old buildings are just old buildings. Mankind has been destroying old buildings to build new ones for centuries that's how we got to were we are. Do you wish us to stagnate here and procede no further.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 24, 2012 at 15:10:54 in reply to Comment 84370

And where exactly are we at - having got to "where we are"?

Care to define that, "LOL all over again"?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 11:31:19 in reply to Comment 84416

Beyond 5 story walkups.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:17:47 in reply to Comment 84259

It's a bunch of thing: NO VISION being the first one.

Then, a bunch of lax zoning regulations that don't require anything substantial or attractive to be built in it's place. You can knock down Sanford and replace it with a stucco box that will be falling apart in 20 years.

Other cities have strict design guidelines, especially downtown. You think Shoppers Drug Mart, Sobeys or Canadian Tire are building those amazing looking urban stores in Toronto and Ottawa out of the goodness of their hearts?? No chance. Those cities demand excellence. We demand nothing....and as a result, we get crap.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By higgicd (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 16:51:11

Amazing. If there's one thing we all know the downtown needs, its a massive parking structure at street-level.

Is the revenue generated through parking really greater than the cost of other uses in the core? I can't believe things are demolished for new construction while much of the core remains a barren wasteland of parking spaces.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:17:00

alt text

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-20 17:21:20

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:24:25 in reply to Comment 84266

Reminds of an old Sci-fi film "The Blob" starring Steve McQueen. We could call ours "The Burb"

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:27:12

alt text

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Restorable Assets (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:39:22

RenewHamilton
http://renewhamilton.ca

“Between 2012 and 2014, we will follow five to seven significant renewal projects to discover all it takes to revitalize local restorable assets.” http://www.hamiltoneconomicsummit.ca/index.php/initiatives/renew-hamilton

RethinkRenewal
http://rethinkrenewal.com

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted January 06, 2013 at 20:16:14 in reply to Comment 84271

"Renew Hamilton is a new digital media initiative between the Hamilton Economic Summit and the Regeneration Institute for the Great Lakes out of McMaster University. It received $115,000 over three years to document about five case studies of urban renewal projects and create an educational curriculum."

http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/528131--city-gets-grants-to-accelerate-growth

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 17:46:02

I guess nobody told them either!

Meet the Renew Hamilton Team

Richard W. Allen - Richard is the Director of the Hamilton Renewal Project and is responsible for helping to lead and manage this effort.

David Adames – David is the President and CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and a keen champion of progressive city-building.

Sarah Glen - Sarah is a Senior Producer with Hamilton-based Project Video Productions and an award-winning specialist in participatory video for the education and training sector. She teachers a community engagement course at McMaster University and has a deep interest in community-based economic development.

Bill Humber – Bill is the Director, Office of Eco-Seneca Initiatives (OESi) and is responsible for embedding the environmental imperative in every academic program at Seneca College. He is the former Chair of the Centre for the Built Environment and co-founder of the Regeneration Institute for the Great Lakes.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg - Gail is a Professor at the McMaster Faculty of Engineering and Director of the ArcelorMittal Dofasco Centre for Engineering and Public Policy at McMaster University. She is also co-founder of the Regeneration Institute for the Great Lakes.

Glen Norton – Glen is the Manager of Urban Renewal for the City of Hamilton. He brings a multi-dimensional perspective to renewal through concurrently advancing business, arts and heritage, the environment and social inclusion.

Paul Shaker - Paul is the Executive Director of the Centre for Community Studies, an independent, non-profit research organization specializing in urban public policy issues. The Centre is headquartered in Hamilton. Paul brings to this project a rich understanding of Hamilton’s local asset base at the street level.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 07:55:10 in reply to Comment 84272

Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) January 25, 2007

5.5 Notice of Resignation from Paul Shaker.

The Committee requested that a letter and certificate of appreciation be forwarded to Paul Shaker for his service on the Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee).

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A1FDA12A-4B97-4118-995E-43C3FCCB2F28/0/Mar20LACACMINUTESJan25.pdf

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 19:35:16

Hamilton's Demolition Derby

The only way one can put an end to this madness is to convince the local Architects and Engineers to stop taking on work from such developers -- which we all know, will be next to impossible.

So the next best thing to do is to expose those architects and Engineers who help such developers and organizations in destroying heritage buildings in the name of progress - and then walk around the high-art circuit of Hamilton with a wine glass in their hand, talking like geniuses about urban revitalization and urban living.

Proposing a concept for discussion with the community is one thing when details are not yet finalized.

Applying for demolition permit even before a sensible concept is finalized is downright shameful behaviour. Such acts only reveal the level of contempt one holds for the local community.

It sure must take a huge amount of ego to propose a figure of $120 Million without having a bloody clue as to what the development would entail.

Real-estate agents and Real-estate developers are two different mind-sets.

Very few real estate agents have been able to make the crossover to successful developments outside of suburban tract-housing or speculative box construction. This is because, a sales agent's mindset is simply incapable of handling the subtle nuances both architectural and financial, for complex urban developments of such magnitude.

The victims as always, are urban residents whose emotions are yanked around with predictable premature announcements, hyped up financial projections and brinkmanship to level buildings.

All serious developers in most cities that I am aware, make a sincere effort to engage the local community in the pre-planning process of projects of such magnitude - as there is a very serious financial responsibility to construction lenders that comes into play with such undertakings. There is no room for error, whims or fancy footwork once a project is announced.

A project conceived with such bravado, supported by an inside-clique of drum beaters in the local media, is simply not ready for show time, let alone a freaking demolition permit - which itself has restriction imposed by the city to ensure that no parking lots materialize on flattened lands.

So what is the agenda here? real, meaningful development? or more tom foolery, which this city has developed a reputation for?

$120 Million divided by $200 per square foot for construction cost, results in 600,000 square feet of developed property. Can the downtown absorb such square footage of yet to be defined space? Can the downtown absorb another market after the one that has already been announced recently?

And at what sale value? $400 per square foot? - considering the re-payment of interest and capital over time it take to construct and sell? So, will a unit of 750 square foot at $400/sq.ft amounting to $300,000 per avg unit, sell the 800 odd units that would accrue from 600,000 square feet of development at $120 million?

And was the $120 Million figure thrown around in the press the cost of construction? or the sales projection?

Most developments start with a solid market study, then design schematic and community consultation, then final designs & financial projections.

Here, we have: the end number first, which sounds great: $120 Million!! and no clue as to what is to be built. And by the way, a demolition permit,which is absolutely essential, since we are so prone to working in reverse in Hamilton.

This site in all probability is getting ready to be sold as a vacant parcel to anyone who will ride into town on a white horse, and who knows what s/he is doing... just as were those hundred flattened sites scattered across the downtown core, which are still awaiting the rider on the horse to come and save downtown.

Mahesh P. Butani

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-20 20:29:35

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By DavidColacci (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:23:06

I think the scary part of this is the resulting vacant lots that will sit for how long? Is there any way to impact the outcome, make them re-consider until there are actual plans finalized?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:43:14 in reply to Comment 84278

The only way is for Council to hold an emergency meeting between now and January 9.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 24, 2012 at 23:57:17 in reply to Comment 84281

Assuming that the councillors are complicit, and are willing to violate their fiduciary duty by choosing to remain on holiday while the 'Gore District Heritage' is butchered --- the fact still remains that the alleyway behind these buildings and the sidewalk in front, are "public property".

To block any alleyway or the sidewalk, for demolition purposes, requires a permit. Which requires an application and an approval. This in all probability has not been issued by the traffic department as yet, given the ham-fisted approach of the property owners.

The sidewalk in front and the alleyway to the rear are actively used by Hamilton residents every day.

Chris Murray's & Clr Ferguson's jobs are on the line here, if any permit/approval to block the rear alleyway or front sidewalk is granted --post fact-- the public disclosure of this:

"staff and the Economic Development and Planning Committee failed to act on the recommendations of the Heritage Committee weeks earlier. It never made it to City Council as Councillor McHattie states on the record." ~ GS

The owners will in all probability attempt to demolish these buildings from the rear, while the councillors are on a holiday.

They simply do not have the courage to take these buildings down from the front, in my opinion. If they had, they would not have played such a juvenile game of brinkmanship with the people of Hamilton.

As a back up --- just in case both Chris Murray, Clr Ferguson or any Staff of the City of Hamilton, decides to overstep their job descriptions in the interim --- it would be appropriate under these circumstance for the "People of Hamilton" to inform the Hamilton Police to take appropriate action and/or set up a citizens-watch in the alleyway behind these buildings and the sidewalk in front, in order to 'specifically stop any backhoes from blocking the rear alleyway or the sidewalk/road in front, without a legal permit'.

I am sure that, when our councillors realize that their duties are now being performed by the people of Hamilton, most of them will run back to the council chamber much before January 9, to reclaim their territory.

Mahesh P. Butani

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-25 00:05:18

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 25, 2012 at 14:15:57 in reply to Comment 84418

where do you come up with this nonsense?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 20:46:55 in reply to Comment 84281

Having informally polled Councillors - not a possibility.

The developer is telling CBC and TheSpec there is no intention of moving to demolish until June 1st, but that's not binding.

The second a backhoe hits the building, all is lost.

If there is no action to demolish before Council meets, they can revoke the demolition permit by moving to designate.

It's a race - who moves first? The backhoe or Council?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:34:20 in reply to Comment 84283

A backhoe is quicker than council, every time.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:39:30

Interesting development, I must say. So do people think it is time to storm the Bastille? ``

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:46:22

Hamilton, the new Brantford!

Those up on downtown demolition records will get that statement.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Buchanan (anonymous) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 21:48:42

The whole bunch of them, committee, staff and Councillors should all be fired. They are incompetence personified.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2012 at 22:31:42

Look at Port Dalhousie in St. Catharines - developer bought up all of the old historic buildings in Port Dalhousie - promised a big shiny new condo tower, evicted all the tenants in the historic buildings, boarded up everything...and let it sit for going on two years now...waiting for enough units to be sold to finance the project.

I am not one for holding on to heritage buildings for the sake of heritage - but there is no way you can argue that that section of buildings cannot be economically viable.

I remember going on a starving artist's studio tour in downtown Hamilton in high school circa 1994. I remember going up staircases in sketchy alleys and then into these unbelievable loft studios. Rundown and pathetic to be sure - but even a grade 10 highschool student could see the immediate potential.

Hell, I remember going to a nightclub that was in the old Bank of Montreal building at 1 Main West - that one turned out pretty well (restored and is now a Gowlings office).

If council lets this go through we have a much much much more serious problem in this City than I could have ever suspected...and that is saying a lot.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 20, 2012 at 23:11:43

Anyone else hear this rumour of 20 Jackson West being demolished soon to make way for more parking? I hope it's not true, but nothing would surprise me anymore.

It's this building: http://goo.gl/maps/2Bw4O

Seriously, we must figure out a way to get the city to relax it's parking demands. It's the number one obstacle to us ever seeing a vibrant, walkable downtown come back. They only care about parking. I can think of over 6 developments killed by city hall in the past year alone due to parking demands....all in the urban core area. This isn't the Meadowlands. Surely they can come up with a set of guidelines for the old parts of the city, and a different set for the burbs?
Our city is being destroyed on the backs of some of the most outdated zoning you'll ever see. And as is usually the case, nobody at city hall cares enough to fix it. Anything new and progressive in this city has come from hard work of volunteers. From LRT becoming an agenda to two-way streets to bike lanes etc.... if not for the hard volunteer work of citizens, none of these things would be happening. We'd just be paving everything over for more parking. So, if we want to see these outdated zoning laws changed, we need to lead the charge. Any ideas??? Enough is enough.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 20:31:36 in reply to Comment 84294

A chunk of Jackson East is also up for grabs.

154 & 158 Jackson East, 63 & 65 Walnut South: $519,900

http://www.bbsrealty.com/images/uploads/resources/Jackson_St_E_154.pdf

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 11:35:22 in reply to Comment 84363

If what you say is true then the preservationists on this site should rush right out and buy them. Then they can show us how it is done. Buy up those properties and rehab them and make a bunch of money. Come on show us.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 12:17:14 in reply to Comment 84428

You mean like the people who did EXACTLY THAT on James North. That is how it is done. It's already being done, and with buildings that were in worse shape than the Blanchard Busting Block on King.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 07:43:42 in reply to Comment 84294

Do you think they just don't care, or do we have a little Montreal occurring in Hamilton?

By little Montreal I mean, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/corruption-inquiry-told-montreal-mayors-circle-allegedly-took-bribes/article4628693/

Another slogan for the city: Hamilton, little Montreal!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By frig (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 07:54:23 in reply to Comment 84299

I wouldn't mind the one way streets and corruption if we also got all the other cool stuff Montreal has.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 00:10:34

The tenants in these buildings have until April to get out. They are paying rent - I don't think Blanchard will try to fast track it. Question is, can a deal be brokered before then which would see the facades preserved, as with the Thomas building?

Everyone though LIUNA was the devil back then but given a bit of incentive, they came through. The Blanchard group is quite similar - proven track record of adaptive reuse, but also keen to demolish when they see fit. I wouldn't throw in the towel on this yet.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Designreviewpanel (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 06:31:10

To address some of the comemnts:
1. Design Review Panel - why is the city so afraid of it? David Premi among other architects, planners, and engineers have been pushing it for year, but no one is taking them on. This will help create a vision and a design standard.
2. Public Consultation/Charette - ask the developer and architect to put this project out for public consultation. Let the people have input into the design. Not for just this project but all projects on main urban streets
3. Structural Integrity - before we say yes or no to tearing things down, how about looking at the structural integrity of these buildings. They may be too unsafe to restore. I believe the developer would have made his decision to demolish or adaptive reuse since he is known for both types of work.

We may not be able to fight this but, we can work with them to ensure good design in a spot that could prove our worth to have a beautified building to replace this. Personally, I think the buildings are a hodgepodge and sore to the eye. I hope both the developer and architect put something there that will make people stand up, take notice and assist in creating a vision for this city.


Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 13:05:04 in reply to Comment 84298

Thats exactly why its going down structural problem on the higher floors

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 21, 2012 at 14:08:43 in reply to Comment 84324

This is absolutely incorrect.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Lenny (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 13:12:47 in reply to Comment 84324

Bollocks. There are tenants in some of those higher floors. All those buildings need is some money to clean them up and renovate inside and they could be productive and valuable. W-B spent a decade not spending any money on them and then complain they can't make money off them. You need to invest to earn, it's that simple.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 07:53:07 in reply to Comment 84325

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 08:05:33

Isn't David Premi the Architect on this project?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 21, 2012 at 12:14:39 in reply to Comment 84301

So far, yes. But it's not really a project. It's just a brain fart with a few coloured boxes attached to it.

A real visionary, eh?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By J (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 15:44:29 in reply to Comment 84317

hopefully some people reconsider their adulation of Premi after this. Somehow the man has been made out to be some kind of visionary for putting LED lights in a useless glass wall on York that makes the market less friendly and the streetscape equally or less inviting than it was before.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LovetheGore (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 17:04:35 in reply to Comment 84383

J, What does Premi have to do with this? He doesn't own part of WB does he?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By premi's shame (anonymous) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 00:34:03 in reply to Comment 84387

His office is in one of the buildings.

He did the "renderings" (coloured boxes) which Blanchard used to sell his "vision" to the press.

Why any local architect would attach their brand to such a disgrace is beyond me.

He should be totally ashamed to have his name anywhere NEAR this project.

If he gave a shit about Hamilton, he'd either refuse to leave his space - or immediately move out - whichever would make the strongest point to Blanchard about the importance of keeping these buildings.

Instead he draws up and stamps his approval on a parking garage facing Gore Park?

His motives are inconceivable.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 17:03:34 in reply to Comment 84383

I remember reading that the Market/Library project was over budget to the tune of 3-4 million. Can anyone verify this.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 11:37:03 in reply to Comment 84386

If a project of that size came in at only 3 or 4 million over budget I would be impressed.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 12:16:19 in reply to Comment 84429

A rumour plus a bias does not equal a fact.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LovetheGore (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 17:09:44 in reply to Comment 84386

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140355&page=7 - March 22, 2010 at 3:37 says it is was on schedule and on budget.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Sky Door Gone (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 09:01:35

He also has until April to get out.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PearlStreet (registered) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 09:50:46

I wonder sometimes how much mob influence still exists in Hamilton, I bet quite a bit...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 10:47:17

Talk about skewed perspective on Heritage. Destroy Sandford and relocate a one room classroom at considerable cost and risk further damage to the structure. What's wrong with where it is? Tim Simmons explains in this article

http://metronews.ca/news/hamilton/263141/mohawk-trail-school-moving-to-new-board-hq-site/

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By enbertussi (registered) - website | Posted December 21, 2012 at 15:47:39

This kind of thing is what made living in Hamilton frustrating and heart breaking.

As much as James North et al are trying to do good, many of them are not actually from Hamilton.

As quick as they have come to Hamilton's rescue is as quick as some may grow weary.

Corporate citizens like wilson blanchard must be shamed into submission, the risks for their choosing to destroy our heritage must be too great to approach.

ENB..//

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kayla Chelsea (anonymous) | Posted December 21, 2012 at 21:10:27

Why Canadians decided to demolish historical buildings instead of renovate / restore them and maintain in good condition, just as the Europeans are doing? These are our national good and no one should have the right to destroy them ! Maybe some "executives" should be send to, for example, Spain, France, Italy or even to Czech Republic, Poland and Russia to learn how to take a proper care of our national heritage:)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 02:16:11

Just to point out...these buildings were in pretty rough shape. A good 30 years of neglect. When they took one down, it damaged the next one. You could see light through the bricks. I think many of the tenants have fled since. Sad to see, but like Sanford School; we have to fix these things before they get to the point of demolition.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 15:49:47 in reply to Comment 84335

Have you been inside these buildings or are you relying on what has been reported?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By screencarp (registered) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 19:22:43 in reply to Comment 84384

I've been in these building. I've also worked/partied in these buildings often over the past 30 years. Roof problems, mould, pigeons...everything decaying. No idea about the structural integrity, but if parts of the roof cave in, chances are the owner hasn't inspected it in some time.

When they took part of it down, it fell into the building beside (South Side) and it damaged it to the point you could see light through the bricks. I wonder if there is more of a storey to that demolition.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 06:46:24

Why is this a suprise? This was made pretty darn clear in the fall.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 07:46:55

A surprise more than a decade in the making.

http://raisethehammer.org/comment/64099

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Gary Santucci (anonymous) | Posted December 22, 2012 at 09:07:38 in reply to Comment 84341

Watch the video. The only surprise here was that staff and the Economic Development and Planning Committee failed to act on the recommendations of the Heritage Committee weeks earlier. It never made it to City Council as Councillor McHattie states on the record.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 12:02:33

Making minutes available in advance of meetings might have given the Heritage Committee a warning flare. As it stands, as "extremely embarrassing" as this episode is, at least this is somewhat above-board. It could easily be much worse:



Designed by architect John Lyle, he of Union Station and the Royal Alexandra Theatre, the century-old residential building at 7 Austin Terrace was reduced to a shell Tuesday as a small crowd watched in disbelief.

Todd, who bought the property in 2008, wants to tear it down to make way for a row of townhouses.

In theory there's nothing wrong with that, but rather than bother with the niceties of the heritage designation the city is seeking, Todd hired a gang of architectural thugs to tear the place apart, but not demolish it.

For that, a demolition permit would have been required, something Todd and his lawyer, Adam Brown, never asked for.

"Everything that was done today was in our rights as the property owner," said Todd, speaking words that have been heard many times before.

"There's nothing heritage about any part of that building," said Brown. "Today, the building is not listed or designated. My client bought it ... but it's not listed as a designated building. It's a vacant building."

Never more so than now.

"Technically, it wasn't a demolition," Toronto Councillor Joe Mihevc explained. "But obviously they are destroying all the heritage features. There's outrage at city hall that they can get away with this."

That's not hard to understand; the way the system works, however, means that until a building has been designated, it isn't protected. But designation takes time, and city council won't reconvene until Jan. 21.

"Once it's designated," Mihevc continued, "Todd can be charged. But you can't designate something that's been destroyed."


http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/740496--hume-toothless-laws-led-to-shameful-destruction

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By LovetheGore (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2012 at 16:33:22

Anonymous, I have been in those buildings. I tried to lease the 3rd floor at 28 King St E - it has structural issues. In fact, the whole building has structural issues since the owner tore down the building beside it (apparently, not WB but someone else owned the building beside it). Also, the basements are crumbling which also created structural problems. Most of the buildings have only 1 or 2 tenants.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By wrong (anonymous) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 00:36:45 in reply to Comment 84385

They are not crumbling. They have been standing for a hundred years (some for 150) and will stand for a hundred more in the right hands.

Clearly those hands aren't Blanchard's.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 11:42:49 in reply to Comment 84395

What are you basing your statement on? Have you seen the basements? Do you know that they are sound? or are you simply assuming they are sound? or even worse are you simply wishing that they are sound? When anyone tells me that the basement of a hundred year old building is crumbling my first inclination is to believe them because more hundred year old basements are crumbling then not.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 12:15:42 in reply to Comment 84430

What a load of crap. I live in a neighbourhood FULL of hundred year old buildings and they're in excellent shape. The hundred year old building that is falling apart is the exception, and it's usually because the building was neglected for DECADES instead of taken care of.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 08:21:39 in reply to Comment 84432

Have you been in those homes, jones? Are you a structural engineer who knows a sound building from an unsound one? Stop your trolling.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By structural engineer (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 09:50:11 in reply to Comment 84448

So, everyone commenting on structural integrity has to be a structural engineer. Except LOL and you.

Got it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:23:21 in reply to Comment 84454

I'm not claiming to be, but having seen failing foundations and condemned buildings, I know what it looks like, albeit a very limited perspective. But to throw around generics, a very common trend around RTH commenters, is getting tired.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By just a stone's throw away (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 11:47:44 in reply to Comment 84457

How's the view from your glass house?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:29:06 in reply to Comment 84457

So now the internet trolls who just said most hundred year old buildings have failing foundations are scolding others about "throwing around generics". Classy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 18:30:27 in reply to Comment 84395

Sorry, but they are crumbling. I've been in a number of them over the past few years. They needed help 20 years ago.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 03:07:18 in reply to Comment 84395

Are they your hands? Do you have the funds to fix decades of neglect in buildings with funny shapes and poor access to upper levels? Are you willing to take on the leases for these, or put an offer down to buy them?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 04:51:02 in reply to Comment 84396

Beauty certainly is in the eye of the beholder. However we keep adopting outmoded urban design first developed in the U.S.A.; commercial strips that can be found in every city, the big box layout surrounded by parking, a hodge podge of fast food outlets, car lots and gas stations. Suburban housing developments with some the ugliest cookie cutter designs ever produced. Many American cities have begun to move away from this model and are thriving, those that didn't like Detroit have failed. We have chosen the path of Detroit and are likely to continue to do so. So let's just screw any creative thinking, one house one design, one car one design, one suit one design, we get the picture.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 09:16:09 in reply to Comment 84397

Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying, Anon. There's plenty of beauty but it isn't in rotting and decayed buildings that haven't been properly looked after in 5+decades. Sure, that can be fixed, but at what cost, and why? Have you looked at these buildings? The ground floor on each one stands out like an eyesore against the upper levels with large opposing colours, fluorescent lighting and patios. The upper levels are peeling paint, grimy windows and rot. What's to love?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By colours and lights (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:07:47 in reply to Comment 84399

My neighbour's house stands out from the neighbourhood with large opposing colours and LED lighting and a deteriorating porch. Shall we request it be torn down?

Just because someone screwed some ugly signs to a building does not make it "rotting" and "decayed".

Look at the spec photos from inside the buildings. The worst they could muster was some peeling paint.

Many buildings have been brought back from MUCH worse condition. No tenants, no heat, no walls, no floors? NO PROBLEM. FOr a real developer, that is.

While they may technically be private property, these buildings are in the public interest as their condition and existence affects all other downtown businesses, property owners and visitors.

Would you support this:

If Blanchard does not have the economic fortitude to fix them up, he should be required to list them at fair market rates for a certain amount of time before tearing them down.

Obviously this concept is but a dream, but to me it is reasonable. There are people who would buy these buildings if they were made available.

This guy has ONE goal: amassing vacant land for resale.

He doesn't give a shit about Hamilton, he doesn't give a shit about downtown and he doesn't give a shit about you. He doesn't give a shit about our already-too-high taxes, he doesn't give a shit about bringing more people to live here.

Why the hell you want to defend him is a total mystery to me.

He has a track record of tearing buildings down, sprinkled with the odd renovation (which is spiced up almost always with stucco). He is a lowest common denominator glorified real estate agent.

His plan is demolition. THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE THERE IS!!!!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:30:36 in reply to Comment 84456

My neighbour's house stands out from the neighbourhood with large opposing colours and LED lighting and a deteriorating porch. Shall we request it be torn down?

Sure, if it's a hazard to yourself and neighbours or does not meet property standards. If a variance was required for the changes, and you did nothing, that's on you. If it wasn't, well, too bad for you. My point, which you've missed, was that there's nothing there to save but an old building that's really not old looking, and nobody gave a thought to until the spectre of demolition was raised.

Just because someone screwed some ugly signs to a building does not make it "rotting" and "decayed".

Look at the spec photos from inside the buildings. The worst they could muster was some peeling paint.

I didn't say that signs make a building rotting and decayed. I say that based on the obvious peeling paint and rot you can see from the exterior, especially on the mostly-unused upper floors. I also noticed you made no comment about the funny sizes or lack of accessibility to the upper floors. How do you propose to fix that?

Many buildings have been brought back from MUCH worse condition. No tenants, no heat, no walls, no floors? NO PROBLEM. FOr a real developer, that is. While they may technically be private property, these buildings are in the public interest as their condition and existence affects all other downtown businesses, property owners and visitors.

Blah, blah, blah. If you're upset you should do something about it instead of crying online.

Would you support this: If Blanchard does not have the economic fortitude to fix them up, he should be required to list them at fair market rates for a certain amount of time before tearing them down. Obviously this concept is but a dream, but to me it is reasonable. There are people who would buy these buildings if they were made available.

Sure I would. But it's not going to happen. If he buys the buildings and there's nothing to stop him from doing it, go talk to the people who sold him the buildings. Put together a proposal to buy them back. Voice your displeasure in a public place, like City Hall.

This guy has ONE goal: amassing vacant land for resale. He doesn't give a shit about Hamilton, he doesn't give a shit about downtown and he doesn't give a shit about you. He doesn't give a shit about our already-too-high taxes, he doesn't give a shit about bringing more people to live here. Why the hell you want to defend him is a total mystery to me. He has a track record of tearing buildings down, sprinkled with the odd renovation (which is spiced up almost always with stucco). He is a lowest common denominator glorified real estate agent. His plan is demolition. THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE THERE IS!!!!

Because there's nothing worth saving, although the vocal minority makes it out like he's the devil incarnate. Private investors are free to do what they wish, as long as it's legal. If demolition by neglect is legal, they're going to do it. You don't like it? Then get council to change it. This city needs modern buildings so badly. We don't have enough. There's hardly any modern buildings downtown. Have you noticed that? How many cities of our size are like that?

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2012-12-27 10:30:52

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 14:31:15 in reply to Comment 84459

Woah woah woah - let's slow down a bit.

How are these buildings "a hazard to yourself and neighbours"? That is hyperbolic nonsense and you know it. They are not hazardous.

We have basically no property standards bylaw. But if we did, if a building "does not meet property standards", is the answer to tear it down?

Blanchard bought these in I believe 1999. They have had operational businesses in them for most of the time since. They are not vacant, nor crumbling.

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain building safety. And if the owner doesn't, are we to reward him with a demolition permit and a tax break?

Why are you defending this move? He has no investors and no anchor tenant. I interviewed him for Hamilton Magazine and from his own mouth he told me he has "no real plan there" and that he would like to see "a grocery store or a Target or... I don't know" as an anchor tenant. Yes his list of prospective tenants includes the phrase "I don't know".

So we have to assume that the "development plan" is not actually going to happen. At least not in the foreseeable future.

Do you really believe that an empty lot in the interim is the best thing for downtown?

Are you arguing just for the sake of the fight?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted January 01, 2013 at 14:19:52 in reply to Comment 84469

I'm stating the opinion that these buildings aren't anything special, other than they are old. If we save every single thing that's old we'll never move past it. Kinda like what's happening now.

Hamilton's got a wealth of old buildings, probably moreso than the majority of cities in our country. But we've made a point of taking down jewels like the old city hall, the Birks building and so on, and replacing them with uninspired and bland designs. We need modern stuff downtown, like a 20+ storey condo building, preferrably several. We need modern skyscrapers that are full and not sitting nearly empty and completely stripped inside, like the Stelco tower. We need more mixed use downtown, like a grocery store, 24-hour shopping, amenities, etc. We don't have it. That space on King would be ideal for a grocery store, a theatre, a bowling alley, a small chain electronics/video store, retail, whatever. It's design is not something that people really go for any more - narrow and deep. Nowadays everyone wants wide and shallow. People want elevators or open staircases to get from floor to floor, not ultra narrow and steep single-width staircases. When was the last time you took a staircase along that stretch to get up to the 2nd or 3rd floors? When did you last do that anywhere where it wasn't open, light, wide, with big landings and rails? Why are arguing they should stay up? I don't get it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By examples (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 09:52:43 in reply to Comment 84399

Name some buildings that have been built in the last 20 - or I'll be more generous - 50 years that are better looking, better built, and more architecturally significant than the ones they replaced.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:32:20 in reply to Comment 84455

Is that the point? I'd say things like the building review panel or something more inspired than glass and stucco are needed, but guess what, that costs a hell of a lot more and obviously that's not done any more. I love the look of good brick, sandstone, and proper masonry but that's a dead trend.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By and or not nor (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 11:50:40 in reply to Comment 84460

Logic:

We need new buildings badly!

None of our new buildings are nice!

New buildings aren't done well anymore!

I love the look of old buildings!

Therefore: Let's tear these buildings down.

????

QED

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:54:13 in reply to Comment 84467

No, more ramblings, but appreciate the trolling.

These buildings aren't nice. I don't see any beauty there. They haven't retained period looks on the streetfront, and are neglected on the upper floors. That's all. Sorry that opinions are somehow mistaken for fact on your part.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By and or not nor (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 19:01:08 in reply to Comment 84474

I'm simply summarizing your own logic.

If you classify your logic as trolling, I won't argue.

Not seeing the beauty is fine. But calling for more empty lots is not fine.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 07:14:39 in reply to Comment 84480

Not calling for more empty lots. If there's a plan, great. If there's not, it's not OK. However, the buildings don't do it for me, they won't be missed and if it gives us what we need (a new grocery store in the core) then I'm all for it.

It wasn't logic btw, it was opinion. They are not the same.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pay attention this time.... (anonymous) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 08:29:21 in reply to Comment 84489

There is no plan.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted January 01, 2013 at 14:08:48 in reply to Comment 84497

There's no plan released yet. Holy cow, the buildings aren't even down yet and you guys are pissing and moaning like they just took your house down and you don't have anywhere to go.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By logos (anonymous) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 07:20:22 in reply to Comment 84489

"It wasn't logic btw, it was opinion. They are not the same."

Clearly.

Just an FYI, opinions aren't facts either. Whatever opinions you want, knock yourself out. But your opinions will be less ridiculous if they're based on facts and follow logic.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted January 01, 2013 at 14:10:25 in reply to Comment 84491

I didn't say my opinions were fact, they're just opinions. Your opinions are just as ridiculous to me as mine are to you. Just because they're old doesn't mean they're worth saving.

Hey, there's a convenience store at the corner of Walnut and Young that's going to be torn down soon to make way for a townhouse complex. Let's get the heritage committee to get that building flagged so we don't loose that 2-storey monument to the 60s-70s!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 01, 2013 at 16:55:00 in reply to Comment 84606

Yeah, knocking down a convenience store for a townhouse complex is the same as knocking down a 1840 building designed by William Thomas to make ... oh yeah, nothing. Just because it's your "opinion" doesn't mean it's allowed to not make sense.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 24, 2012 at 11:24:17

There are many things wrong with these structures; where is the by-law enforcement for property standards violations, different strokes for different folks I guess. A guy begins buying historically significant buildings maybe close to 20 years ago and initiates the demolition by neglect that may or may not have compromised the structures (his words or maybe yours too). Then they float some crazy mega project scheme with nothing behind it and the two partners pretend to disagree. He then has influence by a councillor or three to squash the possibility of a heritage designation or at least a further 60 delay before demolition proceeds. Yes there are many things wrong with these structures starting with the ownership and an architect willing to play along. What you have here is the Hamilton Parking Lot expansion methodology.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 05:46:53 in reply to Comment 84402

Prove it. Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 13:21:46 in reply to Comment 84421

Prove what?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 05:55:47 in reply to Comment 84437

That the above comment is a methodology, like you posted, Anon.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 08:24:28 in reply to Comment 84446

Let's start with the demolition of Robinson's in 1989 now a parking lot. How about the Palace theatre, a parking lot. The corner of King William and James, I believe it was F.W.Woolworth, a parking Lot. The Canada Permanent Trust Building on James South, across from the Pigott building, a parking lot and many many more. All demolished in the name of re-development. Buy a building, destroy a building make a parking lot.(Chapter 1, Section A, subsection i) How to fool all of the people all of the time.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By z jones (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:37:01 in reply to Comment 84449

It's not like examples are hard to come by.

demoed lots

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:33:48 in reply to Comment 84449

I'll plead ignorance here, but were any plans put forth when those buildings were razed? Do you know? I certainly don't.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted December 26, 2012 at 12:11:56

I knew people in the upper floors of those buildings years ago, it was a beautiful space and contributed a lot to the community around it. When they left, "Blanchard" was their explanation. This has been in the works for years. Oh, and by the way, in their new space, they just had their "crumbling basement" fixed without a hundredth of Blanchard's budget.

Paying for regular maintenance is part of buying and owning a building. If you can't be bothered to monitor these issues or manage to fix them in a timely manner, you cannot afford to own the building. Nothing lasts forever, especially without timely maintenance. Don't tell me one of the City's biggest developers/owners didn't understand this or couldn't afford it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Tomato/Potato (anonymous) | Posted December 26, 2012 at 16:30:33

Three-year flashback:

"Hamilton's makeover master is taking on his biggest project yet -- the CIBC tower at 21 King St. W.

And that has downtown boosters beaming.

Realtor and property manager Dave Blanchard has put together a group of investors who expect to take over the 17-storey mirrored tower, the twin to 1 King St. W., Nov. 10.

The gleaming office building, more than a third vacant right now, opened in 1989, two years after the first tower. It cost $30 million then but Blanchard and associates in Office Mortgage Investments will pay $14 million, plus invest more than $700,000 in equipment. That includes upgrades to electrical, heating and cooling systems.

'This is an A building in terms of size and location, and word on the street is already sending us lots of interested parties,' he said."

http://www.investinhamilton.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SpectOct23-09c.pdf

Sidewalks in Toronto's financial district are made of meticulous granite pavers. They convey unshakable confidence.

Sidewalks in Hamilton's financial district are made of frost-heaved '80s Interlock and cracked concrete patched with asphalt. They convey malleable principles.

:/


Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By dan5010 (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 11:20:40

On and on it goes! Found a beautiful historic building in Hamilton? - Hamilton will gladly grant a demolition permit to some greedy developer to tear it down and put up some god forsaken parking garage!!!

Hamilton has neither the courage or imagination to find better uses for its buildings.

As the song goes... pave paradise, put in a parking lot!!!! I am so goddam sick it!!!!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:03:42

The historic streetwall (part) on Gore Park South above, with the streetwall as it stands today, below: (buildings: 12, 18/20/22, 24/28 + 30)

Except for the garish storefront signage w/stucco backing, which has lowered the main floor facade heights, and the bad stucco job on the face of 24 King, very little needs to be done to bring them back to their former glory. Much like the Terraces on James South, or the Sandyford Place off James South.

These buildings (not counting No:12, the bank bldg), have close to 14,000 sq.feet of retail, (with potential for a patio where 30 Kings was demolished). And close to 33,600 sq.feet of live/work space on upper floors. That is almost 50,000 sq.feet of usable space.

A better visioning process such as below of transplanting the old design on the current -- could have seen the heart of our core thriving as early as 2002.

Because of the contiguous nature of these solid buildings in Gore Park, it would have been very easy to build an addition of two-three floors at the rear half - (set back around 50 feet from front, with stepped terraces facing Gore park; and new exits/elevators at rear), to bring the total live/work space to around 50,000 sq.feet + retail of around 14,000 sq.ft.

Depending on the vision of the developer, an innovative boutique hotel with stepped floors could have been added on these additional floors - without impacting the existing facade -- which could have been stripped down and restored to its original design for little cost (as you can see from the composite images above, very little has to be done to restore these facades). The entrance to this 100+ room terraced boutique hotel on top could have been from the Bank Building, which could have had a thriving indoor urban environment, with: a 24hrs cafe, jazz lounge, gift shops/retail, and Hamilton's history & Hall of fame gallery.

In conjunction with the Right House conversion (across Gore Park) to live/work lofts (and not its current misplaced office use) - close to 125,000 sq. feet of high quality loft space could have been put into the market, which in turn would have seen close to 200 young people living/working in the core for the last ten years.

Why buildings get demolished most often is because their developers aspire for more square footage such as: 14,000 sq.feet (existing floor plate) x 10 floors = 140,000 sq.feet. Hence all the talk of deterioration and the need for progress.

What such developers and their architects who pander to their whims, do not know is that with very little creativity, the very same density can be achieved without demolishing such very well crafted buildings.

In this particular case, the council could very easily satisfy the developer's craving for pre-mature progress, (i.e. growth, height...) by transferring the balance height (air rights) from these wonderful buildings to the empty parking lots at rear, which he owns. These two lots facing James and Main can very easily absorb another 100,000 sq. feet from the buildings facing Gore.

The city gets to keep its heritage - intact, its alleyway free, and acheive the density it needs for assessment revenues, while the developer gets his square footage.

Mahesh P. Butani

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-27 16:46:47

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:08:03 in reply to Comment 84470

Best Butani post of 2012!

Thank you for this.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By dont do it (anonymous) | Posted December 31, 2012 at 13:07:17 in reply to Comment 84471

You should not acknowledge this man, let alone praise him. Be warned.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:51:45 in reply to Comment 84471

Thank You Sean! Seasons Greetings & Best wishes to everyone here for the coming New year.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:22:41

Mahesh, I love your vision of things.

I wonder you know, if our ancestors would not be rolling in their graves, to see how things have become. If you ask me, too many brown nosers out there, who lack fortitude to do anything of value.







Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 17:55:17 in reply to Comment 84472

Thank You SCRAP! There is a very interesting news article I was just reading about the handing over of the reins of one of the most reputed $100 Billion conglomerate to the new guard.

The advice given by the relatively young outgoing Chairman of 75 yrs, to the new, much younger chief of only 43 years, was striking in its simplicity, and cut to the heart of the matter.

He told him this: "if you want my inputs I will give it to you but be your own man and be yourself and just be driven by the fact that every act you do and every move you make has to stand the test of public scrutiny".

Hamilton's industrial success of decades ago, I believe, was founded on such thinking.

In order to really turn this city around, our old and young entrepreneurs, our public officials including many of our retired politicians who continue to influence extremely poor debates on critical city issues, need to be fired up with such candor.

While our city's productivity continues to be choked by old thinking from those who refuse to retire and allow the new guard to lead -- it is so refreshing to know that one of the most progressive businesses in the world has already handed over the reigns of its immense world wide business operations to the new guard - all of whom in their mid thirties to early fifties.

One can only imagine the impact of such progressive thinking on the productivity and growth of such a business enterprise - and the relevance such trust holds for the younger generation.

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2012-12-27 18:09:41

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 16:56:00 in reply to Comment 84472

What about the buildings that those ones took the place of? Was there this uproar then?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By actually (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 18:58:35 in reply to Comment 84475

The 1840s buildings are said to be the original buildings at those addresses.

>18-22 King Street East

...

>BUILDING INFORMATION
>Date Built: 1840s
>Original Owner: Archibald and Thomas C. Kerr, dry goods merchants
>Original Use: Wholesale dry goods business to 1906
>Subsequent Uses: Wholesale shoes and leather goods (John Lennox & Co., 1910-1922); financial offices; Honey Dew Coffee Shop (1942-70); various retail stores (including Robert Duncan, book store)
>Previous Building on Site: Unknown, probably none

>ARCHITECTURE
>Size: Three-storeys
>Design and Style: Neoclassical
>Architect, Builder: William Thomas, architect
>Construction Materials: Brick masonry with limestone front
>Architectural Integrity: Moderate (upper facades largely intact, except for replacement of all but four original windows)
>Architectural Features: #18-20: austere but well-proportioned ashlar facade with a continuous lintel under the third storey windows and flat or round voussoir arches over the windows; decorative stone cornice; eyebrow dormer (originally three)

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/hamilton_tour/minden.htm

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 07:04:29 in reply to Comment 84479

Interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 18:25:20 in reply to Comment 84475

You will win no arguments by playing the fool, that is if you are actually playing.....Perhaps it's our sympathy that you are seeking in defeat.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 07:05:04 in reply to Comment 84478

Not looking for sympathy, just providing my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for trolling, though.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By this just in! (anonymous) | Posted December 28, 2012 at 08:30:26 in reply to Comment 84486

Troll calls a joke trolling

News at 11!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Joister (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 17:30:56

Two weeks hence we will have a better idea of what's afoot. In the interim, there are many other buildings looking for enlightened owners. Don't wait too long before telling them how much you care. Those backhanded REIN 'accolades' were an international beacon for property speculators. I'm sure there'll be enough heartbreak in 2013 as well.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Afterthought (anonymous) | Posted December 31, 2012 at 13:03:08

Please don't praise Butani. His track record of making ignorant claims and baseless accusations should have him banned from this site. The largest of his BS is criticizes the stucco frontage. You should see his eyesore of a building in IV.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted January 01, 2013 at 13:55:50

In 2012, a Hamilton city council meeting was held on January 11th (the second Wednesday in January). A second council meeting was held on January 25, 2012. http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/C...

In 2013, the first Hamilton city council meeting is scheduled for January 23rd (the fourth Wednesday in January): http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/C...

At the end of the last city council meeting on December 12, 2012, they passed a motion to adjourn without setting a specific date for the next meeting: http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sir...

Questions: Who made the decision not to schedule a regular Hamilton city council meeting on January 9, 2013 (the second Wednesday in January)? Why did they make this decision?

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2013-01-01 13:58:37

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By David Chambers (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 14:22:08

If a council quorum meets before Jan 9. they can easily pass an "intent to designate" resolution for the King St. bldgs, that will void the demolition permit. This will allow time for cooler heads to prevail, hopefully for the benefit of our heritage.
Why should the city be obligated to issue a demolition permit if the property owner has not presented a plan of developement for the property??

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Porking Lots (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 14:35:09 in reply to Comment 84670

"Why should the city be obligated to issue a demolition permit if the property owner has not presented a plan of developement for the property??"

EXACTLY!! It's not like we're getting in the way of progress, unless "progress" means more flattened vacant lots.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Layers (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 12:46:34

“Dialogue and engagement with stakeholders is essential. Staff need to listen to the concerns of those closest to the potential facility; those whose neighbourhood will be affected; those whose hard work and personal risk have sparked the downtown renewal.”

http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/863784--city-is-playing-renewal-roulette

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds