Raise the Hammer

Nice.

Love to see people using their powers of re-imagination in the city.

Well done.

Well played, Mr. Farr. Keep up the inspired thinking.

Interesting. Looking forward to see how this turns out. Hope that the footings are in good and usable condition. Finally something I agree with from my councillor.

I could care less if no foundation was poured. A foundation will need to be poured at the Crestwood site. Do it here instead.

Councillor Farr has been a pleasant surprise since the beginning of his term.

agreed.

Good progressive thinking Jason! Like one other poster said,if no foundations,pour them!

Someone posted somewhere that footings are poured under the parkinglot a BoE. Anyone know if this is true?

I think that was me. I remember it being part of the discussions when the board was initially debating whether to leave downtown back in 2007. It is likely buried in board meeting minutes somewhere. The only reference to it I could find was this.

"The baby boom was moving through the ranks and education was exploding. There were predictions the new building would soon be too small.

No worries, the architect said. He had built in foundations to support an addition to the north, where there was lots of room for a full six-storey wing."

http://www.thespec.com/whatson/article/2...

Councillor Farr's suggestion has merit because it would be making use of (at this time purported) previous infrastructure investments, which all should agree is better sprawl. However, the question should also be asked why City staff would not populate the 2nd tower, instead of being scattered across the city in no less than 4 different buildings.

It's a helluva lot cheaper to pay rent than to build an equivalent tower in 2012 dollars, especially in our current financial state.

It might be less expensive - let's not forget that someone is still making profit on the rent.

But there is a more important issue at hand, and that is about civic pride and City-building. By this I am trying to illustrate that a City that is content to rent it's future rather than "build-it" does nothing to inspire citizens and businesses to do the same. I see far too many examples of this (what I would call the lazy) approach. After time, it becomes much harder, and expensive, to maintain or improve buildings or infrastructure after years of neglect or minimal maintenance that comes with rental properties.

I agree that taking the high-road is harder and can be more expensive (initially), but it is the high-road after all. I for one would prefer if our Civic leaders chose to invest our tax money, rather than just spending it.

edit:
...should read "better than sprawl"...

There is also this photo tour I did a few years ago in which I reference various points made by Stanley Roscoe during his guided tour of the hall. He told us about the footings and foundation being laid behind city hall for the future expansion into a Y-shaped building.

http://raisethehammer.org/article/800/

One thing that would be a shame to lose with a new tower behind city hall is the beautiful landscaped area and mature trees.

Based on this satellite view, I'm guessing the new tower would be built in the exact spot of the landscaped area. I would love to see an architect devise a 2nd tower plan that involves maintaining the greenspace, and cool space-age looking elevated walkways by building the 2nd tower further south, perhaps where the maintenance/carwash building is.

http://g.co/maps/v9v4g

If memory serves, the second tower was intended to go directly behind the first and form a mirror image. If we're going to be consistent in our approach to preserving our architectural heritage, then it doesn't make alot of sense to waste the pre-existing foundations, and ignore Roscoe's original vision, to spare some trees and landscaping that are easily and inexpensively replaced.

The foundation was laid for the third wing of the building to complete the "Y" (and not a mirror image of the front two wings) - That put it in the location where the two walkways are presently. The third wing was also a rectangle block the same depth as the front two wings - running south, (which was planned to connect to the existing lobby and elevator bank).

The foundation was not laid to hold a "tower" as stated, but a mid-rise building as tall as the current front two wings. If a tower is planned there, the existing foundations would have to be removed and recast to handle the additional load of a "tower".

Besides, there is no way to ascertain the current state/condition of what was cast 40+ years ago. So, it would be futile speculating on the ease of constructing upon these footings today, (even if the old drawings are found), unless there is a comprehensive excavation and structural testing done to uncover these footings and ascertain its current state and the potential capacity to bear new load.

The foundation was laid for the third wing of the building to complete the "Y" (and not a mirror image of the front two wings)

I stand corrected.

The foundation was not laid to hold a "tower" as stated, but a mid-rise building as tall as the current front two wings.

Semantics. No one is proposing anything taller than the current wings.

...unless there is a comprehensive excavation and structural testing done to uncover these footings and ascertain its current state and the potential capacity to bear new load.

This goes without saying, but since the alternative is new construction which will require the construction of entirely new foundations, it's disingenuous to suggest that the testing of existing foundations is so onerous as to be a deal-breaker.

(even if the old drawings are found)

They are in the City's Heritage Planning Dept.

Yes, you're right. I know we can replace landscaping, but obviously we'll all be dead and gone before it looks any good. His original vision, according to the guided tour I was on, was to build a tower out the back side of the building that would turn it into a Y-shape. I don't think the plan was for a mirror image, but that would look really cool.

Trees schmees. They are organic, you can plant new ones. You and I won't live to see them mature but maybe our kids or grandkids will. You don't hold up progressive thought or development because of landscaping.

If its feasible, and you can convince or compel or coerce the BOE to stay downtown..... do it.

My two cents.

This is a great idea. The school board could also share the council chambers at City Hall for their board meetings, saving money and space.

Does anyone have a list of trustees emails?

http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/aboutus/trustees/

except for the chicen thing, i have to say Farr has been suprisingly pragmatic. good work, jason. keep it up.

Jason Farr, I'm pretty sure you have won my vote for the next election. He is a hard working, inspired voice on council that comes up with great ideas. He is proof positive of the benefits of electing new blood into council.

100 Main is a ghetto property? Since when? There's plenty better locations for that if that's the angle you fear they're gunning for. Since the Continuing Ed building is in the old courthouse a couple of blocks down, I don't think that's the intent.

I think that Mac is trying hard to work with the city to help with invigorating the core and the city. I just wish they'd have a dedicated downtown campus, including at least one residence, to get students and employees downtown more than just 9-5 Monday-Friday.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2012-01-29 05:59:14

I think Jason's idea could make sense- but the proposed second tower ought to house public health rather than the Schoolboard. The Minister of Education Laurel Broten (email: lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org) should approve a partnership between the School Board and McMaster so they can work together to redevelop 100 Main Street West, ideally incorporating the current building into the new development. Please write your trustee, your councillor and the Minister in support of this concept.

http://mattjelly.wordpress.com/2012/01/2...

Comment edited by MattJelly on 2012-01-29 10:43:55

First of all, meter-thick oak trees go a little beyond "landscaping" - if you doubt this, head out to a lumber yard and buy a few truckloads. Putting aside the fact that they're some of the city's most iconic and beautiful trees, the lumber's value alone is colossal. Should they be cut down to build another office tower, I'd hope they at least save the wood and put it to good use.

As far as the need for another tower goes, we've already established that there's absolutely no shortage of office space downtown. I'd like to see the school board remain downtown as much as anyone else here, but spending tens of millions of dollars building another tower while existing buildings are left to rot isn't going to help our problems.

Solution. Turn the sad City Centre (formally the Barton Centre) into the new public health centre. DONE.

I meant Eaton Centre... darn autocorrect.

I seem to recall reading once that Mac was offered a very sweetheart deal by the City Centre's owners to use the facility and turned it down (the owners wanted to increase the value of their surrounding properties by having Mac there). That would've been nice.