Raise the Hammer

So, let me get this straight.

18-22 King: the upper level facades are original (no mention of the building inside). 24 King: Painted front facade and a couple of windows are original (no mention again of the interior) 28 King: About the only building that is more or less the same as it was when built originally

Why is there such uproar about this again?

*ignore*

*ignored*

STOP THE PRESSES! We just discovered that old buildings change over time as people adaptively reuse them for new things. If anything that should tell you these buildings ARE still relavent today, all they need is the next phase in adaptive reuse. Heritage isn't about freezing something so it never changes. It's about keeping continuity with the past while getting ready for the future. It's about saving and reusing the energy and material that went into a building instead of throwing it away. It's about letting a place be itself instead of wiping it clean and dropping a sterile box on it that looks like every other sterile box. It's about what makes a place unique. If we get rid of that, we get rid of what makes downtown Hamilton worth caring about.

For someone who pretends to not care about downtown you sure spend alot of time writing about it.

ignore

"Heritage data have been compiled for the former municipalities and townships now incorporated in the amalgamated City of Hamilton. These data include information on properties designated under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act, properties listed in the municipal inventory for buildings and cultural heritage landscapes, the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building, and registered archaeological sites. Each volume also includes an introductory discussion of the data contained in the volume, and an outline of how the specific resources are managed by the City."

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PlanningEcDev/Divisions/Planning/CommunityPlanning/HeritagePlanning/ResourcesHeritageVolumes.htm

Recent news reports suggest that Wilson Blanchard will probably include a supermarket in its development plan and has received interest from some national supermarket chains. It is hoped that they can collaborate in such a way as to preserve the 19th century buildings on King Street East.

For example, most of the large, modern supermarkets now contain an in-store bakery, a cheese counter, a deli/coffee shop, a flower shop, and a pharmacy. One might consider the possibility of renovating and repurposing the first floor of each of the five existing buildings at 18-28 King Street East to become “specialty shops” with Victorian-style street signage as part of the new supermarket. Outdoor patio seating could be provided outside the deli/coffee shop and the bakery. Sliding glass doors could be installed at the back of each building leading into the main supermarket.

The open space where 30 King Street East used to exist could be fashioned into a modern or faux vintage lobby providing direct access and egress to and from the new Blanchard complex. An elevator and hallway system could be built to service the back end of the renovated upper floors of 18 to 28 King Street East for use as offices for the supermarket or other businesses.

Of course, the end result will be up to Wilson Blanchard, its financiers and the supermarket chain which eventually becomes involved in the project. One hopes that Fortinos, which has been in the grocery business in Hamilton for over fifty years and recently re-established its corporate headquarters in this city, expresses an interest in collaborating with Wilson Blanchard on this type of project.

Can you link to these "recent news reports" please?

Or are you talking about the tall tale that was spun when the "plan" (dream) was first presented?

"Recent news reports suggest..probably...hoped...could...could...could...could...

Of course, the end result will be up to Wilson Blanchard."

Missed: "One might consider the possibility"

Speculating and dreaming is not going to make this happen.

I interviewed Blanchard for the December Hamilton Magazine piece: http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/hamilt...

I'll leave it to the readers to determine if these are the words of a man with a visionary plan.

After the salutation, the first words out of his mouth were:

Well we don't have a real solid plan there so...

Which set the tone for the entire conversation. Here are some more choice quotes from the full interview.

When asked about timeframe for construction and tenanting a new development:

I'm not optimistic that we'll have construction let alone demolition within, you know, a long time. I mean the only reason we're doing anything now is because interest rates are low...

When asked why the current buildings should come down when there's "no solid plan" yet:

If we take them down and work away at planning, that's not gonna be a problem because when we finally do get a plan and a tenant and financing, we'll be able to move forward quickly, so why not?

When asked about his vision for what would face Gore Park:

Potentially a grocery store, or a Target, or whatever. I don't know

When asked whether he would consider developing facades with narrower storefronts (like the ones that will be replaced) and smaller businesses:

It has to be a large tenant because those small tenants can't afford the kind of rent that is going to have to be charged for a brand new building like that. [...] I'd rather just get one cheque for $250,000 a month or something than 50, 70, 80, 200 cheques.

Comment edited by seancb on 2012-12-28 15:58:24

A Target??? Is he for real? Big boxes finally take over the Gore...it was only a matter of time in this one-trick pony town. It was a crappy trick the first time we saw it, yet it's all we get over and over.....

or.. "whatever, I don't know"

Some vision.

I'm not one of these guys who expends lots of energy trying to fight every single demolition proposal that comes along, but Gore Park?? For real?? As backwards as this city is, I never thought I'd see such a proposal. Especially with all the examples of other cities who have saved historic facades and put them back up intact. Demolition should be prevented by all means by city hall.

I'm not one of these guys who expends lots of energy trying to fight every single demolition proposal that comes along

Right, you do it for things like 2-way conversion, bashing the suburbs, etc.

*ignore*

*ignore*

http://www.hpl.ca/articles/history-gore-park-13

This excerpt from an article titled “History and condos collide in downtown Hamilton” by Paul Wilson on the CBC Hamilton website on Oct 23/12 is primarily what led to my post stating that a supermarket will probably form part of the Blanchard development:

“Blanchard would like to knock those buildings down and put up something new. He’s talking about a condo tower, parking and even a two level 60,000 square foot grocery store- even though Hamilton is about to finally get a full-sized supermarket in Jackson Square next spring, part of a new chain based in the GTA.

“There’s always room for more.” Blanchard says. “We’re working with national chains…there is some interest.”” http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/talk/story/20...

The remainder of my post was based only on the hope that the supermarket chain chosen to become the prime tenant in the Blanchard project will see the importance and the cachet of integrating the 19th century buildings into its supermarket concept and begin to drive the project in that direction. That is why Fortinos was referenced in my post: as the national or regional supermarket chain with the deepest historical connection to Hamilton, perhaps it would be more interested than the other supermarket chains in integrating these buildings into its plan to some extent. These buildings will only survive in whole or in part if the prime tenant wants them to survive.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-12-28 21:19:48

I'm all for being optimistic. But we have to weigh the reality.

We have no way of holding him to the story he told the CBC once the buildings come down.

Based on his responses to me in November, it would appear his October tale was nothing more than a beautiful story for the media.

There's no grocery chain, there's no tenant, there's no plan.

Why bother speculating?

We can't afford another empty lot. Especially not one facing the gore.

Comment edited by seancb on 2012-12-28 22:57:38

Let's not forget, he and his partner stood there arguing in front of the media and their architect about what MIGHT get built someday. I don't understand why the Spec keeps reporting their musings as 'plans' for the Gore. They aren't plans. One guy said 'maybe condos'. The other guy said 'no chance'. And back and forth they went. The Spec and other local media should be ashamed for the complete lack of reporting and journalism on a topic like this.

I'm worried that the 'firm' decisions, like demolition permits are testing the local advocacy folks and the tugging at the municipal feedbag to see if anything falls out. The Lister and the stadium and the Mac Downtown Health Campus got tonnes of our bucks- are W/B seeing what they can get out of us on this one? Just askin'.

Sure, that's exactly what they're after. Sadly, this may be our only chance to get involved. They know the stakes are too high for the public to ignore. Looks like we'd better hand over whatever they want because I don't think they're bluffing.

Positive development?

http://t.co/eqsAa06h