Raise the Hammer

I'm still unsure what this "exciting project" is. Maybe it's just me but even when Councillor Farr is fighting on the side I agree with there is always this underlying shiftiness that seems to seep through. Perhaps I'm not giving the man enough credit but something just seems "off". I mean he's still miles ahead of that racist bbq twit when I consider who I'd want representing the ward I live and work in but I still question Farr's motivations. What happened to the "faith" he had in Blanchard's plan?

Don't get me wrong, I am truly thankful that he was able to achieve this stay of execution but just because he happened to act in a way I already supported doesn't make the slippery sensation go away though.

Is it just me?

Pretty sure it's just you. Farr seems like a good guy doing the best he can with what he's got.

If the building owner waits until a development plan is ready for the site before demolition that means they keep paying propery taxes based on having the structure on the site. I can see why they have an incentive to want to demolish it as soon as possible. However, I am glad that they have agreed to at least delay it for now and consider saving the one building.

I'm not a heritage advocate but since the Lister, I definitely look at these things differently. In defense of council, maybe they are like me. I have difficulty visualizing. A number of years ago my son was all excited about a house he was considering buying and had me come and look at it. I was shocked at what I saw. It was a 100 plus year old multi level house that housed multiple dirty, messy tenants and smelled of cat urine and other indescribable odors. I thought he'd lost his mind and despite my concerns, he made the purchase. After quite a bit of work he turned it into a beautiful residence. As difficult as it is for me, I think I would like to see the old facade worked into whatever the future development is. Thank you Lister.

Even ignoring the heritage issue, Blanchard still shouldn't be able to tear down buildings located in a place that's so critical to the city's image and economic viability without a plan in place to replace them. Gore Park is the central hub of the city - where the buses meet, where our biggest civic sculptures exist, where the main offices of several of Hamilton's prominent companies keep their main offices.

Leaving a gaping vacant lot there isn't acceptable, not matter what was torn down.

Your story is an abject lesson in why people who have 'difficulty visualizing' should never be in a position to decide the future of heritage buildings, or really any old, otherwise perfectly sound building that has been neglected. If only Blanchard and council had your humility and self-awareness. You'd think council would have learned the same lesson from Lister as you clearly have.

Fair enough, still not sure what the exciting project is though.

But ultimately, what will save the buildings is the developer coming to understand that heritage is an investment that pays real dividends, not a mere cost centre.

Judging by his remarks in the Spec this morning, this is unlikely to happen any time soon:

"It has to be for something useful. I can tell you that the facades may be useful, but I'm not sure how useful," he said. "It's going to cost so much money — it's just exorbitant. I just don't understand why people would waste money on this — though I know people want to."

Gore park is a dead zone. Especially that side since the busses moved. I guess the heritage veggy fanatics win.... keeping it a dead zone is what they want.

Tell me, if the buildings were replaced with a fence and a big open eyesore of a vacant lot for a few years while Blanchard tries to figure out a plan... would you consider that more or less of a dead zone?

You said it. This is an issue with the city's property tax valuations - it doesn't actually make sense that taxation would be reduced for property owners who replace buildings with empty lots in the downtown core. We want structures, not empty space.

"Brinkmanship is the ostensible escalation of threats in order to achieve one's aims."

Brinkmanship at the Gore:

WHY?

Primary Aim: To extract a much taller building/s on Main/James for any future development.
Secondary Aim: To extract any extras or freebies over and above the already available facade restoration grant, and the residential conversion loans in exchange for the heroic saving of the four buildings on King.

Supplementary case for financial help for restoration, thru year long charade: You don't understand, the cost of restoring such buildings or the facade is super, super high! (When in fact this is not the case at all).

With all the attention this has got the owners, they will then easily package the empty lots on Main/James and sell it with the soon to be expected 'exciting news' (i.e. written assurance from the city that they can build 30-40 floors and beyond. Current zoning allows 22 meters heights which is only around 7 to 8 floors).

PRIME BENEFICIARIES OF THIS CHARADE:

1) Property Owners, who now do not have to go thru expensive zoning/variance process, as things will be simply pre-zoned in exchange for saving the facades. They get to build super high on Main/James, and get money + concessions from city to keep the buildings on King.

2) Councillor Farr, who stands to look like a just-in-time hero for 2014. He is already being acknowledged as the guy who saved the day twice. Remember he showed up at the last possible minute to save two of the four buildings around Christmas, and now again he surfaces to prevent the demolition even after the fence went up.*

COST OF CHARADE:

1) Cost of application for demolition permit: $35
2) Cost of 2 renderings: $500 (discounted further by designer in anticipation of future work)
3) Cost of renting chain link fence: $3000
4) Cost of engineering report (i.e. Building condition study): $4000
5) Cost of independent review of report: $4000-$10,000 (which will have to be paid by city tax payers since Clr Farr and not the owners, has asked for this*).

COST OF MEDIA BUZZ: Free

LOSS OF RENTAL INCOME FROM EVICTIONS: Negligible. As any loss is promptly offset by an application for commercial vacancy tax reduction, which has to have been filed before February deadline. Keeping the above units commercial and vacant suits the owner as they enjoy tax breaks. Were the above units promptly converted to residential, back when the buildings were purchased, they would not have been able to leverage them for the huge windfall that awaits them now, as all the converted live/work loft units on upper floors facing the Gore would have been rented out very fast, and there would be no leverage left for causing this brinkmanship.

Any one who was serious about demolition and rebuilding these buildings would have gotten on with the act of tearing them down with the permit in hand and a plan drawn up for the new buildings.

Besides, take a close look at the wimpy fence put up with a lane open to walk by the buildings. Do you really think this is what is put up when buildings really come down?

Brinkmanship at the Gore was the only option left as there were no real plans for rebuilding, just a desire to make money by any means necessary via parceling the block and adding value by way of the now anticipated permission from the city to build much higher than what was zoned.

This has just been a charade from the beginning for the owner with no vision, with the happy addition of a compliant councillor in whose laps fell this golden opportunity for political opportunism. Now:

A) The owner gets to extract favours for super tall buildings on Main and James, and possibly some free money from the city to keep the older buildings on Gore.

B) The Councillor gets to look like a super hero for the coming election. Remember, he has already been dishing out tons of free fishing rods and skates to poor kids. Now, his big Heritage save will put him over the top as far as heroic deeds are concerned.

-----
Happy Pill in Hamilton:

Of course, now that all the buildings are almost saved (but not sure yet!), by the 'Voice of the People' as Clr Farr says***, We the people of Hamilton, will only be too eager to say: "Just Be Happy And Carry On", our heritage was saved by civic activism and the councillor's leadership.

You really cannot fight greed, and political charades, such things are farr too sophisticated and always win in the end. We just have to learn to 'be happy and carry on' like we mean it.

Be Happy And Carry On!

---------------------

* Farr told The Spectator. "At this point, I can say that there won't be a demolition in the imminent future. We're working on a solution."

** Farr has also requested an independent peer review of Blanchard's engineering report of the properties "as an immediate next step."

***Farr credited the community's effort with helping to delay any potential demolition.

So if you were David Blanchard, what would you be asking for from the councillor & the city in return for saving the facades or the buildings? Or handing over the keys and walking away from the buildings altogether?

If only he would walk away. That would solve everything. We're in the unfortunate place we're in because he refuses to sell.

How come Jay Robb doesn't sign off, "Official Voice Of Mohawk College?"

Jay Robb: If I were David, "handing over the key was never an option with me. I did not parcel this block to lose. I play to win, and as you know, I already have all the clout and support in this city to win. Have you not seen the consistently good press I have got since 2000. I simply cannot do any wrong."

"What I would be asking from the councillors & the city in return for sparing those buildings on Gore is very simple. At least 30 to 40 floors of pre-zoning on the vacant lots facing Main and James, and at least $2 million to save the facades of those rotting, old buildings on Gore."

"Without these two elements there is no deal. You know the fence has already come up, and I may not be able to hold on much longer. All of this is costing me a great deal of money."

"(PS: In case somebody bring this up, I purposely did not put up a fence at the rear of thee buildings, from where I plan to start demolishing, just because, I cannot lose any revenue from all that parking while this high stakes poker game plays out)."

Jay Robb,

"It would cost me $300,000 a piece to tear these two buildings down. Now why would I go and spend such a lot of my money, when I have no plans to rebuild?"

"Can't you see these buildings are more valuable to me as they stand now, then torn down? The mere threat of tearing them down is opening up this immense windfall. Come to think of it, now that you brought it up, I may ask for 60 floors in the rear lots, 30-40 floors just does not cut it anymore."

"I don't even know why I am sharing my secrets with you so openly. I guess I am getting emboldened with all the progress we have made with Clr. Farr and the 'community' which loves me so much now. I must stop here."

David.

Um maybe because he's allowed to have his own personal opinions? When you post a comment do you announce who you work for or are your opinions your own?

presumably all the tenants he kicked out would be covering property tax, no? why apply for a demolition permit during a time when council was unable to debate the matter. blanchard wanted to get these buildings down while he could. and now he is brokering a sweetheart deal from the city.

Hey Jay:

Your honorary diploma's in the mail. I would've gotten it framed if you'd also pointed out that I've reviewed business books for the Spec since 1999. And that I wasn't born and raised in Hamilton.

I didn't ask the question using my official Mohawk College voice because I save that voice for when I'm singing the praises of our students, staff & supporters.

While you prove that using a fake name helps clears up confusion, I'm not a fan of anonymity and I've always put my name to what I post. I think we'd see healthier debate and discussion online & off if we signed off on our comments, questions and opinions.

I also tend to ignore anonymous posts, although for you I made an exception because I thought Jay Mohawk was a good try.

On the issue at hand, I believe a revitalized Gore Park could and should be Hamilton's front porch. The core badly needs a public space where all us (including suburbanites) can get together for community-building events and celebrations.

And I also believe that if the demand's there for spaces and places in renovated and restored heritage buildings downtown, developers will rush in to meet the demand, supply the properties and deservedly earn a healthy profit.

Cheers,

The demand is there, but it's being stymied by speculators like Blanchard, and their enablers on council.

THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT!

This is one of a long history of plans to create an empty lot in hopes of a development SOMEDAY.

If you think that the only thing holding Hamilton back from new development is a lack of cleared lots, you haven't been downtown since the forties.

you mean like - York St - Jackson Square - Copps - Convention Centre - City Hall - Eaton Centre

I'm looking forward to seeing the engineering assessment. If we're paying for it so we're going to get to read it right? I suspect some might be surprised what it says. I have personal experience with these buildings, and they're a lot worse than folks on this site think. I'd also love to hear from Mr. Premi who had his office on the second floor of 28 King for a while.

This is such an important block, it needs to be done right and no-one is sharing any sort of plan. Understandably, that adds to the community anxiety. My hope is for a speedy resolution so we don't end up with a "dead" block for too long. Sadly, it seems like poor Gore is cursed with one thing after another. Perhaps it's the horrors of the secret bathrooms buried beneath it.

I have a question. If James N. is Hamilton's "arts" district, is this Hamilton's "financial" district? Should that inform the architectural choices we make? A financial institution of some sort could be the big money anchor tenant the owners claim to need, and still leave room for patio's, coffee shops and boutiques along the Gore. It's also an awesome feel good moment for someone with deep pockets to preserve the building that are there and integrate them into what that block needs. I hear bankers eat that shit up and have lots of money (but tip poorly). Put the tower (and we know they want a big tall tower) back in the centre of the block and integrate it into the street front Close off the street permanently and leave the chess board. In fact, make more chess boards, spots for food trucks, bike racks, tables and benches. Maintain and clean the fountain. Maybe we can finally get something going on with the poor Connaught a block away.

TLDR; The Gore is important. Let's not fuck this up.

Anonymous concern troll is concerned!

Thank you anonymous concern troll for your concern.

You mean like "a Target store ... or whatever" ? Lol

" Yes, it would be better if Blanchard intrinsically recognized the heritage value of his properties. And if the last seven months of anxiety, desperation and last-ditch efforts to save the buildings were not necessary. And yes, if Blanchard's recent commentary had been less disdainful."

Agreed ... It would be nice if Wilson-Blanchard had some "ability to visualize" the profit potential of upscale heritage lofts in the Gore, instead of threatening us with demolition and "a Target store ... or whatever".

City Council has some work to do to amend and create laws to prevent such predatory developers from benefiting financially by acquiring historic properties and allowing them to deteriorate, then emptying them of tenants and blackmailing taxpayers with threats of demolition.

Dave Blanchard may have agreed to delay demolition, but he's still playing the extortion game, crying 'poor' and lacking ability to make the project profitable. If it's so unprofitable, then he should be selling the properties off at bargain basement prices. There are developers who would love to have the opportunity that Blanchard so disdains.

How do you know he hasn't already visualized the profits of residential use, just because he hasn't presented them to YOU. Everyone thinks because these buildings have stood for over 100 years that they are perfectly stable, perhaps you should get your own engineering report and just find out the facts before jumping to conclusions. Not every building that is considered a heritage age are built on the same type of foundations. I have toured the buildings a few years back and saw first hand the state of the buildings. Blanchard isn't the type of developer to build a property up half-assed just to get it done, it needs to be done right and if that means they need to come down (or mostly down) to make it happen then so be it. I am just surprised it has taken this long for it to happen.

You just trotted out every lame excuse speculators give for why they should demolish old buildings. They said the same things anout Sandyford. About the Pigott. About the Lister. About every building that was saved after a fight. And every building thst wasn't. Enough is enough.

Anonymous concern troll thinks only anonymous concern troll should be anonymous! and concerned!

Here is my way of determining if it's worth keeping. These criteria are all worth a points and if you get 3.5 or more points it should be preserved. If it gets 3, then it gets an extra month before a demo permit is issued. Any less, no special protection given.

Older then 1960 + 1, Older then 1900 +1, meets age criteria but significant changes have been made to the building -0.5, Possesses unique unlikely to be duplicated arcitectural features +1, has a claim of historical significance +1, address is part of continous strucutre of the same height that possesses at least four addresses +1 with +0.5 for every four addresses connected (Think James St N), exceeds four floors +1 with +1 for every five floors thereafter, can be built up to at least 4 floors without a major strucutral overhaul +0.5, address is part of a well known area (Hess Village, Old Ancaster, Downtown Dundas, James St N) +1, building is in a lesser known but popular area (Ottawa St, Beach Rd, Augusta) +0.5. Building is not cost effective to be repaired -1, Developer has proof of a suitable new development and can show he has secured finanacing -

Well said, gored.

Enough buildings lost.

Dear Clr Jason Farr:

It is very clear that these buildings are not coming down, so enough already with all these fencing games.

We thank you for continuing the public dialogue between Mr. Blanchard, city staff and yourself behind closed doors, and eagerly await the 'surprise' announcement of a happy settlement of some free money and super high towers in the rear. In the interim the least you and the city can do is remove the godforsaken 'wimpy' fence which is currently only protecting a few trees and lampposts.

This is just so the people of Hamilton who pay taxes are able to freely enjoy the pedestrianized version of Gore Park through the summer.

David knows very well that he can erect this flimsy prop anytime your public dialogue stalls, so why not convince him to build some community goodwill while you'll continue talking about the 'surprise' gift to him from the city.

Using the removal of the fence as a bargaining chip now will make you and David look good, and the people happy. It is an overall win-win-win for all, so please oblige and open up Gore Park this summer.

Yes and put tenants back in the restaurants and stores!

If you don't 'like' anonymous posts, complain to RTH's parent, Ryan. That's how it is on RTH, though bully for you unanonymous. Many find it odd that if are a fulltime pmt Mohawk employee that you HAVEN'T signed your Spectator book things with who you are. Embarrassed about being a paid flack?

Brinkmanship at the Gore: ACT II

Coucillor rushes back from holiday to once again save Heritage:
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/07/19/hamilton-gore-park-demolition.html

Cost of Props for the day: $1500

Leverage: 10 more floors

Impact: Huge win for Councillor and developer

Cause given: Miscommunication between city staff and developer ;)
between the company and city staff, said Farr."

We the people of Hamilton, eagerly say: Phew!! close call! our heritage was once again saved by the councillor's leadership.

--------------

* "The appearance of construction fencing and demolition equipment on Friday morning came a week and a half after Farr announced the city had come to a compromise that would stave off demolition on the two properties"

* "However, Councillors Jason Farr and Brian McHattie pulled together a hurried meeting with city officials and representatives from Wilson Blanchard, the company that owns the buildings, on Friday afternoon to discuss the issue.

* "The development group has agreed to move the bulldozer from the site and not move forward with any exterior demolition," said Jason Farr, councillor for Ward 2.

* "Wilson Blanchard's move to tear down the building was the result of "a miscommunication"

The CBC story titled "Demolition on Gore Park buildings halted":
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/07/19/hamilton-gore-park-demolition.html

was filed at 10.14 AM ET by:

"CBC News Posted: Jul 19, 2013 10:14 AM ET" (with no author mentioned!!)


Yet the story goes on to state the meeting between Clr Farr and Developers took place only in the afternoon of Friday:

"However, Councillors Jason Farr and Brian McHattie pulled together a hurried meeting with city officials and representatives from Wilson Blanchard, the company that owns the buildings, on Friday afternoon to discuss the issue.

"The development group has agreed to move the bulldozer from the site and not move forward with any exterior demolition," said Jason Farr, councillor for Ward 2.

---------------