Raise the Hammer

Perhaps the plan is to build a multi-level structure here in tandem with the reclaiming of a surface-level lot into a useful building? Maybe? I can dream can't I?

And there is already a surface parking lot right next to the building ... why do we need yet another vacant lot?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-09-11 12:46:05

I don't understand the math of tearing down a building to build a parking lot, in a city with more parking lot space than office space. At some point in the not to distant future the only jobs in downtown hamilton will be parking lot attendant and municipal worker, no doubt that problem will be solved by tearing down city hall and rebuilding on the mountain.

Why is it that we have to work so hard in this city just to fight to keep people from making it worse? I'd much rather spend the energy on making it better.

Because for the people who can make it worse there is no profit in making it better, although I think Blanchard will find this out not to be the case.

That is an awesome statement.

Some one at City Hall is dead set on locking down the high score on Reverse Tetris.

Might that be a good location for a multi-level parking structure to service the Hunter Street GO station as well as downtown? Another surface lot - no way, that would be another cancerous lesion on the downtown landscape. If it must be parking at least make it high density.

You'd think they would deal with the south side of the Gore before stirring up another hornets nest.

perhaps it's all a distractions game. thin out the other side and wear them out.

if city hall had any clue how to write bylaws to prevent this, we could all be busy improving hamilton instead of fighting speculators every 30 seconds

Wilson Blanchard. Why am I not surprised.

This city.

Wilson-Blanchard is planning to build on parking lot next to that building: http://renewhamilton.ca/portfolio/king-a...

So looks like we'll be losing not gaining surface parking, if city rules are applied as htey should be.

Comments about a parking structure make sense. I can't see them not replacing the parking they'd be losing. But with competition from other cheap parking I cna't see how they'd make money on a parking structure.

Or maybe they're planning a sawp deal with city saying they are not adding to surface parking, just moving it over a few metres or so. Will be tricky for city to deal with that request.

Thanks for this information Sara. It's hard to judge this without knowing what the owner's intentions are. It might be helpful also to find the money. How is Mr Blanchard financing his downtown demolition campaign? Is there a bank involved? Or does he have private lenders? Is there a lawyer in the house?

Well, if staff and Council actually stand behind their by-laws it should be easy to deny such a request

"Within any Downtown Zone, no new surface parking lots shall be permitted except where the parking is accessory to the main use on the same lot."

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/83F7...

It doesn't say "no net new surface parking" and the two lots are clearly separate.

I wonder if this is at all related to the old BMO building (now occupied by Gowlings law firm). I believe Wilson Blanchard manages that building as well.

For a number of years Gowlings has wanted more parking, but through their negotiations with the neighbouring surface lot they have never been able to get more than one row of dedicated parking immediately beside the building (which the lawyers use).

If Wilson Blancahrd builds a multi-level parking structure here, it is likely Gowlings and their employees (approx 100 total) will be the main users. They will have all the parking they need - including probably reserved spaces, and all through their existing management company.

Leaving the prospects for the small surface lot immediately beside the old BMO building decidedly less rosy.

If we had better transit, better zoning, and most importantly a council who understood how cities work, many of these 100 employees would choose to live within walking distance of work.

If we had modern desirable housing close by then many of those 100 employees might live within walking distance. Maybe if they demolished 20-28 King St. E. and built modern luxury, or at least upscale, desirable condos there it would be a good start.

My house is near by (10-minute walk). It's 100-years old, but has been fully modernized inside. The biggest difference between my house and a new one is that mine will still be standing long after the new one has fallen to pieces. The same goes for every house on my street.

...assuming blanchard doesn't buy them

Ever heard of the upscale Piggott building just around the corner, for example?

That's funny because at least one of the lawyers actually lived in that building.

A number of them lived in the Locke/Aberdeen area, but they were really spread out all over.

The support staff were similarly spread out, some coming from Toronto if I recall correctly.

Such a speculative nothing statement.

Why Sean, when you are clearly capable of so much more, do you fall into the hyperbole fuelled nothingness so much local discussion inhabits?

Be a scalpel, not a tar brush.

protest much?

are you a councilor? does this offend you? maybe you are one of the few on council who understands how cities work? in which case your job is to learn the others up. the entire city depends on it.

FINALLY, a parking lot downtown! I've been wondering when this day would come!

aweosme

This building has an interesting history, which now will be lost forever.

From the architect's wife: "Clarke's firm in the 60's was Munro-Ploen. This building was an old brick warehouse, which was the first official urban renewal project in Hamilton. It was stripped down to the structural frame, one new floor added, and evolved into an office building."

Interesting tid-bit. Cheers for that.

I was not surprised at all when I saw the developers name.

Give it up Kiely and your hate-jealously of Sean.

Anyone have a drainage ditch that needs pimping out?

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

I find it funny that there is a "Budget" asbestos removal.

Isn't 20 Jackson located in the 'Central Area'? Why is Blanchard or Vranich or other downtown 'developers', not required to submit building permits within a certain timeframe?

The owner of this property is proposing to demolish the existing single family dwelling and has not indicated the proposed use of the property upon the demolition. As of this date a building permit application has not been submitted to replace the dwelling.

This property is not located in the “Central Area” as defined in City Council resolution passed on July 26, 1994 regarding demolition control and therefore is not subject to special conditions regarding demolition control that would have required a building permit to be issued for a replacement dwelling on the property and for reconstruction within a specific time frame. This land is in the Crown Point West neighbourhood and is located in Ward 3. Please see attached location map shown as Appendix A to Report PED07216.

Taken from this City report that I have included as a link within this document where I question a property on my street corner where a house used to be (one that needed to be removed mind you), and it is now used for large truck/trailer parking and half of it now a used car lot.

Should owners be allowed to sit on these properties within important areas of our city that we want to transform, with no plan as to what they want to do with these properties except make some interim cash by renting the space for parking?

Comment edited by lawrence on 2013-09-13 09:31:10

I wonder where we can find the "City Council resolution passed on July 26, 1994 regarding demolition control"?

More info - the demolition control is for "Dwelling units" only: http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/8A71...

Thanks for that Sean. Interesting.

The wording of the link I just posted is interesting. It implies to me that council has the power to create a bylaw that puts a moratorium on demolitions without having to go through historical designation processes per-address.

If this is the case, we could be recognizing that the existence of buildings is economically important as a separate consideration from heritage value. In other words, we could have a bylaw that says you can't demolish buildings downtown. We have the power... why don't we use it?

WHEREAS

Section 33 of The Planning Act, provides that a municipality may by By-law designate any area within the municipality wherein a By-law prescribing standards of maintenance and occupancy is in force as an area of demolition control;

AND WHEREAS

the City of Hamilton is the lawful successor to the former Municipalities identified in Section 1.7 of By-law 05-200;

AND WHEREAS

it was desirable to enact Demolition Control of residential properties for the City;

AND WHEREAS

Property Standards By-law No. 03-117, prescribing standards of maintenance and occupancy was enacted on the 14th day of May, 2003 and is in force in the City of Hamilton;

NOW THEREFORE

the Council of the City of Hamilton enacts as follows:

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-09-13 10:17:21

even under demolition control you must issue a demo permit if a building permit has been issued and the new building is substantially completed within 2 years

But there are all sorts of lots downtown that have remained vacant for far longer than two years ... why isn't that part of the deal being enforced?

Two doors down from James Street Baptist.