Raise the Hammer

To me that church was never a WOW facter anyways

It'll make a hell of a foyer.

Yes it would , but its been negleted for soo many years its going to take alot to bring back , i would not want to put in the money in it

This is silly to me. Why should we dictate what others do with their property to such a degree? The church is preserving the look of the front that faces James st. Isn't that "mission accomplished" for preserving the heritage of the street? Same with the gore park buildings. They have agreed to rebuild the facade with new materials. In other words, the heritage of the park will be preserved. It will cost the developer way less to do it this way, and as a non-designated building, isn't this a best case scenario? If people feel so strongly that the buildings should remain unchanged, then get a group together and buy them.

I'm actually pretty much on the developer's side with James Street Baptist Church, I just wish they'd been required to provide more concrete plans and commit to them - the parishioners and minister of the church agreed with the new company about the state of the building and their plan.

That said, the point is that this is and was a heritage property. That means the buyer went in knowing that there was an obligation to preserve the building to an impractical extreme. That's what heritage designation means: that you have a responsibility to the entire building to do as much as possible to keep its heritage features. In this case, that included the roof and the walls and things like that.

You know what the term is for "a building with historical features that you should try and preserve if it's convenient and profitable for you, but we're not really going to get worked up if you don't"? That's called a building.

If you don't want to deal with the obligations related to buying a heritage property, don't buy one. Caveat emptor.

The Gore Park buildings, for me, are far more about the total lack of a plan WRT reconstruction and Blanchard's history as a real-estate speculator. If Blanchard follows through quickly with his statements about rebuilding? I'll happily eat my words. But on the other hand, he's currently free to leave his property as a vacant eyesore for a decade or more while he courts buyers and tries to amass a larger plot.

Well said Jordan , thats all what some pls in do here is talk talk and talk but they can`t talk to walk

That's rich "conrad"

All the stuff you've written genuinely supports my point. With all of those safeguards in place, the plan is moving forward for that church to improve its facility while keeping the frontage facing James in keeping with the aesthetic of the street.

Same goes for the gore park buildings. By law, the developer is under no obligation to keep those buildings standing. It sucks, you wish the heritage comittee had been on top of it back in the day, but such is the situation. The developer is given some heritage dollars in order to get him to rebuild the facade. A bit of a twist on the meaning of "heritage dollars", I know, but it saves the look of gore park and the developer gets to use the space to make his millions(or lose them, whatever). People like you need to realize that this is a best case scenario, and that the developer has no obligation to oblige. AND you need to realize that even though it took a lot of pressure, his giving in to this solution means he cares about the city and what's important us(even if it's cause he wants to make a buck off us).

"you wish the heritage comittee had been on top of it back in the day, but such is the situation"

Um, the heritage committee -was- on top of the situation but Council elected not to confirm their recommendation to designate the Gore. When council doesn't care about heritage developers get the message they don't have to care about it either.

I think that if the building is structurally unsound and it is going to be replaced with something that will make the city better, then tear the sucker down. We can put up a memorial plaque for those who wish to hang onto the past. Time for Hamilton to start moving forward!

To Gored: You can't just take one error I made in my comment and then not respond to the ideas I'm suggesting. Please, give me a satisfactory answer to this question; Why is it so important for the Gore buildings to remain the same? Why are we so unsatisfied with the solution to rebuild the facade with new material? And please don't tell me that it's because the street will be gap-toothed for a few years, because that really isn't a measure of the long-term value/loss of tearing down the buildings.

I just get really frustrated because I think there is value in preserving old buildings, but there's also value in progress. It seems to me that sometimes EVERY old building on the slate gets people riled up. So this or that building used to be a school, or studio, or factory that was once important to the city. Now what? should we turn Hamilton into a museum of rotting old buildings?

I really hate how you said the developer, "refuses to sell (the property)". That's never true. he's not obstinately getting in the way of the group that wanted to buy the property, he just thought it was worth more to him than what they offered. IF the offer would have made him money, he would have taken it. That's how businesses work.

Or mud room.

All do respect Ryan with all thoses REDTAP it sounds like we live in Russia

Creating a gap is not progress

Demolition should be halted specifically BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

He is taking them down in order to try to make that block more desirable to an unknown future buyer, who may not come along for years or even decades. This is progress?

summary of what you said: "tell me why the buildings shouldn't come down, but don't use the reason that I don't really comprehend cause it's hard fur me to think good"

"People like you" need to do a hell of a lot more research on how cities work before spouting off your misinformed opinions.

Well Boyhowdy, I guess we can't really fault a child for thinking that tearing down = moving forward. You'll grow up someday!

That's a fair response. I don't see why it isn't possible to tie these permissions with a time-limit on new construction. Although I suppose it's always possible to find loopholes in Blanchard's case. Either way, if he follows through (as it seems he's required to), rebuilding the facade is a fine solution in my opinion. I guess it's just too bad that he's racked up such a terrible track record of "following through".

Good response, thanks. I can see that this kind of speculation vs development mentality would cause a lot of misuse of property, and result in the "gap-tooth" that we all don't desire.

My question then is this; why are speculators like blanchard able to dictate the economy of real-estate in the core? If the most value that properties like the Gore buildings have is in ripping them down and selling them for interest rate/inflation-related growth a decade or more in the future, doesn't that indicate that the property just isn't very valuable? In other words, If blanchard can afford to buy and sit on this property, why doesn't a business owner or entreprenuer value the property enough to pay its worth?

I would LOVE for two buildings such as these to be re-used and repurposed in a creative and renewing way. I would also love for our existing parking lots to have better usage. BUT I'm not willing to pay for it, and until someone else does, the situation won't change. My point is that while BLanchard's practices aren't great for the city, he still has every right to get the value he wants out of it, and unfortunately the downtown core is still not quite bursting-at-the-seams with creative business practices enough for a new business to buy and open in that space. They're all going to buy more affordable frontage on Ottawa street, James street, and the like.

The problem is he's not "required" to do anything. Once the demolition permit is issued, he can create an empty lot and sit on it forever. Why don't we have laws in place to restrict demolition and neglect and force redevelopment timelines? Good question - ask your councillor!

Heres a challenge, then; make the real issue more clear, and help your readership understand it better. A lot of people read this site now, and it's significantly more helpful to target the poor policy, lack of restrictions, and bad decision-making on council than to make a bad guy out of Blanchard and those like him. For that matter, a church that is genuinely improving its facility and ability to serve the community AND preserving the heritage of the street should not be a target.

You can't blame a developer for making money; rather, you should be upset that the best way to make money is blanchard's way. Better policy and stronger incentives for responsible investors is key, not demonizing an opposing viewpoint.

All of these things have been addressed on this site many times over! That doesn't mean anyone should be an apologist for speculators.

Thanks Ryan.

They can tear an old church down -who'd want to live in one anyway, and there are lots of them.

But destroying the streetscape of Gore Park is a one of a kind major mistake.

Still haven't seen the structural engineering report we were promised!

That's his plan.

And too bad he won't commit to doing anything differently this time.
He's getting $1m+ OF OUR MONEY to remove a few facade elements and no doubt they'll be lost in storage somewhere before he ever rebuilds.

At a time of growing buzz when Hamilton is attracting interest, we're going to create a huge ugly vacant hole next to our best downtown asset - Gore Park.

I sure hope Jason Farr and Council are scrambling to find a solution and save these critical buildings, or at least prevent Blanchard from leaving a vacant hole for a decade ... but I don't think City Council 'gets' it yet as they're still mired in the 80's.

I really hope some of the new wave of downtown entrepreneurs will seriously consider running for Council next year.