Comment 102118

By Jeff Goodes (anonymous) | Posted June 06, 2014 at 12:59:51 in reply to Comment 102111


Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the challenges in dealing with extremely old buildings such as these. I also appreciate the efforts made to save what you did. But I still can't help but thinking that Stanton Renaissance must have had some knowledge of the building's condition before they finalized the sale of the building. When a potential homeowner puts in an offer to buy a house, a home inspection is part of the deal. Presumably this was true in this case as well, particularly when, as you mention in your comment, the church's Reverend used to find pieces of the building on his desk. My question is why were the initial statements so optimistic?

For example: from RTH February 8, 2013: "The client did not buy the property to tear the building down - absolutely not. They could buy property anywhere and develop it. They bought it with the intent of using this special part of Hamilton's cultural urban fabric....It's such a unique building. They want to work with the bones that are there and make it sustainable, so we have this part of our history in Hamilton or another 100 years."

It's puzzling to me. But I think more importantly, it points to a need for the city to take a more active role in managing and protecting our heritage. The commercial real estate market in Hamilton is heating up and the city needs to be ready to protect our architectural assets in response to this growing demand.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools