Raise the Hammer

My neighbour's house stands out from the neighbourhood with large opposing colours and LED lighting and a deteriorating porch. Shall we request it be torn down?

Sure, if it's a hazard to yourself and neighbours or does not meet property standards. If a variance was required for the changes, and you did nothing, that's on you. If it wasn't, well, too bad for you. My point, which you've missed, was that there's nothing there to save but an old building that's really not old looking, and nobody gave a thought to until the spectre of demolition was raised.

Just because someone screwed some ugly signs to a building does not make it "rotting" and "decayed".

Look at the spec photos from inside the buildings. The worst they could muster was some peeling paint.

I didn't say that signs make a building rotting and decayed. I say that based on the obvious peeling paint and rot you can see from the exterior, especially on the mostly-unused upper floors. I also noticed you made no comment about the funny sizes or lack of accessibility to the upper floors. How do you propose to fix that?

Many buildings have been brought back from MUCH worse condition. No tenants, no heat, no walls, no floors? NO PROBLEM. FOr a real developer, that is. While they may technically be private property, these buildings are in the public interest as their condition and existence affects all other downtown businesses, property owners and visitors.

Blah, blah, blah. If you're upset you should do something about it instead of crying online.

Would you support this: If Blanchard does not have the economic fortitude to fix them up, he should be required to list them at fair market rates for a certain amount of time before tearing them down. Obviously this concept is but a dream, but to me it is reasonable. There are people who would buy these buildings if they were made available.

Sure I would. But it's not going to happen. If he buys the buildings and there's nothing to stop him from doing it, go talk to the people who sold him the buildings. Put together a proposal to buy them back. Voice your displeasure in a public place, like City Hall.

This guy has ONE goal: amassing vacant land for resale. He doesn't give a shit about Hamilton, he doesn't give a shit about downtown and he doesn't give a shit about you. He doesn't give a shit about our already-too-high taxes, he doesn't give a shit about bringing more people to live here. Why the hell you want to defend him is a total mystery to me. He has a track record of tearing buildings down, sprinkled with the odd renovation (which is spiced up almost always with stucco). He is a lowest common denominator glorified real estate agent. His plan is demolition. THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE THERE IS!!!!

Because there's nothing worth saving, although the vocal minority makes it out like he's the devil incarnate. Private investors are free to do what they wish, as long as it's legal. If demolition by neglect is legal, they're going to do it. You don't like it? Then get council to change it. This city needs modern buildings so badly. We don't have enough. There's hardly any modern buildings downtown. Have you noticed that? How many cities of our size are like that?

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2012-12-27 10:30:52