Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C [Archive] - Page 11

View Full Version : Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

holymoly

Sep 17, 2009, 11:00 AM

Council OKs controversial Connaught project

Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

(Sep 17, 2009)

Council signed off on a controversial proposal to turn the Royal Connaught into mixed-income housing late last night after the hotel's owners paid off $500,000 in back taxes earlier in the day.

Tony Battaglia, spokesperson for the Grand Connaught Development Group Inc., said the consortium was "embarrassed" to have its tax arrears reported by The Spectator. The group is seeking $18 million from the public purse to convert the downtown landmark into mixed-income housing.

Battaglia said the group recognized that their outstanding tax tab could put council in a "precarious position" when deciding if the city should support the affordable housing proposal.

"We wanted to just remove that obstacle."

Council voted 11-4 to send the proposal to the province. Councillor Bob Bratina tried to defer the decision earlier in the meeting. The downtown politician said there were numerous questions that still need to be answered, but did not reveal his concerns in public. He asked council to go behind closed doors to discuss legal issues.

Bratina said he wanted to abstain from the vote and walked out of the meeting before the decision was formally recorded shortly before midnight.

City lawyer Peter Barkwell advised council against singling out the Connaught project.

The Connaught project was one of six projects staff wanted to recommend for government funding.

City lawyer Peter Barkwell said council should either approve all or none of the proposals.

"There would be liability concerns if you begin to separate them."

Council initially endorsed Bratina's request for a delay in a 10-6 vote, but then decided to continue the debate in a special meeting last night after staff raised concerns about timelines. The city's prioritized list of project must be submitted to the province by Sept. 30.

Joe-Anne Priel, head of community services, cautioned council that the province is reviewing affordable housing projects as they are submitted. Delaying the city's submission could mean missing out on money, she said. Priel said there wasn't time to reissue a new request for proposals (RFP).

Councillor Sam Merulla said he's shocked that some of his colleagues are trying to interfere in the city's RFP process."This was a bureaucratic decision with no political interference until now."

The Connaught proposal received the highest marks in the city's screening process. Staff recommended it be submitted to the province as the city's top priority for affordable housing.

If approved by the province, the Connaught project would receive $12.9 million from a government housing program and $5.6 million in tax and fee breaks from the city. The consortium is also in talks with the city about further incentives.

The local consortium wants to redevelop the vacant hotel to build 100 affordable housing units, another 106 market-rate units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

The affordable units, targeted toward seniors, the disabled and working poor, will offer rents 20 per cent below market value.

The Connaught group includes Battaglia, hotelier Oscar Kichi, builder Ted Valeri and American businessman Mehran Koranki. They have hired builder Rudi Spallacci as consultant and are in talks with LIUNA about financing.

City records show the consortium was nearly three years behind on its taxes, owning $332,169 on the hotel and another $178,111 on three surrounding parking lots.

HOW THEY VOTED:

In favour of the project: Eisenberger, Collins, Duvall, Jackson, McCarthy, McHattie, Merulla, Morelli, Pearson, Powers, Whitehead

Opposed: Clark, Ferguson, Pasuta, Mitchell

Absent: Bratina

urban_planner

Sep 17, 2009, 12:07 PM

Pathetic just pathetic. I bed if someone proposed a halfway house for this building city council would have passes it.

City council in hamilton is a Joke. a total joke.

coalminecanary

Sep 17, 2009, 12:10 PM

Joe-Anne Priel, head of community services, cautioned council that the province is reviewing affordable housing projects as they are submitted. Delaying the city's submission could mean missing out on money, she said. Priel said there wasn't time to reissue a new request for proposals (RFP).

Then they should have questioned the idea of converting the connaught to housing MUCH SOONER instead of waiting til the bitter end to reveal it.

Hamilton Civic League anyone?

drpgq

Sep 17, 2009, 12:13 PM

Truly sad.I didn't have a lot of respect for city staff before this, and even less now.

omro

Sep 17, 2009, 12:58 PM

Who do we lobby at the provincial level to have this madness denied?

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 1:38 PM

I think this whole thing is being blown way over proportion. There's a huge difference from subsidized housing and affordable housing. CityHousing Hamilton builds housing with finance from government. CityHousing is responsible for operations and property standards. Usually rent goes from $200 to $400. It’s a money-losing venture that requires government support, City Hall, each year to function.

Now with this it's affordable housing that is 80% of the rental market. Right now the average rent for 1 bedroom is around $850, so the rent will be about $650. The City is not responsible for operations and property standards.

11thIndian

Sep 17, 2009, 2:20 PM

Wow. Another city council approval of "Whatever comes along"- what a surprise.

I hate this.

There's no question that affordable housing needs to be part of a city's overall plan, the big problem from my perspective is that Hamilton has no overall plan in any way, shape, or form. IF this city were really interested in pushing downtown revitalization [which it's not], then you don't put affordable housing smack dab in the middle of where you'd ultimately want high-end condominiums, shopping, restaurants and bars. King Street between James and John should be a vision for what this city wants to be, and I suppose in a way it is- take what you can get, don't ask for better, and it'll do.

I wish just once city council would try to make a decision that looks more than 5 minutes down the road. How many downtown projects have been scuttled because the city didn't have the vision to take a short term hit for longer term benefits? MEC, and the Mac/School Board deal should have been fought for harder. When you're trying to bring people back to the downtown core, you're going to have to bend over backwards to bring those first ones in. Maybe loose some money, but ultimately once the ball is rolling property values will rise and you can cherry pick your deals once everyone wants in. But it's not going to magically happen.

Encouraging low-income development in the downtown core isn't going to bring anything but the taxes from the building it self, but it will make downtown infinitely less appealing to developers looking to bring upscale businesses to the area. The though process behind this sets back downtown renewal for decades!

This is shameful and stupid in the extreme.

coalminecanary

Sep 17, 2009, 2:30 PM

I think this whole thing is being blown way over proportion. There's a huge difference from subsidized housing and affordable housing.

This isn't about affordable housing. It's about butchering not just any hotel, but the hotel in downtown hamilton.

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 2:35 PM

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

coalminecanary

Sep 17, 2009, 2:55 PM

Yes, the problem is turning it into residential. More residents downtown is a fantastic idea, but this is absolutely the wrong building for it.

Another major problem is the funding amount - they are going after 18 million to build 100 affordable units. That's 180,000 per unit. Clearly there are more efficient ways for that public money to be spent - ways that will benefit more people who need the housing help...

highwater

Sep 17, 2009, 2:58 PM

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

What coalmine said. This is about the loss of a landmark downtown hotel that would be a much bigger economic generator as a hotel than as a residence, affordable or otherwise. Think Chateau Royale.

drpgq

Sep 17, 2009, 3:00 PM

Now with this it's affordable housing that is 80% of the rental market. Right now the average rent for 1 bedroom is around $850, so the rent will be about $650. The City is not responsible for operations and property standards.

Are you sure that $850 figure is for one bedroom apartments? I thought it was for two. In my building near St. Joe's I pay around $950 for a very large two bedroom. I'm pretty sure a one bedroom goes for $650. I think there's a few vacancies.

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Hamilton has plenty of cheap market rate apartments. This is about transferring public money to a cabal of connected developers who don't have the skills to make money in another manner, nothing less.

drpgq

Sep 17, 2009, 3:04 PM

Encouraging low-income development in the downtown core isn't going to bring anything but the taxes from the building it self, but it will make downtown infinitely less appealing to developers looking to bring upscale businesses to the area.

But they're giving tax breaks on the building aren't they so the building won't even end up contributing much to the tax base. Plus since it is subsidized or whatever housing, I'm sure the assessment after a couple of years will be surprisingly small. Win win all around.

11thIndian

Sep 17, 2009, 3:05 PM

I'm not opposed to people living there, though it does boggle my mind that a city the size of Hamilton cannot support one 5-Star heritage hotel.

My opposition is that if we really want to drive a resurgence in downtown shopping, living, and working; then we should be focusing on having people live there that will support and encourage that kind of development [or at the very least not drive them away]. Low income earners don't have the extra income to support that development.

Perhaps to quantify myself, I should outline what I'd like to see in the John-James stretch of King St.. Before moving back to Hamilton I worked at the corner of Spadina and Adelade in Toronto for 10 years. Over that decade I saw the amazing transformation of Queen Street from John to Spadina- from sketchy and unattractive storefronts to a vibrant street mall that drove people to seek out the area. Attractive heritage buildings were restored by big name chains, while mediocre buildings were demoed and replaced by attractive new construction [no hint of stucco anywhere!]. My wife and I LOVED doing Christmas shopping along this stretch. But as nice as this area is, the Gore Park area could be SO MUCH better. A real destination for people who want more than the mall. If there are any major retailers left in Jackson Square, it time to move them out onto the street.

Low income housing doesn't motivate the type of development we should all want from the heart of downtown, development that will make downtown a destination for people who live downtown and right now have to head to Limeridge or Burlington mall to shop, and maybe even draw people from the suburbs who want to spend time in the "it" place to be.

drpgq

Sep 17, 2009, 3:08 PM

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

I'm not sure I appreciate your attempts to frame the debate. I for one am not keen at all on subsidized housing in the inner core.

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 3:09 PM

Each unit will cost around $200,000 and I bet each unit will be spacious. Mark said it had 400 room units. There'll be about 200 rental units so picture a hotel unit and doubling it.

The owners can charge whatever for rent, hey even $1000 per unit. Just better have 100 units worth $800 a month.

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 3:13 PM

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

This is not low-income development because the owner is paying somewhere around $200,000 per unit, almost the same for condo units in Hamilton. With the assistance from the goverment the owners will have 100 units with 80% of market rental rate.

flar

Sep 17, 2009, 3:18 PM

A few pages back I posted the vacancy rate and avg 2BR rent according to CMHC. As of April 2009 Hamilton's vacancy rate was 3.6% and average 2br rent was $860/mo.

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:20 PM

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

But the people inhabiting them will be low-income. That's who I understand affordable housing is targeted towards.

Attracting seniors and the disabled who are on limited/fixed income will not benefit downtown in the least.

Can we change the name of this thread to City Place II?

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 3:23 PM

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

It isn't a low income development, it is a mixed use development. Half the units are reduced rate affordable housing rentals (80% of market rate) and the other half are market rate rentals. Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 3:25 PM

Some staff at City Hall I guess could be labeled as "low-income". Some make minimum wage. City Hall doesn't have a living wage policy.

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:29 PM

This is not low-income development because the owner is paying somewhere around $200,000 per unit, almost the same for condo units in Hamilton. With the assistance from the goverment the owners will have 100 units with 80% of market rental rate.

My understanding is the $27M is to only develop the 100 below market rate units, and not the entire project (206 units, plus commericial). That means each unit is costing $270,000 with $180,000+ covered by government.

Do you have differing information?

And let us not forget that $18M is only the starting point. The developers also plan to tap the Residential Loan program for a couple of million.

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:32 PM

It isn't a low income development, it is a mixed use development. Half the units are reduced rate affordable housing rentals (80% of market rate) and the other half are market rate rentals. Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.

The problem is the development is not operating in parallel, it's operating in serial. We are funding the below market rate, and the market rate are to come sometime in the future.

The market rate units are nothing but a proposal, period. There is no committment. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 3:33 PM

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:35 PM

I can understand how that form can give the perception that there are a lot of units in the downtown core. After all, just under 23% of the entire stock is located here - 3573. Given this, an additional 100 units certainly isn't going to tip the scale and cause the core to implode upon itself. In fact, when all the prosed units are added to the pool citywide, the percentage in each area remains about the same.

What's that density wise,? I bet the downtown core density/sq. km is more than triple (probably quadruple) other area's of the city.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 3:36 PM

The market rate units are nothing but a proposal, period. There is no committment. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

I must have missed something. Where in the proposal does it say the project is serial and not in tandem? Has anyone actually seen the proposal, or are we still surmising based on the few lines about the project that appeared on the meeting agenda?

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:37 PM

I can understand how the cost figures seem high, but this is after all a restoration/renovation project. Much higher costs associated to a restoration rather than building new.

Does it matter if they tap into the residential loan program down the road, operative word being 'loan'.

I understand restoration cost more than new. I'm of the mind that if we could get 300 units of affordable housing for the $18M it's better than the $100 we are getting with this proposal.

Interest free loans still have a cost to the city, and that cost needs to be taken into account.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 3:38 PM

What's that density wise,? I bet the downtown core density/sq. km is more than triple (probably quadruple) other area's of the city.

Another way to look at it is what is the percentage of affordable units vs those at full market rate, and is this significantly different from other parts of the city?

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:49 PM

I must have missed something. Where in the proposal does it say the project is serial and not in tandem? Has anyone actually seen the proposal, or are we still surmising based on the few lines about the project that appeared on the meeting agenda?

So why are you assuming this is in parallel? The proposal is not public record, at least to my knowledge (another troubling part of this whole process)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong;
COAHP funding of 100 rental units will be the catalyst for the creation of an additional 106 market-rate rental units (for a total of 206 rental units), 20,000 square feet of commercial space

But when I read this there is no mention of building the market-rate at the same time. If they were building it at the same time they'd trumpet it to make the recommendation all the more attractive. I write and read proposals all the time, and ambiguity means something and it's not usually in the favour of the person receiving the proposal.

My guess is they'll do this in phases, and after the government sponsored Phase 1 is done, there will be an excuse to delay Phase 2.

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 3:51 PM

Another way to look at it is what is the percentage of affordable units vs those at full market rate, and is this significantly different from other parts of the city?

I'm sure it does, but you didn't answer my question.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 3:54 PM

:previous:

It could very well be triple the density of other areas in the city, but this makes perfect sense if the overall population of downtown is at least triple that of other parts of the city. That would mean the distribution is proportionately balanced throughout the city.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 4:00 PM

So why are you assuming this is in parallel? The proposal is not public record, at least to my knowledge (another troubling part of this whole process)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong;

COAHP funding of 100 rental units will be the catalyst for the creation of an additional 106 market-rate rental units (for a total of 206 rental units), 20,000 square feet of commercial space

But when I read this there is no mention of building the market-rate at the same time. If they were building it at the same time they'd trumpet it to make the recommendation all the more attractive. I write and read proposals all the time, and ambiguity means something and it's not usually in the favour of the person receiving the proposal.

My guess is they'll do this in phases, and after the government sponsored Phase 1 is done, there will be an excuse to delay Phase 2.

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

If this is all the evidence we are working with on the development details, then your guess is as good as mine.

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 4:00 PM

FairHamilton

Sep 17, 2009, 4:02 PM

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

If this is all the evidence we are working with on the development details, then your guess is as good as mine.

Great!

I'll stop saying serial, if you stop justifying the proposal by saying we are getting market rate at the same time with this proposal.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 4:05 PM

Don't put words in my mouth. What I have consistently pointed out is that the proposal is a mixed use redevelopment that includes 100 units at 80% market rate, 106 units at full market rate, and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 4:11 PM

That proposal was even stated out nice and clearly from City Hall staff during Council last night. Mixed used-mixed income development.

highwater

Sep 17, 2009, 4:21 PM

Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.

Probably because the developers are sleazeballs and we don't want them raking in profits on the public dime for doing sweet f*ck all.

astroblaster

Sep 17, 2009, 4:25 PM

Hamilton Civic League anyone?

Wednesday, September 30. Workers Arts and Heritage center
7:30

Let's talk Civic league.

I'll post more details soon.

highwater

Sep 17, 2009, 5:19 PM

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

The assumptions are going on based on the character of the developers. They have brought this well-deserved skepticism on themselves.

markbarbera

Sep 17, 2009, 5:35 PM

:previous:
The developers are Ted Valeri, Oscar Kichi, Tony Battaglia and Mehran Koranki.

Is your opinion of them based strictly on their handling of the Connaught thus far, or is there more of a history here? What past developments by these individuals has been mishandled to justify the tags of 'sleazeballs'?

highwater

Sep 17, 2009, 6:14 PM

Not paying their taxes for three years is enough on it's own to earn them that epithet AFAIC, but if you'd like, I can add Valeri's shady land deal, the details of which I'm too lazy to look up, but you can look it up yourself if you doubt me, the spin and obfuscating about who exactly these affordable units are for: the proposal says seniors and disabled, but Battaglia has been tossing around 'working poor' in the media 'cause he knows it's an easier sell, the weasel words around what will happen to this proposal if Hamilton gets an NHL franchise, the weasel words about a possible hotel component maybe sometime maybe in the future, the use of public grant money for remedial work on the Connaught which was given with the promise that it would be restored as a hotel, the cynical spin that anyone opposing this is a NIMBY, the refusal to divulge the names of his fellow investors (we only know their names because the Spec did a title search)...there's more, but even with just these few things off the top of my head, this is beginning to look like a bornagainbiking post.

sofasurfer

Sep 17, 2009, 7:03 PM

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that 'social housing' (aka 'affordable housing') components of property developments in London (UK) were pretty much a joke in practice - a year or so after the units came on stream, there were exposes run on how people were gaming the system to basically buy cheap housing and the taxpayer in effect picking up the tab....

Can't say I've followed this particular story much, but it sounds like there's enough scope for abuse of what's being proposed so that property developers can ca$h in nicely through spin. Pretty much expected behaviour in the UK, from what I recall...

Cynical, moi? ;)

sofasurfer

Sep 17, 2009, 7:05 PM

Not paying their taxes for three years is enough on it's own to earn them that epithet AFAIC

Funny how they seemed to cough up quickly enough once the local rag got hold of it, and a planning meeting was in the works...

(god I miss Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/))

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 10:12 PM

CHCH News covered a lot about the proposal (probably more so than the Spec). Maximum income is $42,000 and rent will be around $650.

matt602

Sep 17, 2009, 11:44 PM

I'm thoroughly disgusted by this whole thing. Once again this poor building is about to get gutted and whored out for a purpose not even close to befitting of it's grand history. If a building could show emotion, this one would be crying.

FairHamilton

Sep 18, 2009, 1:26 AM

bigguy1231

Sep 18, 2009, 6:33 AM

All I can say is this just another nail in the coffin for downtown Hamilton. A truely sad day in this cities history.

SteelTown

Sep 18, 2009, 11:06 AM

Connaught developer suing city

September 18, 2009
Paul Morse
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/637104

A developer who wants taxpayer cash to turn the Royal Connaught into affordable housing is suing the city for $9 million over a proposed land deal that went sour six years ago.

Ted Valeri, who is part of a local consortium that wants to redevelop the vacant downtown hotel, filed the lawsuit after his 2003 bid to buy a municipal parking lot at the corner of King Street East and Walnut fell apart, according to court documents. The city disputes the claim.

The city ranked the Connaught plan highest among proposed affordable-housing projects. If the province approves it, the Connaught group would get $12.9 million in provincial and federal funding and another $5.6 million in tax breaks from Hamilton.

Councillor Bob Bratina said city solicitor Peter Barkwell confirmed the suit at council late Wednesday.

"My question becomes, how do we rate the request for proposal (submission) as the highest when we find there (were) taxes owing and a lawsuit?" Bratina said yesterday.

The city does not have a policy that outright restricts a company from bidding in a request for proposals if it has a lawsuit against the municipality. But spokesperson Michael Kirkopoulos said the city has the discretion "not to award contracts to companies in litigation with the city when doing so would not be in the city's best interests."

Senior officials said yesterday the Valeri suit was not a factor in the affordable-housing request for proposals because the city is not the government body giving out funding.

Attempts to reach Valeri were unsuccessful.

The Connaught group includes Valeri, Tony Battaglia, hotelier Oscar Kichi and American businessman Mehran Koranki.

LikeHamilton

Sep 18, 2009, 12:56 PM

They are all proving themselves as common scum!!!!

omro

Sep 19, 2009, 1:03 AM

Ah the backhanders are flying thick and fast.

highwater

Sep 19, 2009, 1:35 AM

Attempts to reach Valeri were unsuccessful.

Check under rocks.

markbarbera

Oct 8, 2009, 6:15 PM

This article appeared in today's Opinion page of the Spec:

Connaught could be 'urban cool'

Filling the old hotel with students, artists, could transform downtown

October 08, 2009
Harry Stinson
The Hamilton Spectator

It would be hard to find anyone in Hamilton who is enthusiastic about the application for housing stimulus funds for the Royal Connaught. On an individual basis, most people's reactions are somewhere between anger and sadness, while public statements have generally focused on the importance of at least ending the building's derelict status.

In terms of civic morale, what a painful contrast it is to the optimistic mood during the recent NHL experience.

I certainly can't bring myself to say "in the circumstances, it was the right thing to do," because from an urban-planning perspective, and in terms of providing inspiring leadership, it was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

However the application was probably the most practical thing to do. The frustrating reality is that breathing new life into the Connaught -- which absolutely must be done -- is not going to happen through a "community barn-raising weekend."

Tony Battaglia is quite correct that development financing is in extremely short supply these days, and hotel financing is near non-existent. Furthermore, the hard truth is that even in "good times," Toronto bankers just aren't interested in Hamilton (although nobody wants to say this publicly).

Debating the best program for the building is futile if nobody is willing to put a nickel on the table. To quote the classic movie line: "Show me the money!"

The next step is critical: How the money is actually used.

It is truly unfortunate that the discussion to date has entirely characterized the funding program as a "subsidized housing grant," requiring the Connaught to be used as "public housing for the poor and old."

I read the government RFP (request for proposal) documents myself, and nowhere did I see such words. The program simply specified maximum rent levels for unit types. While the traditional (and understandable) assumption might be "subsidized housing," if I recall correctly, the funding program did not prohibit creative thinking.

As I read it, the message was: "Look here Buster, we're giving you this free money, so you have an obligation to do something for the community; stimulate the economy and provide housing forms that are needed."

In supporting the application, I sincerely hope that the developers and the City (who will also effectively be financial partners in the development) will seek to incorporate more community benefits than simply low rents; the last thing the downtown needs -- and the Connaught deserves -- is a ghetto stigma. That would be an urban planning disaster.

As an alternative, for example, let's say the Connaught became Canada's coolest student residence. The Connaught would provide an economically ideal facility. A cleverly designed "student studio" could easily be 200 to 250 square feet in size, including a kitchenette and Murphy bed. At the (acceptable) rent of $300 per month, it would actually represent an appealing return on investment to the building owners, while outclassing any alternate student accommodation in town or on campus. Whoever secured the right to operate a 24-hour coffee shop in the lobby of the Connaught would own a licence to print money.

While I appreciate that my opinion may not be shared by some, I strongly believe that students (from McMaster, Mohawk and Columbia) would jump at the chance to live in a loft-style unit in a stunning, historic urban building like the Connaught.

So it's off campus. I recall that when I attended York University I could not wait to get back to the vitality of downtown Toronto, and declined my grandmother's offer to help with dorm fees on campus.

There are already thousands of students living in downtown Hamilton, who would truly appreciate -- and flock to -- such a social magnet. With students' visible, instead of scattered, presence, retail, hospitality and service businesses would quickly follow.

Gore Park may not be Hamilton's equivalent of Toronto's "Queen West" but isn't that what we want it to become?

I can speak from direct personal experience on this subject; when I launched the Candy Factory Lofts on Queen West in Toronto in 1993, the area was derelict and dreary, far worse than Hamilton's King Street East. "Experts" publicly insisted that nobody would ever want to live in an old warehouse in such an 'isolated' location. However, by the day construction was completed, Queen West had been transformed.

Indeed the retail storefronts of Queen West in 1993 were uncannily similar to Hamilton's King East in 2009; two years later, the properties were transformed into galleries, cafes, bars, fashion and furnishings. The upper floors (previously abandoned) became desirable apartments and studios.

In Hamilton, some students were less than enthusiastic about staying in downtown hotels late last year while a McMaster residence was renovated after fire. The reason for that was not that the hotels were downtown, but because the hotels "laid down the lifestyle law" in consideration of not annoying regular hotel guests. (I have also had experience running a large hotel; frankly groups of students could not pay us enough to even consider accepting their reservation).

Another option -- indeed compatible with student housing -- would be to offer loft-style "open plan" units with a basic washroom, kitchenette and concrete floors. It's not hard to predict that artists, singles and independent professionals would flock to these 'live/work' suites, finishing them for their own purposes, whether as a residence, studio or even office.

Might low-income and/or older folks find the low rents appealing? Sure, and why not? In fact, artists usually are "low income."

The above approaches would take away the "stigma" factor and encourage a much healthier demographic cross section.

It would be naive to cling to any delusions the Connaught might be revived as a Ritz-Carlton and Gore Park will be transformed into Yorkville. The artsy renaissance of Queen and King in Toronto have done far more for that city than the pretensions of "Via Ferrari."

From an urban planning perspective and in the financial interests of the building owners, the result is significantly more desirable if the Connaught neighbourhood acquires an "urban cool" image; property tax revenues rise, and the rest of the Connaught retains a higher value.

These are only personal musings and unsolicited ideas. But if downtown is going to break free from its current status, some lateral thinking is a good start.

I sincerely hope the funding is awarded; I hope even more that the owners and the City take the ball and run as far as possible down the field, rather than dropping to the ground for a two-yard gain.

Harry Stinson lives in Hamilton. He is a property developer who previously proposed a redevelopment of the Royal Connaught.

Finally, a fresh perspective on the prospects for RC. This is the kind of creative thinking this city needs more of.

FRM

Oct 8, 2009, 6:24 PM

why didn't he try this route instead, when he was trying to purchase the Connaught?? :haha:

SteelTown

Oct 8, 2009, 6:54 PM

Because the current group wanted something over $5 million, think it was around $7 million. Stinson couldn't come up with the money within 30 days. Think he had $4 million or so.

markbarbera

Oct 8, 2009, 7:19 PM

Exerpt from the piece:

Tony Battaglia is quite correct that development financing is in extremely short supply these days, and hotel financing is near non-existent. Furthermore, the hard truth is that even in "good times," Toronto bankers just aren't interested in Hamilton (although nobody wants to say this publicly).

Here is the point most armchair development critics miss - developers who seek out financing for downtown projects hit a brick wall when negotiating with bankers as soon as they mention downtown Hamilton. This has been the case for nearly a decade now. Why do we berate the shortcomings of the developers when their failures are primarily a result of bankers' bias against Hamilton? Why aren't the tough questions being aimed at the banks - why do we allow them to freeze out Hamilton investment without questioning their rationale or motive? Why do we not direct our anger and frustration towards the real reason why our core continues to languish?

emge

Oct 8, 2009, 7:39 PM

Sure. How? Complaining alone does not change create, and bankers are even less likely to listen to folks who aren't even making the investments.

That was a great article to see this morning... I'm betting someone will say that creating affordable housing for artists or students would be discriminating against non-artists or non-students. Personally, I'd love to see more live/work spaces in the city.

Blurr

Oct 8, 2009, 10:46 PM

The bankers have lost a lot of money in the downtown. I have heard some properties being financed in the 90's at jaw dropping evaluations.

It will take time to work up the creditworthyness of downtown, and it will start with smaller projects, with higher rates and more equity.

Good article.

drpgq

Oct 9, 2009, 2:16 AM

This is why I always lament that it would be better for Hamilton if we had a banking system more like the US, with a whole bunch of regional smaller banks rather than five or six big ones headquartered in Toronto. If Hamilton had its own regional bank, it would be located downtown, providing decent jobs and be more interested in boosting the downtown. It will never happen, but I wish it would sometimes.

SteelTown

Oct 27, 2009, 11:02 AM

Connaught reno 'worthy project': minister

October 27, 2009
Mark McNeil
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/660958

Provincial housing minister James Watson says a decision about provincial funding to renovate the Royal Connaught into affordable housing will be made within three months.

Watson -- who was in Hamilton yesterday to give a speech at the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and to tour local affordable housing projects -- said the application for $12.9 million from the government housing program is still being looked at by ministry staff. Eventually, staff will make a recommendation to Watson, who will decide whether to go through with it.

"From what I know, it is a very worthy project," he said.

"As the minister of housing, I am not overly concerned about people who don't want it in their back yards. That should not be a criteria. It should be: Is it meeting the needs of providing a safe, decent place for people to live?"

City council has supported the plan by Grand Connaught Development Group Inc. to go after the provincial funding. The project also calls for $5.6 million in tax and fee breaks from the city. The Connaught proposal is city staff's top priority for affordable housing.

The development group wants to redevelop the vacant hotel into 100 affordable housing units, and another 106 market-rate units along with 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

But many are critical about losing the historic hotel in the core and others feel affordable housing is not the best use of the property.

Watson, who is also municipal affairs minister, was asked about the status of the City of Hamilton request for $16.5 million to help hold next year's property tax increase to 2 per cent or less.

While the province has come through with the funding in previous years, Watson said a decision still has not been made on the latest request.

He cautioned: "We have a $24 billion deficit and our ability to provide these kinds of one-off top-ups becomes more and more challenging."

He noted that Hamilton is much better off this year, when it comes to total provincial transfers, than it was in 2003. This year the city received $439 million in transfers compared with $234 million six years ago.

realcity

Oct 27, 2009, 5:29 PM

I'm moving to Toronto

Jon Dalton

Oct 27, 2009, 6:07 PM

omro

Oct 30, 2009, 12:57 PM

Wow. Great to see the opposition to this is still being misconstrued as nimbyism. Apparently this Watson guy has no clue that there is a revitalization and economic development aspect to it, or pretends it doesn't exist.

Is there anywhere that a protest to the provincial level is being focussed? As, were I aware of somewhere to put down my name or a place to send a letter to, I would. I just don't have the time to hunt for this information myself right now.

I object to this entire proposal on the following grounds:

1) People should not be able to profit from buying a building, lying about their intentions, taking city money based upon those intentions and then letting the building become derelict. I would prefer the city to compulsory purchase the building back, at the price it was sold for, and the provincial money go to them.

2) There is already plenty of affordable housing downtown. Let's spread it out a little. I have no objections to such housing, merely the downtown density of it. Show me hard evidence of the benefit of such and I'll change my mind. Terraces on King, which is a nice looking building I'm happy with it, but I.V. is pretty dead around it and seems to have died further since its construction. And those are just my observations over the last 6 months of living here.

matt602

Nov 8, 2009, 2:35 AM

So... everyone forget what Mr. Battaglia said about this project if we got the Pan-Am games?

Well, we did. Now is the time for him to realize that affordable housing is not going to be the most profitable venture for him, with tens of thousands of people due to visit this city in a few years.

BCTed

Nov 8, 2009, 2:51 AM

highwater

Nov 8, 2009, 8:01 AM

I remember him saying they would abandon affordable housing if we got an NHL franchise, but I don't recall him saying anything about the PanAm Games.

matt602

Nov 8, 2009, 9:03 AM

Ah I must have gotten confused. Never mind then. Feel like a bit of an idiot now.

Still, this has been kind of quiet now. I guess we have to wait to see what the province decides.

SteelTown

Nov 8, 2009, 7:42 PM

Hopefully with the 2015 Pan Am Games coming it'll help get some hotels under construction and renovation. I bet the Sheraton renovation is guaranteed now.

Hopefully the Hilton Hotel will become a reality.

We're hosting the largest event, track and field and that will require hotel/motel space for coaches and trainers.

matt602

Nov 8, 2009, 11:58 PM

I really hope that Sheraton renovation goes through. It's a nice hotel but it's looking rather dated. Even a modest renovation would go a long way to making it look great.

BCTed

Nov 9, 2009, 12:10 AM

SteelTown

Nov 9, 2009, 12:30 AM

BCTed

Nov 9, 2009, 5:08 AM

Plus another two weeks for the parapan am. Where going to have major hotel space shortage for coaches and trainers as I'm sure they'll be plenty of tourist taking up hotel space.

They'll be over 10,000 athletes and they all come with coaches, trainers and friends/families. Track and field is the largest event so that's gotta be around 4,000 athletes.

One thing that will be certain will be the renovation to Sheraton, it'll push the owner to complete it by 2015.

Four weeks' worth of solid bookings would be a help, but it still would not be nearly enough to spur on entirely new construction.

I am not sure how major the renovation plans for the Sheraton are, but if the hotel is in a state of disrepair, then I certainly hope that renovations would be complete well before 2015.

SteelTown

Nov 9, 2009, 12:17 PM

Plus there'll be tons of other events that will come because of these new venues. There's no doubt the City will now bid for Cycling championships as this velodrome is the only indoor international sized venue east of LA. Plus I'm sure there be more events happening because of the new stadium, wouldn't be surprised of a 2014 Grey Cup if they get a 30,000 stadium.

omro

Nov 9, 2009, 1:30 PM

Are there any plans to get this blocked at the provincial level? Some form of locally organised protest that is sent to them?

SteelTown

Nov 9, 2009, 2:06 PM

Kinda hard to block this proposal once it's at the hands of the ministry. You can protest by sending an email to your MPP but they'll just bounce it back saying it was the city that gave approval and it's not the ministry's job to pick and choice especially if it meets the requirements.

SteelTown

Dec 9, 2009, 12:15 PM

Connaught may lose out on funding bid again

BY ANDREW DRESCHEL

The provincial government is on the verge of announcing whether the Royal Connaught Hotel will receive funding to convert the downtown landmark into mixedincome housing.

According to city officials, the decision is expected to land mid-December at the latest.

If approved, the Connaught would receive $12.9 million from a government housing program, which would spark an additional $5.6 million in tax and fee breaks from the city.

But sources suggest the project is more likely to receive a nay than a yea from the province.

The Connaught has already been turned down for funding in the first year of the two-year stimulus program. Now it’s starting to look as if the same might happen for second-year funding, which would start in April.

Nobody is saying anything definitively, but signals are quietly being sent that the politics around the project have changed in light of Hamilton being awarded a piece of the Pan Am Games.

Apparently, the confidence boosting Games have raised the prospect of a better role for the grand old hotel to play other than mixed housing.

If so, Tony Battaglia, spokesperson for the Connaught’s ownership consortium, can’t guess what it might be.

Battaglia says nobody has approached the group with a new purchase or partnership offer since the Pan Am announcement.

Nor does he believe the Games buoy the Connaught’s chances of making a comeback as a hotel.

“The Pan Am Games are an event that is going to happen in 2015 and, for two weeks, every hotel in the area will be jammed,” says Battaglia.

“But, beyond that, it’s really not going to have much impact on the hotel industry.”

Battaglia says the housing proposal remains the consortium’s best hope of breathing new life into the Connaught and, by extension, the downtown.

“It’s very important to us.”

Last September, council voted 11 to 4 (Bob Bratina walked out without voting) to send the Connaught proposal to the province as the city’s top choice among six local projects seeking funding from the federal-provincial program.

The issue was hotly debated, largely because of a public backlash against the proposed use for the vacant but iconic hotel.

Built in 1916 and expanded in 1931, the Connaught is considered one of downtown’s most precious historic sites, even though it isn’t designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The housing proposal calls for 100 lower-income units for seniors and people with disabilities and 106 market-rate units.

The developers say the project would also include about 53,000 square feet of commercial space.

In the face of strong criticisms, city manager Chris Murray argued the development would help downtown revitalization and bring necessary new housing stock to the aging core.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger also argued the project meets the city’s goal of bringing more residents downtown.

Still, $12.9 million for a single project is considered a big ask. If the Connaught is approved, there is a good chance none of the other five proposed developments put forward by Hamilton — totalling about $16.4 million in requests — would get a dime.

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs and Housing says he can’t comment on approvals or the timing of the announcements.

Officially, the city remains optimistic the provincial money will flow, enabling the 13-storey Connaught to be reborn as a high-rise apartment. But, again, the background buzz suggests few at City Hall will be shedding tears if the project is turned down.

bigguy1231

Dec 9, 2009, 4:52 PM

All I can say is this is great news. The province is going to do what our inept council couldn't do. Turn them down.

highwater

Dec 9, 2009, 9:58 PM

We're not there yet, but let's hope.

Whether or not this goes through, the city needs to have a serious look at its RFP process and the way it was managed by staff, and the quality of advice given by staff. Many councillors voted for the proposal reluctantly because they were told by staff that if they cherry-picked the Connaught, the other proposals on the list would be put at risk. Shortly after the vote, we found out from the province that this was not the case. Now we find out that not only would removing the Connaught from the list not have put the other proposals at risk, but in fact, if the Connaught goes through, there may not be enough money for the other projects! You would think staff might have placed a call to the Housing Ministry before issuing such catastophically bad advice.

Not to mention the whole issue of how the Connaught even got on the list in the first place given their tax arrears and the Valeri lawsuit.

Some heads should roll.

markbarbera

Dec 10, 2009, 12:03 AM

Should the proposal not go through, we'll be looking at another long-term derelect downtown building at a high-profile corner. Investers certainly aren't queing up to buy the building or finance its restoration. Lister part two.

SteelTown

Dec 10, 2009, 12:19 AM

I really wished 220 Dundurn proposal got approved under the RFP, would have been a perfect opportunity to redevelop that land.

11thIndian

Dec 10, 2009, 12:20 AM

Unfortunately, I think that's the preferable option in this case. Even if it sits derelict for another 5 years, it sits empty and relatively ready for development. Once it becomes a mixed income property, that will be it for the next 20 years, and if downtown hamilton turns around they way we all hope it will, then it will be a black eye we can't get rid of.

But attention MUST be paid to the condition of the building, and it's security. If the current owners are not willing or able to maintain the security and structure of the Connaught, they should be forced to sell to someone who will. It's time for this city to come down hard on developers squatting on landmark/historical property and waiting for it to fall down.

markbarbera

Dec 10, 2009, 12:31 PM

I can appreciate your point of view, but I must say I have never equated a newly renovated residential apartment building as a black eye for any neighbourhood. There is an ongoing misconception that the proposal will drop a 'Cabrini Green" type complex at the corner of King and John, and that simply is not true. The Connaught proposal is not a public housing project. Unfortunately we all know how quickly and deeply false perceptions can take hold in this city, and this one has gelled firmly and quickly.

highwater

Dec 10, 2009, 2:21 PM

:previous:

Frankly, the majority of the 'misperceptions' are due to the fact that no one trusts this consortium to do a proper mixed use development. If this project were being proposed by a development company with a track record of successful mixed use developments of the kind we see in Vancouver for example, alot (admittedly not all) of the objections would disappear. Certainly mine would. But the fact is, the consortium behind this project has demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy and incompetent, and the idea of them getting so much as one dime of public money burns my a**. :hell:

realcity

Dec 10, 2009, 5:18 PM

exactly..... just like the Lister will NEVER EVER get that proposed PHASE TWO.

This will not be a mixed use... and ya probably about as close to Cabrini-Green you get in Hamilton instead of 5,000 people it will be 500.

In fact the opposite if happening in other cities. Regent Park and even Cab-Green were razed and less population density of the same income levels and created mixed-incomes and building uses. This will be 500 units of social services housing.... no other way to look at it. And that is fairly dense... too dense... the cops will be there all the time

Instead of demolition by neglect it will be a slow demolition by the tenants themselves. And I don't care how that sounds it's true. Why respect something that you didn't work for. There will be holes in the walls, ripped carpet, dirty, elevators will be junked and always broken. Cat piss smell, drug use, prostitution.

That's what goes on in social housing buildings Im sorry. Right now they say for working-poor and seniors, but I don't think they can be racist against other people that need housing. And this group will say anything to get the money then bail.

Hamilton's Regent Park is the area of high-rises at Lake/Centennial and Barton. Ever been in those buildings? *I think it has a name*

There is still hope isn't there? that the Gov will not approve the funding?

matt602

Dec 11, 2009, 2:40 AM

drpgq

Dec 14, 2009, 7:19 PM

Cut off from the internet for a few days and some good news about this ridiculous project. I'm surprised the province would be willing to act, but happy if they nix it nonetheless. I'm still OK with comparing this project to Cabrini Green too.

Jon Dalton

Dec 14, 2009, 8:05 PM

Cut off from the internet for a few days and some good news about this ridiculous project.

For once. Every time I see this thread has resurfaced I think to my self "ohh, crap." Goes back to the Stinson days.

drpgq

Dec 23, 2009, 7:08 PM

Ding dong it is dead! With bonus goodness of rejecting the rest of the social housing too!

By Emma Reilly
Hamilton Spectator

A proposal to turn the Royal Connaught Hotel into mixed-income housing has been turned down. The city was hoping to receive $12.9 million from a government housing program to convert the downtown landmark into mixed-income housing. Yesterday, an email went out to council members and senior staff alerting them the project had been shut out. Council voted in September to name the Connaught project as its top choice of the six local projects seeking funding from the federal-provincial program. The five other housing projects – which, along with the Connaught, would have brought over 300 affordable beds to the city – were also rejected. Sixteen projects with 1,200 units across Ontario did receive funding and will be awarded $141 million in Federal-Provincial cash. In yesterday’s email, the city says it’s “following up with Ministry staff on the locations of these projects and the reasons the six projects submitted by Hamilton City Council were unsuccessful.” The Connaught project spurred debate this summer over whether the downtown landmark should be converted to mixed-use housing.

matt602

Dec 23, 2009, 7:59 PM

:banana:

Thank you to the Province of Ontario for doing what our crooked city councilors couldn't do.

Unfortunately it's now going to sit empty and rotting further for years... but it's still in it's hotel bones.

FairHamilton

Dec 23, 2009, 8:21 PM

There truly is a Santa Claus, and Christmas has come early to Hamilton with the Connaught being declined!!!

It's unfortunate the other 5 were declined as well. They seemed to have more merit and make more sense to the community in general. Now, it will be interesting to see what the developers do with the properties.

As an added bonus to the city, $500K in back taxes were paid up on the properties, as part of this process.

flar

Dec 23, 2009, 8:28 PM

The owners will now spend the next decade threatening to demolish the hotel until somebody gives them money.

Note to owners: please, please, please sell the building at a fair market price. I'm sorry if that means you will take a loss on the property, but hey, it's better than paying taxes year-in-year-out on a building that generates no revenue (oh wait, this is Hamilton, nobody will force you to pay taxes)

markbarbera

Dec 23, 2009, 8:38 PM

flar

Dec 23, 2009, 8:41 PM

This building won't physically fall down, but the price tag to make it habitable will go up and up.

realcity

Dec 23, 2009, 8:56 PM

Jesus saved the Connaught.

God be with you.

SteelTown

Dec 23, 2009, 9:19 PM

I'm disappointed that the province rejected all of Hamilton's affordable housing projects. For a city that that's tied for the highest poverty rate in Ontario doesn't seem right.

realcity

Dec 23, 2009, 9:33 PM

Most likely, a couple years from now the same group jumping for joy over this deal's collapse will be moaning about the architectual loss when the still-vacant building physically collapses... cutting off nose to spite the face...

Or they will still be trying for some form of public $. Or else it will sit empty/// without public money. Harry..... it still can be yours.

I thought our shitboxxcity lacked hotel rooms? Isn't that what HECFi has been telling us for years? Not enough hotel rooms to fill their empty Convention Center? London has three times our hotel rooms.

The Connaught will be a good *benchmark* for 2010/ and the NEXT COUNCIL *Hello Fred, done much lately??* to see what happens to that beauty of a building in the next year. and... with MetroLinx and if we do a proper new stadium for the Ti-Cats.

3 things... for this year.... a real stadium for 30,000 (either on stupid bayfront or real bayfront on Lake Ontario), rapid transit *not busses* on Main STREET and the Connaught turned into a hotel. I know it's not much, but I'm gone if these things don't happen. *I can't be the only one that thinks so* And I will also tell my kids to get the hell out of this dying city. Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Hamilton *even tho Hamilton is in the middle of a huge, growing, megalopolis, the center of the Golden Horseshoe*. If monkeys can't make it work then what gives?

This has to be a make or break it year for our City.

FairHamilton

Dec 23, 2009, 9:37 PM

I'm disappointed that the province rejected all of Hamilton's affordable housing projects. For a city that that's tied for the highest poverty rate in Ontario doesn't seem right.

I'm disappointed as well, but that's what happens when you elect NDP MPP's when the government is Liberal.

bigguy1231

Dec 23, 2009, 9:46 PM

Thank you , Thank you , Thank you

Somebody was listening.

I don't care if they tear the place down and turn it into a parking lot, anything is better than what was being proposed. Now hopefully these mickey mouse developers will do the right thing and sell it to someone with money and vision. Some one who can return the place to it's former glory.

LikeHamilton

Dec 23, 2009, 9:47 PM

Connaught mixed-housing project rejected
TheSpec.com - BreakingNews

By Emma Reilly
A proposal to turn the Royal Connaught Hotel into mixed-income housing has been turned down. The city was hoping to receive $12.9 million from a government housing program to convert the downtown landmark into mixed-income housing. Yesterday, an email went out to council members and senior staff alerting them the project had been shut out. Council voted in September to name the Connaught project as its top choice of the six local projects seeking funding from the federal-provincial program. The five other housing projects – which, along with the Connaught, would have brought over 300 affordable beds to the city – were also rejected. Sixteen projects with 1,200 units across Ontario did receive funding and will be awarded $141 million in Federal-Provincial cash. In yesterday’s email, the city says it’s “following up with Ministry staff on the locations of these projects and the reasons the six projects submitted by Hamilton City Council were unsuccessful.” The Connaught project spurred debate this summer over whether the downtown landmark should be converted to mixed-use housing.

SteelTown

Dec 23, 2009, 9:49 PM

I'm disappointed as well, but that's what happens when you elect NDP MPP's when the government is Liberal.

There's Ted McMeekin (cabinet minister) and a rising Liberal star Sophia Aggelonitis.

Oh how I wished 220 Dundurn Street's proposal was included in the RFP.

bigguy1231

Dec 23, 2009, 9:53 PM

I'm disappointed as well, but that's what happens when you elect NDP MPP's when the government is Liberal.

Of the 6 seats that we have representing this city 2 are Liberal, 1 is Conservative(Tim Hudak) and 3 are NDP including the party leader. It has absolutely nothing to do with who we elect.

This was a not a political decision. It was made by bureaucrats.