This is an excellent outcome, and kudos to Farr for playing a constructive role in this case, which helped this project move forward.

Let's hope the next time the city feels a project should be undergo an "independent third party review", it doesn't decide on hiring a Toronto-based firm to conduct said review.

Not a fan.

I don't think this group gets it done. They have zero credibility, but they have swindled the city into greatly increasing the value of a lot they bought for $2. Borderline criminal.

100%. this is blanchard-lite. they aren't developers, they just want to sell to one

Few new tidbits here: https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2016/...ation-meeting/

Sounds like they're slowly moving forward.

ugh.

Yet another decade-long project for the fine citizens of Hamilton to sweat over...

Which is a fairly common event in any city. At least there's no dug out foundations or husks reaching up a couple floors sitting untouched for years or decades like they get in Ottawa, Montreal or Niagara Falls (or Calgary iirc).

Downtown Hamilton condo developers making slow, steady progress

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/66...eady-progress/

Agreements between builders and buyers differ but impatient investors are entitled to the return of their deposit with interest in the case of delayed deliveries.

Tivoli developer Berardo Diamante prefers to shun the spotlight until he's secured a reliable timeline for a project.

Delays can look bad, he said.

"I don't want to promote the project too much until we are literally ready to construct."

Diamante and his father, Domenic, are planning a 22-storey tower on the site of the former Tivoli theatre, which must be restored as part of the project.

The Diamantes received council approval for the condo high-rise in April 2015.

The elder Diamante says he'd like to start immediately, but can't with environmental approvals pending.

"At best, it's going to take another three years … That's if everything moves along smoothly."

is that three years until the project is complete, or three years until they break ground?

Probably until ground breaks ahhaha hahahahahah

I will never understand why saving this theatre is so important. The "heritage" aspect is what is holding this up. You can say otherwise, but if they were pitching a build on an empty lot this would probably happen a lot faster.

until they break ground, probably, if it even happens by the hand of the same developer.

It is the last of the grand old downtown theatres. At least the last one that's still recognizable as a theatre.

Yeah but by today's standards, it's neither an up to date, useful or even recognizable as a theatre. I don't understand how it could expect to generate revenue in its size and condition. I'd rather see a state of the art performing centre happen. Even if it's restored its potential uses are super limited.

Grand it may have been, but it's nothing more than a shell with some sparse heritage detailing inside. The preservation of the auditorium basically means settling for an average building on the site & longer development and approval processes, and for what purpose?

Why should we settle for a mediocre condo that doesn't match the scale of the street if it means the demolition of the last old theatre auditorium in downtown? We have a lot of empty lots and crappy one and two story buildings and strip malls from the 1950's and later all over the core that could be demolished for a decent development. No reason why what little is left of the Tivoli should suffer for that purpose. It's not as if demolishing it would make the land any more suitable for that type of development anyway, its still a really skinny lot. That's probably why they haven't bothered pursuing the option of demolition up to this point.

This comes up all the time. Build on the empty lots. The developers can only develop what they own. Those empty lots are owned by people would don't want to do anything but run parking lots. There not interested in selling. They are waiting for the area around them to be developed so they can get a higher rent or condo price for their building as the area has become more valuable or they are just waiting for the land to become very expensive and then sell to someone else who wants to develop the land.

Hamilton has had a disproportionate amount of land that is owned by speculators who are just sitting on empty land (or demolition by neglect buildings), waiting for the price to go through the roof and then sell without spending little or none of their own money. The Royal Connaught Hotel builds first owners where a prime example of owners who where really looking for someone else or government to supply the money for the project. Yes the two who are doing the project where part of the group, but there was 5 or 6 owners in the group and I know some in the group where not interested in spending any of their own money on the project other than acquiring the building. They had as a group enough money the do the project without any money from anyone else or the government.

I think it is wonderful that the people who are doing the project are spending money on it. They are immigrants who came here and made a successful go of it and are investing in Hamilton. They could of just sat back and enjoy the fruits of their labour as the have lots to retire on. They could have invested in other cities like Burlington, Oakville or Mississauga where it would be easier.

:2cents:

They can't build on top of the existing theatre structure, so the new building footprint is literally the empty space in front of the abandoned building.

If you want to talk about buildings suffering, I'd say being neglected and left to collapse is about as rough as it gets. What's left is hardly a "grand old theatre". It doesn't even have a proper backstage... I'm having a really hard time understanding how this space will be useful. It's been stated several times in articles that the reason the building has to be so large and skinny is a) not being able to build on the existing structure, and b) moving enough units to finance the "restoration" of the auditorium.

Yeah we have lots of empty lots and crappy buildings, but like LikeHamilton said, developers can do what they want with their own property.

It's just sad that we have to settle for an awkward building and an out of date theatre for the sake of satisfying heritage activists, when really nature won the battle against the building a long time ago.

You don't see potential with this, davidcappi? (never mind the questions of it being recognizable as a theatre, or grand? :))


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...3268a5042b.jpg
Source


http://media.zuza.com/0/1/01158551-b...a5_Content.jpg
Source


https://rebuildhamilton.files.wordpr...otor.jpg?w=500

https://rebuildhamilton.files.wordpr...otor.jpg?w=500

https://rebuildhamilton.files.wordpr...otor.jpg?w=500

https://rebuildhamilton.files.wordpr...otor.jpg?w=500
Source (4 photos) -- Photo Tour: The Tivoli Theatre

Ten years ago this August…

I'm 100% in favour of saving heritage buildings but I don't see the point in saving this either. Heritage means more than old. If this were still all together maybe, but in the state it's in there really is no point.

That interior is wonderful. I'd like to see it saved.