7 Queen St N + 354 King St W | 77.2 & 41.7 m | 12 & 25 fl | Under Construction
 

It looks like Vranich maybe serious this time in building several building downtown. This would only be a block away from Hess Village.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5...eetwestham.jpg
366 - 368 King Street West (Google Earth Picture)

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/787...westhamilt.jpg

354 King Street West (Google Earth Picture)

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...__PED11051.pdf

The exterior of that building has already been done for several months now. The sign says 'Vrancor Restaurant Group.'

They also own the former Hakim Optical building and the burned out apartment buiding, which are across from each other at King and Hess. I posted about those 'plans' in the rumour mill thread.

Seems to me that the former Hakim Optical building would be more suitable for his head office, as it commands a better street presence (and is closer to Hess).

Yes but it would command more money being closer to Hess Village.

Vranich has received a demolition permit for the Mt St Joseph building.

http://thepublicrecord.ca/2014/11/12...ouncil-recess/

Hope it's to build something more than a parking lot.

A couple of years ago he mentioned that he was planning on building a hotel on that site. If I recall correctly it was to be a 100- 200 room Holiday Inn. There may even be a thread on it somewhere here.

That's a good case for having council meetings in the November after an election. Who else gets a paid month off just because? The business of improving (or as it goes here, screwing up) the city doesn't take a holiday to wait for the new council.

I absolutely adore that building and seriously hope it doesn't get demolished especially when there are so many empty lots that could easily be filled. But I guess if something were to happen, I pray that he at least keeps a facade or does some sort of retrofit.

I absolutely agree with you! This is a really lovely building, it would be a shame to see a big blocky stucco building developed in it's place.
Instead, it would be nice to see a conversion like Witton lofts. It retains the charm, but makes it modern at the same time.

I was just about to post this also...

Once talk of an LRT stop here, but how quickly a back room discussion can swap things around! A little grease-ball to the wheel to make things move faster with no public interest. I own a place just around the corner and this is getting to me now. Also the church kiddie-corner to this is slated for demo and will change this whole intersection more. These developments might be combined? Terrible heritage issue here, how in hell does this go under the rug? I appreciate the Vrancor contribution, but through the back door? His office is right next to this property, it's a long time coming I'm sure.

McHattie saves the day again by finding the permit in the first place. Thank you sir.

I not sure about the back door but he announced this project as a Holiday Inn Express years ago (2007 or 2008) before even starting the projects on Main Street. I believe he applied for a zoning change back then. He seems to be flush with money as these project are just barreling ahead without sales starting. I suspect this maybe a nice project as his head office is next door.

^ That's what I'm thinking too, head office space for Vrancor.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is proposed as a senior home. That's seems to be his two main source of business, senior homes and hotels.

LikeHamilton, I'd very much like to know how you define "nice". He's going to demolish a perfectly fine building of heritage significance!

Shameful. And, movingtohamilton, you’re right. Further to your comment, it is very hard to determine whether a project is “nice” if there are no plans that can be reviewed. This historically significant building on an important corner is going to be demolished to make way for…Something.

Maybe.

It might be historical, but it's not exactly urban with that big set back. It's also an incredibly average looking building. If something of that level of generic design with that sort of set back were proposed today it would declared horribly suburban, especially when along a major artery like King.

Mason Property needs great neighbours
 

The neighbouring property owners opinion and realization of the historical importance of the Mason mansion at that corner needs consideration. There is a constant flow of film crew sets being erected there if that doesn't highlight it enough as a gem. I'm not saying it fits well now, but consideraton is needed.

I do not believe this building has any heritage significance. It looks just like any of dozens of apt building in the city. It is not like the Scottish Rite across the street where I believe most of the filming happens. I would rather see a large high rise of any type up to the sidewalk on that corner. I try not getting emotionally attached to building. Just because it was built does not mean it can't come down.

From THE PUBLIC RECORD HAMILTON

I'm organizing a wrecking party for the Pigott Building! Who's in?

I am trying to understand how people see this building as historically significant. In what context? Its architecture is not unique. Does its previous role as an orphanage warrant referring to it as historically significant? Why was there no outcry to preserve the building when the site was earmarked to become an LRT station? Why did it not require preservation then, but does now?

The context is not historical. It's present-day. I think the building itself is less important than the boiling over of frustration that people are feeling, when a developer basically does whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Meantime, small businesses are constantly harassed by the City for the smallest infractions, or have endless red-tape thrown in their path.

I am having a hard time following your thought process here. Are you now saying that the building's historical significance is not an issue? I thought you had claimed earlier in this thread.

If your issue is with the demolition approval being done without council noticing, then it seems to me that your issue is not really with the developer, but with the city staff who approved the demolition, as well as the councillor's staff who were obviously unfocused on what was transpiring within this ward during the run-up to last month's election.

There are many dimensions to this issue, and apologies if my thoughts aren't perfectly formed! There is historical context of course, but there is the issue of a developer who seems to have significant power in this city, and so on.

We can argue all day long about the importance of this particular building, but the overarching factor, in my opinion, is Hamilton's chronic state of being one step behind.

People (at least those opinions I read on social media) are completely frustrated by things like this sneak attack on a property post-election, and the outsize power of developers. A building gets knocked down on Jackson, the developer briefly (?) had an illegal parking lot on the property. What is being built on it? I'm sure you could add to the list.

Just my $0.02

I think you are confusing developers. Vranich is the developer that wants to demolish this building. He is not the same developer that demolished the office building on Jackson Street. He is the developer that is restoring and intensifying 150 Main West, and is building a 28-storey condominium tower next to it. He also just finished building the Homewood Suites and Staybridge Suites hotels. That's four new downtown developments in the past two years, all of which have added significantly to the city's tax base. From what I understand, he has plans for another hotel for this site. IMO we should be cheering on such developments.

I'm not super sad about losing it :/ One one hand, yeah, its an old building, but I feel like there are more effective uses of the land.

Even if the new structure is no bigger than the old one if it's built close to the sidewalk that on it's own would be an improvement.

Vranich has added numerous towers and tax dollars to our downtown in the past couple of years. Even his son has jumped on board and finished the renovation of the rental on king and Hess. I think the harping on him is unwarranted. He has delivered on his promises and doesn't buy land just to have it sit empty.

Be careful what you wish for. He could take all his money and pack up and leave for another city. Then we would be left with all the old decaying buildings that our hearts desire.

Also not every old building is historic. It seems every time a building is demolished there is an uproar. Is this going to be the case 50 years from now with buildings being built today? Not everything old is worth saving. Change is a good thing. We still have numerous amounts of century old buildings that have been reserved and can be preserved.

No Markbarbera, I'm not mixing up developers. I'm well aware that the Gore properties is not Vranich.

King10, I understand your sentiments but for every Vranich that might leave there are many more to take his place. Like all smart entrepreneurs he's in business to make money. Period.

We also don't know for sure this came easily. There could have been months of hard wrung backroom deals.

I never understand it when people claim there is no development plan. As though developers have some obligation to share their plans with the public. Maybe there should be some obligation that developers file a plan before applying for demolition, though I wonder if soil testing is behind it, not to mention given recent history the risk of a surprise designation motion. I'd rather see a more robust demolition control bylaw and removal of the property tax break for vacant land than more obstacles in the way of development.

Beedok, we're supposed to be in the era of transparency, not the corrupt behind-closed-doors bad old days. Hamilton, wake up! It's 2014 not 1954.

Im not sure there are develoeprs w Vranich'z pocket book lining up to build in Hamilton. How many developers do you know will build 20 story buildings before pre sales even begin. Do You think ppl are lining up to replace vranich as a major developer in Hamilton? I personally dont or theyd be here already.

Why do they have to replace VRanich, can they not co exist and both be developers in the city.

Transparency when it comes to public dollars being spent. Private developers arent obligated to make public their development plans. This isnt communist Russia.

Why does something like that need to be public? If it were a heritage building sure. As just an average (if sort of old) building it doesn't seem worthy of wasting the time of the people in charge of keeping the public informed. Should we inform the public of everything? Swamp them with applications to build gazebos and replace fences so that the important points about heritage buildings and monuments are drowned out by irrelevant info? Keep the public information to things that affect the public both to save tax dollars and the time of activists.

You really believe what you wrote? In Toronto, when a developer plans to knock down a building, there are notices posted on the existing building: developer name; number of stories planned; etc.

In many cities, developers must "share their plans with the public". They certainly do in Toronto, which has had explosive growth in residential and commercial construction. Why this need for secrecy in Hamilton?

You're kidding, right? Why bother keeping the public informed? :uhh:

The City of Toronto does not require a notice of demolition to be posted. They are only required to post notices of zoning amendments for redevelopments, just like here.

You're correct, on a strict interpretation. The notice posted typically describes that a "building of X stories is proposed to be constructed on this site". Pretty much guarantees that the existing building is coming down, in whole or in part (like saving the facade).

I don’t agree with the logic. With the right conditions, all types of developers would come to Hamilton. Perhaps the municipal government should cease any kind of oversight of development, waive all development fees and other charges, and allow demolition or alteration or anything else without need even for an application. Then we would attract all sorts of developers.

It’s insane to compare the demolition of an existing building on an important intersection in the downtown with the building of a fence or a gazebo. It should be the practice to inform the public when a change in use of a piece of land is being proposed (for instance, replacing a building with a vacant lot), and it is perfectly reasonable for the municipal government to deny demolition permits unless there is an actual plan for redevelopment. It is in the public interest to promote higher and better uses for land in the city.

If it was permitted to demolish buildings willy nilly without any plans for redevelopment, what you would see is a lot of individual property speculators hoping that the price of their land goes, up tearing down the existing buildings and replacing them with low-value uses (vacant lots, parking lots) while they await hypothetical conditions that will allow them to sell to someone who might think he can redevelop. The result would be declining tax revenues and rising taxes for the existing tax base.

Is this a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous? The City of Toronto does not post notices for applications for demolition permits. Period. It does post notices of rezoning applications for redevelopment whenever required, just like here.

Personally, I just always get nervous when a demolition permit is issued with no plans for redevelopment. I'm not really attached to this building, and I hope something great takes its place... I just hope it takes its place soon, and we end up with something better that what went down.

No markbarbera, I have no intention to be disingenuous. But I think you're unwilling to engage on the bigger issue, choosing instead to be jumping on me on my comments about permits.

But you did post earlier: "IMO we should be cheering on such developments", so I do have a good idea on where you stand.

I guess we should agree to disagree, and move on?

If you'd read what I said I'm very focused on keeping the public informed. Drowning out important information with trivialities does the opposite. This building is not urban and interacts with the street so little it might as well be a parking lot already. It's so incredibly non-descript I didn't remember it in the slightest despite having passed it almost every day of my life for like 6 or 7 years. Wasting tax money on keeping the public informed on something like this is just that, a waste. It doesn't just waste the money of the public and city but also the time of the city, developper, and activists trying to keep an eye out for abuses.

Remember there's two uninformed dystopia settings: 1984 where no one has any information, and Brave New World where any useful information is lost in a sea of triviallities.

McHattie saved the day? Really? How?

Truth is, McHattie and his staff dropped the ball here. They allowed this permit application to go unnoticed because they were too busy working on his mayoral election campaign and weren't paying attention to constituent matters in Ward One like demolition permits. If we are going to play the blame game, let's do it fairly and evenly.

Beedok, there's one more dystopian setting:Hamilton.

It's a combination of 1950's thinking ("the car is everything, so we need those 4-lane highways downtown!"; "don't mess too much with those one-way streets!"), 1984 (the City's transparency and accountability committee did not publish minutes of its meetings; councilors pushed back hard against a lobbyist registration process for a long time) and Brave New World (the City tells you that there's yoga in front of city hall, but did it openly disclose that it committed to pay Ti-Cats $1 million for every game not played in the new stadium?).

I really like living here, and glad we moved to Hamilton. But many people seem to be willfully ignorant of some pretty obvious shenanigans that occur here regularly. On one occasion I dared to question the "accepted wisdom" and was accused of being "from away", like it's a crime! Only would the small-town mindset say something that dumb.

Are you completely sure about this?

Sounds like Hamilton politics are really rubbing you the wrong way. I think you'd be better served to direct your frusteration elsewhere because there is not much we as forumers can do for you. Half of us dont even agree. But you should talk to someone at city hall or maybe write an opinion piece in the spec to voice your concerns. I agree that city council is disfunctional and needs a shake up (which will happen to some extent come Jan)

That's not Dystopia Hamilton. That's municipal politics pretty well everywhere. As a city of a couple million Toronto can manage a larger apparatus that works a bit better, but most cities are a byzantine web of backroom deals and personal friendships.

Half the lot (the half by the intersection that apparently makes this lot extra important) is already a parking lot. Hidden behind trees and a fence set back like what 15-20 feet from the street, the building contributes almost nothing to the urban feel. The trees are more important than the building.