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

[SteelTown]

^ 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 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

The building is only listed as being of interest, and was not added to the Heritage Interest Registry as lays on the west side of Queen Street, officially outside of the Downtown Core boundary.

The demolition permit has been issued by the Building Department and demolition may occur at any date.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by LikeHamilton

...I try not getting emotionally attached to building. Just because it was built does not mean it can't come down.

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

[markbarbera]

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?

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I am trying to understand how people see this building as historically significant. In what context?...

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.

[markbarbera]

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.

[thmx]

9/13/2020 by Joe, on Flickr

[lachlanholmes]

Progress as of this afternoon:

[thmx]

9/30/2020 by Joe, on Flickr

[davidcappi]

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.

[Beedok]

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.

[king10]

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.

[movingtohamilton]

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

[movingtohamilton]

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.

[king10]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

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.

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.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by king10

Im not sure there are develoeprs w Vranich'z pocket book lining up to build in Hamilton.

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.

[Beedok]

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

[movingtohamilton]

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.

[king10]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

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.

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

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by king10

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

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.