John/Rebecca urban park - Page 3

LRTfan · #1 Posted **May 30, 2018, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootaround

The club (building) takes away so much from the design of the park. Perfect design except for that awful building on the corner. No thanks.

agreed....I have a hard time believing the city is suddenly going to start caring about heritage when it's related to this nondescript one storey slab.

TheRitsman · #2 Posted **May 30, 2018, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRTfan

agreed....I have a hard time believing the city is suddenly going to start caring about heritage when it's related to this nondescript one storey slab.

As someone who likes Club77 and Dirty Dogs occasionally, especially for their EDM bookings, I do not like the building there with the design of this park personally. I do think it takes away from the design, and if it remains a club, people will spill out and use the park for less than desirable reasons. I know this because I am in the age group that uses the club, and know people that would do this.

That said, it sucks to lose a real downtown club, and I hope Hamilton creates an environment that a safer and more interesting club scene can happen, because Hess just sucks, and Club77 should be moved, and there aren't even really any gay bars (coming from a straight dude with a few gay friends).

If Hamilton wants to be attracting young people, they cannot simply push out all slightly less desirable clubs, bars and nightlife attractions. I really like the park here, but we all don't want to go for a lonely stroll on a Friday night through an empty city, some of us want to dance.

LRTfan · #3 Posted **May 30, 2018, 1:09 AM**

new park, new 40 storey condo on the block to the north, new police building to the NE, new Beasley Park.... this should start to seed the revival of the parking lot hell district.... if both new building proposals at King William/Ferguson/Jarvis come to fruition all this will start to create new demand for more development and housing on the rest of the parking lots. No reason we can't see thousand of new residents and dozens more restaurants/cafes with patios on these streets in the years ahead.

LRTfan · #4 Posted **May 30, 2018, 1:12 AM**

here's the old design....I much prefer it.
The commemorative section is no longer needed, so it can easily become a great lawn area.

https://d3fpllf1m7bbt3.cloudfront.ne...rk-concept.pdf

realcity · #5 Posted **May 30, 2018, 1:25 AM**

what is that the last dj club in downtown hamilton?

davidcappi · #6 Posted **May 30, 2018, 1:27 AM**

I like the new design. Lawns in urban parks end up gross and patchy, plus with global warming they require so much irrigation to stay alive. Happy they've dedicated so much space to trees.

King&James · #7 Posted **May 30, 2018, 5:24 PM**

Can only think of a few bars and even few dance clubs that have had a lifespan in Hamilton for 30 years, most of not all have a shelf life. Let it operate until it doesn't, then move on to phase 2 of the park, whether that means a building or not.

movingtohamilton · #8 Posted **May 30, 2018, 5:33 PM**

How about a park? No building...just a park.

The club scene can't be "created" by Hamilton. 77 can relocate and bring its loyal patrons with it.

anactualalien · #9 Posted **May 30, 2018, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

The club scene can't be "created" by Hamilton. 77 can relocate and bring its loyal patrons with it.

Agreed. Businesses can move more easily than a heritage building can, and the heritage value doesn't seem to be the reason people are opposed to demolition.

Even if the building has heritage value (dubious, considering what else gets torn down in the city as the lady in the article pointed out) simply letting 77 continue operating and spoiling the park for the general public until it shutters 10-15+ years from now is going to be a long and frustrating process for everyone and the city, considering how many complaints it has received up until this point. A place like this could hold on pretty much forever, which while laudable doesn't really seem like the best way to ensure the heritage value is maintained in the med-long term to any standard the public might appreciate.

It's one club almost entirely isolated from anything else matching it's character or the crowds it draws. I don't imagine most King William clientele head over there from the trendy restaurants, but I could be wrong.

If present owners are reporting that they are relocating to escape the noise how does that bode for interest in new condos in the parking lot desert? All for the sake of one shabby nightclub that could be easily relocated just slightly further to the east or north, in an equally grungy building?

TheRitsman · #10 Posted **May 30, 2018, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

How about a park? No building...just a park.

The club scene can't be "created" by Hamilton. 77 can relocate and bring its loyal patrons with it.

I did not imply that it can be created. But the city can create conditions that are conducive to different types of venues and clubs, and bars, and events is what I meant.

realcity · #11 Posted **May 30, 2018, 9:50 PM**

or a city can make it difficult for a club to operate. Neon sign regulations, noise regs, SARCOA. A real city has nite clubs, not just HESS.

TheRitsman · #12 Posted **May 30, 2018, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity

or a city can make it difficult for a club to operate. Neon sign regulations, noise regs, SARCOA. A real city has nite clubs, not just HESS.

"No bro, clubs are for idiots, losers, and failures"

I question how people would so openly judge others just trying to have a good time, because it's not their idea of a good time.

I am a political advocate, that is a fan of LRT, development, and progressive policies that will bring Hamilton into the spotlight. I have a vision of Hamilton that is beyond what many even here see of Hamilton's future.

But I also like to dance at Club77, and hundreds that attend are normal people that are doing something others don't like.

AGAIN, I will reiterate, Club 77 does not belong here, and the park does. They should tear down that building for the sake of the park. BUT, that does mean the city needs to put effort into making the city a good environment for decent clubs. Going to Toronto everytime I want to see someone decent and party until 4am sucks, and many of my friends are turned off by Hamilton for that exact reason, among others.

king10 · #13 Posted **May 30, 2018, 11:31 PM**

Not sure the city has the money set aside to buy the owner of the club out. He’ll probably be asking for a lot of money. At least the parking lot they own. Also im more concerned about losing Lulu’s schwarma.

davidcappi · #14 Posted **May 31, 2018, 1:23 AM**

The part I was unclear about was wether they want to expropriate the business and incorporate the building into the park as a pavilion/gazebo, or if they want to have it be an actual establishment or business.

I think if they ripped the roof off of it, hermitage style with some seating and possibly washrooms inside, it could be a really interesting space for events.

I definitely agree with King and James though; all businesses have a shelf life. It's a shame that people who like to dance will be losing a venue, but that doesn't mean there won't eventually be a new one. With all of the growth downtown there are whole areas that could accommodate this kind of business that just are waiting to be discovered or connected to the rest of the city via new development.

realcity · #15 Posted **May 31, 2018, 3:26 AM**

this would not be allowed in Hamilton.

drpgq · #16 Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 11:52 AM**

I think the safe injection site across the street will cause way more problems than the patrons of 77 ever will.

king10 · #17 Posted **Jun 3, 2018, 5:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

I think the safe injection site across the street will cause way more problems than the patrons of 77 ever will.

Unfortunayely some patrons of 77 were invovled in a homicide so cant get much worse than that. Of course 99.9% of people who go arent there to cause problems.

mattgrande · #18 Posted **Jun 3, 2018, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by king10

Unfortunayely some patrons of 77 were invovled in a homicide so cant get much worse than that. Of course 99.9% of people who go arent there to cause problems.

How long has 77 been open? More than a decade, certainly. You're gonna need to throw a whole lot more 9s onto that percentage.

Also "some patrons?" Wasn't it a former employee?

king10 · #19 Posted **Jun 3, 2018, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattgrande

How long has 77 been open? More than a decade, certainly. You're gonna need to throw a whole lot more 9s onto that percentage.

Also "some patrons?" Wasn't it a former employee?

It wasnt a former employee. It was “some patrons” who were kicked out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...faro-1.3744019

And yes 99.99999% of the patrons dont go to that extreme, however there are some minor disturbances which are more common.

Still, to say the safe injection clinic will cause more problems than club 77 patrons ever will isnt something I completely agree with given the severity of what happened at 77. That was the jist of my original comment.

ScreamingViking · #20 Posted **Jun 3, 2018, 4:36 PM**

I think it's beside the point to debate the likelihood of incidents or problems... to me decisions about the future of this venue should be tied to compatibility with the surrounding area.

On the fringe of downtown, next to a sea of parking, the club has been fine (going all the way back to when it was the Texas Border in the 1990s, a place I frequented in university with my friends; perhaps further into the past too as I can't recall what was there prior). As the area changes with more residential development on the way, it won't be a fit.

I'm not sure the building needs to be demolished, but I think the days for this particular use are growing short.