Lister Block | ? | 6 fl | Renovation

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by BrianE

And I must disagree with you that this building matched the street scape and that any new building won't fit in. I guess that may be true only in the sense that a new building won't be using 80 year old bricks.

It's not that this building was a particular beauty, or that it matched the surrounding buildings. It's the fact that it was part of an uninterrupted street wall, which now has a gap and will likely have a gap for years and years, if not forever. Again, it's less about the actual building being gone and more about what will replace it (likely nothing but a fence).

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

^ is this group of concerned citizens investing any of their own money to preserve heritage? Thats where it starts when business leaders start turning heritage into opportunity. No one mentioned a thing about this building until it started to collapse. Now everyone is up in arms, bewildered by the fact that old buildings, unoccupied for decades are falling down. It should not have collapsed like this. Someone could have been killed.

First of all this "group" is not some sort of organized rioting unit. It's not even a group. It's a collection of people who happen to feel that LIUNA screwed up here, and that the city needs to start enforcing the rules upon ALL property owners.

Second, I would argue that, yes, the citizens concerned about this ARE investing their own time and money into this city. They are likely the types of people who maintain and improve their own homes. Some of them may own buildings which they maintain and lease out. Some may run a business out of a commercial building they own. These are the people that are bearing the brunt of downtown redevelopment on their own shoulders. In fact, the only people who AREN'T part of this "Group" are the ones that don't care about the vacant buildings downtown... either because they are so removed from the area that they think it doesn't affect them (though it affects us all), or because they own a derelict building and don't want to be forced to maintain it while they wait for the value to rise enough for them to sell at profit.

Third, people are not up in arms about this building in particular. You are missing the point. This building is a symbol of a major problem: land owners not maintaining their properties and bylaws not being enforced.

So, if we (concerned citizens) are being grouped together, then I am going to group YOU together with the absentee landowners - a group who is singlehandedly turning our entire downtown into a sea of empty fields and surface parking lots.

Somehow you think these guys are doing a fine job, and you have pity for them because of how hard they have it! But those of us who want to see the existing buildings renovated and occupied are the bad guys?

Are you even for real?

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

I'm not part of the group, but I'm interested in learning more.

It's not an organized group. You don't have to be "part of it". In fact, by being a property owner who cares for your own property, and who wants other neighbouring owners to care for theirs, you are by default "part of it"! This isn't a gang. It's just a bunch of people who can see through these landowners' BS!

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

That's it folks, keep up the intimidation and soon you will have a core of rotten hollowed out buildings all over the city that you can't even give away.

What is this, a threat? Keep up WHAT intimidation? A citizen who takes an interest in his city and wants the best for it is intimidating? To whom, council? LIUNA?

Originally Posted by NuclearNerd

I'm going to open myself up to a lot of flak here, but 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the heritage fight. Liuna had a plan to rebuild Lister three years ago. [...] It turns out renovating the old girl is way more expensive than rebuilding - many times the going office-space rate. We should have taken Liuna's original deal and moved on.

Lister should not be office space. This is the problem. LIUNA sees free government money in an office conversion and they are blind to anything else. More sane developers (stinson for example, and being called less sane than stinson really says something about LIUNA) can understand that condos could make a tidy profit there without public expenditure. How can you justify public spending on an unnecessary office conversion when we are drowning in office space but there are no places for office workers to live?

This is your money that LIUNA wants to spend!

I am sick of people calling them victims because they have put their own money on the line and keep getting blocked by "activists". They are playing games with public money! The only reason we are in this mess is because they refuse to risk their own money!

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I can't stand is all the complaining from you guys, it's all you have to contribute.

Well, I can't stand all of the completely inane comments from "you guys" then.

Originally Posted by Millstone

Yes, they are.

Thanks for your valuable contribution.

Originally Posted by BrianE

This building is not worth this righteous over the top grandstanding that some people are displaying. This will only damage your credibility for when the wrecking ball is standing in front of the lister building.

I've said it already but it's not about this building. It's about the general neglect on the part of many downtown landlords which cause this kind of thing to happen. It's about the possibility of dozens more existing buildings coming down in the same fashion... faster than anything can be rebuilt. It's about the risk of our entire downtown looking like the corner of John and Wilson:

If this is what all of you who "aren't in the group" visualize for Hamilton's future, then we are going to be in worse shape than I thought.

This gathering isn't about punishment for this building coming down. It's about halting all future demolition by neglect. It's about maintaining Hamilton's status as a CITY.

A final note to those of you who are all for bringing these heritage buildings down: I will listen to what you have to say when you step up with your own time and money to build replacements. Because we have seen time and again that replacements simply do not get built. In the meantime, I will continue to take pride in the fact that I am doing my part in maintaining and improving my tiny slice of Hamilton's heritage.

Thanks.

[raisethehammer]

brilliant as always, coalmine.
it really is stunning that people in this city and on this forum think that the corner of John and Wilson is what we should be aiming for throughout the downtown.
wow.
I guess we just took another step 'forward' this week, then.

[JT Jacobs]

Originally Posted by flar

All I'll say on this issue right now is that Hamilton has lost way too much already. It's really sad. In the mid 20th century old buildings were regarded as expendable across North America, but now cities have come to value their heritage, except in Hamilton. I say this as an outsider who is constantly sickened by the attitudes of Hamiltonians toward their own city. I can't understand why so few value Hamilton, it's a city built when real cities were built. I bet a newer city like Calgary would love to have a few blocks of Hamilton's urban fabric.

I agree. It is sad. Actually, though, Calgary is better at preserving its old stock of heritage buildings. Hamilton demolished its old city hall; Calgary's is a cherished landmark.

http://www.dsphotographic.com/g2/12253-3/Downtown+Calgary+-+005.jpg

[HAMRetrofit]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

First of all this "group" is not some sort of organized rioting unit. It's not even a group. It's a collection of people who happen to feel that LIUNA screwed up here, and that the city needs to start enforcing the rules upon ALL property owners.

Second, I would argue that, yes, the citizens concerned about this ARE investing their own time and money into this city. They are likely the types of people who maintain and improve their own homes. Some of them may own buildings which they maintain and lease out. Some may run a business out of a commercial building they own. These are the people that are bearing the brunt of downtown redevelopment on their own shoulders. In fact, the only people who AREN'T part of this "Group" are the ones that don't care about the vacant buildings downtown... either because they are so removed from the area that they think it doesn't affect them (though it affects us all), or because they own a derelict building and don't want to be forced to maintain it while they wait for the value to rise enough for them to sell at profit.

Third, people are not up in arms about this building in particular. You are missing the point. This building is a symbol of a major problem: land owners not maintaining their properties and bylaws not being enforced.

So, if we (concerned citizens) are being grouped together, then I am going to group YOU together with the absentee landowners - a group who is singlehandedly turning our entire downtown into a sea of empty fields and surface parking lots.

Somehow you think these guys are doing a fine job, and you have pity for them because of how hard they have it! But those of us who want to see the existing buildings renovated and occupied are the bad guys?

Are you even for real?

Yes I am for real. I don't know where all these accusations are even coming from? I never grouped the concerned citizens together. I never claimed they (LIUNA) were doing a fine job. I have been in support of Lister's restoration from the beginning. I understand that you are passionate about your city but don't go off onto tangents 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 off people who intend to help.

[flar]

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

I agree. It is sad. Actually, though, Calgary is better at preserving its old stock of heritage buildings. Hamilton demolished its old city hall; Calgary's is a cherished landmark.

http://www.dsphotographic.com/g2/12253-3/Downtown+Calgary+-+005.jpg

That's what I mean, Calgary does care, perhaps because it was a smaller city back in the old days and doesn't have such a large inventory of heritage buildings. There was a recent Calgary photothread that showed a large Victorian mansion being moved and carefully preserved to make way for a new skyscraper. They could have just torn it down but instead they recognized that it was something that is irreplaceable.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

Yes I am for real. I don't know where all these accusations are even coming from? I never grouped the concerned citizens together. I never claimed they (LIUNA) were doing a fine job. I have been in support of Lister's restoration from the beginning. I understand that you are passionate about your city but don't go off onto tangents 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 off people who intend to help.

LOL...

Here's how you "Preservationists" define yourselves

"Fascism is a religion of the state... It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good... Everything... must be aligned with its objectives." In addition, it has a tendency to consider "Any rival identity... is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as an enemy."

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

That's it folks, keep up the intimidation and soon you will have a core of rotten hollowed out buildings all over the city that you can't even give away.

I see. So a citizens group attending a public council meeting amounts to intimidation, does it? If you have some suggestions for ways we can make our voices heard that won't frighten our sensitive politicians, I'm all ears.

[HAMRetrofit]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

LOL...

Here's how you "Preservationists" define yourselves

"Fascism is a religion of the state... It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good... Everything... must be aligned with its objectives." In addition, it has a tendency to consider "Any rival identity... is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as an enemy."

^ quite possibly the stupidest post in the history of online discussion forums.


Thanks Goldfinger, your post has lowered the state of human intelligence to a level never witnessed before.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

^ quite possibly the stupidest post in the history of online discussion forums.


Thanks Goldfinger, your post has lowered the state of human intelligence to a level never witnessed before.

I struck a nerve I see, It hurts when the truth hits you in the face.

You guys can gang up on me all you want, I think for myself and have my own opinions.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

LOL...

Here's how you "Preservationists" define yourselves

"Fascism is a religion of the state... It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good... Everything... must be aligned with its objectives." In addition, it has a tendency to consider "Any rival identity... is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as an enemy."

Classic right-wing bait and switch: equating engaged citizens with fascists. Sorry Goldfinger, you're a little late to the party. The Republicans discredited that right-wing rhetorical tool sometime in October of 2006.

[HAMRetrofit]

^ I would not give him that much credit I think he just has frontal lobe damage

[Jon Dalton]

"Intimidation". You're talking about a group of ordinary citizens with no particular clout who are concerned about their city's well being, convening at a public meeting. I intend to show up there and expect this action will get the point across in a respectful way.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

LOL...

Here's how you "Preservationists" define yourselves

"Fascism is a religion of the state... It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good... Everything... must be aligned with its objectives." In addition, it has a tendency to consider "Any rival identity... is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as an enemy."

If I don't cut my grass and someone in the neighbourhood complains to the city, they threaten me with a fine and I'm forced to bring my grass up to standard whatever that costs. Are these neighbourhood grass standards activists fascists who impose their will on me through force? How about if I knocked down my century old house and paved over everything for parking for a new concrete tower in the backyard? Should my neighbours on either side roll over and take it?

[beanmedic]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

It's not that this building was a particular beauty, or that it matched the surrounding buildings. It's the fact that it was part of an uninterrupted street wall, which now has a gap and will likely have a gap for years and years, if not forever. Again, it's less about the actual building being gone and more about what will replace it (likely nothing but a fence).



First of all this "group" is not some sort of organized rioting unit. It's not even a group. It's a collection of people who happen to feel that LIUNA screwed up here, and that the city needs to start enforcing the rules upon ALL property owners.

Second, I would argue that, yes, the citizens concerned about this ARE investing their own time and money into this city. They are likely the types of people who maintain and improve their own homes. Some of them may own buildings which they maintain and lease out. Some may run a business out of a commercial building they own. These are the people that are bearing the brunt of downtown redevelopment on their own shoulders. In fact, the only people who AREN'T part of this "Group" are the ones that don't care about the vacant buildings downtown... either because they are so removed from the area that they think it doesn't affect them (though it affects us all), or because they own a derelict building and don't want to be forced to maintain it while they wait for the value to rise enough for them to sell at profit.

Third, people are not up in arms about this building in particular. You are missing the point. This building is a symbol of a major problem: land owners not maintaining their properties and bylaws not being enforced.

So, if we (concerned citizens) are being grouped together, then I am going to group YOU together with the absentee landowners - a group who is singlehandedly turning our entire downtown into a sea of empty fields and surface parking lots.

Somehow you think these guys are doing a fine job, and you have pity for them because of how hard they have it! But those of us who want to see the existing buildings renovated and occupied are the bad guys?

Are you even for real?



It's not an organized group. You don't have to be "part of it". In fact, by being a property owner who cares for your own property, and who wants other neighbouring owners to care for theirs, you are by default "part of it"! This isn't a gang. It's just a bunch of people who can see through these landowners' BS!



What is this, a threat? Keep up WHAT intimidation? A citizen who takes an interest in his city and wants the best for it is intimidating? To whom, council? LIUNA?



Lister should not be office space. This is the problem. LIUNA sees free government money in an office conversion and they are blind to anything else. More sane developers (stinson for example, and being called less sane than stinson really says something about LIUNA) can understand that condos could make a tidy profit there without public expenditure. How can you justify public spending on an unnecessary office conversion when we are drowning in office space but there are no places for office workers to live?

This is your money that LIUNA wants to spend!

I am sick of people calling them victims because they have put their own money on the line and keep getting blocked by "activists". They are playing games with public money! The only reason we are in this mess is because they refuse to risk their own money!



Well, I can't stand all of the completely inane comments from "you guys" then.


Thanks for your valuable contribution.



I've said it already but it's not about this building. It's about the general neglect on the part of many downtown landlords which cause this kind of thing to happen. It's about the possibility of dozens more existing buildings coming down in the same fashion... faster than anything can be rebuilt. It's about the risk of our entire downtown looking like the corner of John and Wilson:

If this is what all of you who "aren't in the group" visualize for Hamilton's future, then we are going to be in worse shape than I thought.

This gathering isn't about punishment for this building coming down. It's about halting all future demolition by neglect. It's about maintaining Hamilton's status as a CITY.

A final note to those of you who are all for bringing these heritage buildings down: I will listen to what you have to say when you step up with your own time and money to build replacements. Because we have seen time and again that replacements simply do not get built. In the meantime, I will continue to take pride in the fact that I am doing my part in maintaining and improving my tiny slice of Hamilton's heritage.

Thanks.

Ya, that's about right.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

Yes I am for real. I don't know where all these accusations are even coming from? I never grouped the concerned citizens together. I never claimed they (LIUNA) were doing a fine job. I have been in support of Lister's restoration from the beginning. I understand that you are passionate about your city but don't go off onto tangents 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 off people who intend to help.

Sorry, I did not mean to single you out personally but the tone of your post implied that the group of concerned citizens that might attend the meeting tonight was akin to an organized group looking to wave torches which is not the case.

I know from your previous posts that you are in support of Lister's restoration, but I am frustrated at the posts in this thread that imply that we should have let LIUNA essentially have their way back under the first proposal. Their first proposal, all the way through to their latest are all cop outs. Their desire to cash in on public subsidy far outweighs their desire to do a proper restoration, and that is evident in each proposal they come up with.

So, though I quoted you directly, everything in that post (especially after my "Third" point) was focussed more toward those who have been supportive of the concept of tearing any aged building down while being very derogatory toward those who favour repairing and using the existing building (and using labels such as "preservationist" in a snide manner). Please don't take them as personal attacks -- rather I am trying to attack the way of thinking that approves of the idea that these buildings are disposable and are easily replaced when they absolutely are not. Even if they aren't historical in the sense that they are first, best, most beautiful or whatnot, the important fact is that they are here now, and in many cases fully restorable.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by highwater

I see. So a citizens group attending a public council meeting amounts to intimidation, does it? If you have some suggestions for ways we can make our voices heard that won't frighten our sensitive politicians, I'm all ears.

I'm with ya. We sure don't want Margaret MacCarthy crying again.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I struck a nerve I see, It hurts when the truth hits you in the face.

You guys can gang up on me all you want, I think for myself and have my own opinions.

yes we're well aware - you love being turned upside down and having every last penny shaken from your pockets in order to fund the demolition of downtown Hamilton. Thank goodness you only think for yourself.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

"Intimidation". You're talking about a group of ordinary citizens with no particular clout who are concerned about their city's well being, convening at a public meeting. I intend to show up there and expect this action will get the point across in a respectful way.

I think Goldfinger might be Larry DiIanni or John Dolbec....trying to continue the intentional ignorance of the public. No wonder he constantly brings up fascism.

[flar]

The importance of streetscapes shouldn't be underestimated, it certainly wasn't in the Victorian era. The following is a quote from one of my old Hamilton photothreads. I wonder what the poster would think of King William now?

Originally Posted by WinnipegPatriot

The best tour of Hamilton I have ever seen. So many of those settings captured can trick viewers into thinking they are looking at other cities which may be considered more worldly...and not the stereotypical industrial image some of us hold.
The signs say Hamilton, but this could pass for Ottawa's Byward market:

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

It's not even a group. It's a collection of people who happen to feel that LIUNA screwed up here, and that the city needs to start enforcing the rules upon ALL property owners.

lol, a collection of people with a common point of view. But, it's not a group huh.

Group defined; a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck............

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

It's not an organized group. You don't have to be "part of it". In fact, by being a property owner who cares for your own property, and who wants other neighbouring owners to care for theirs, you are by default "part of it"! This isn't a gang. It's just a bunch of people who can see through these landowners' BS!

I don't have to "part of it", but I'm by default "part of it". The reasoning is all to circular for my simple mind. Thanks, I'll stay away because if I show up to the City Council meeting I fear I will be "part of it". Since being "part of it" might give legitimacy to others who'll view it as a group I'll stay away.

BTW, posting for others to join a common cause makes it an organized group. If people just showed up on their own, unaware others with similar interests would be in attendence it would be an group lacking organization.