18-30 King St East | 106.9m | 32 fl | Proposed

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by mattgrande

http://i.imgur.com/VFnhYOR

Edit: Woah, sorry, that's way too big. Here's just a link to Mr MacKaye's cartoon.

Some of MacKay's material just isn't funny to me, but sometimes he nails it - like he did with this one.

[Katrillion]

Burrito Boyz looks dirty, ghetto, and ugly from the outside. It's like a hole in the wall lol

[thistleclub]

Meanwhile, a block to the west...

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Good story.

Actually what I keyed in on was the reference to Grandma Lee's - a mediocre fast food, Tim Horton's-esque place from the 1970s and 80s. A great blast from the past.

Cheers.

[thistleclub]

Another one bites the dust: Hamilton continues to destroy its heritage, kill its downtown
(Treehugger.com, Lloyd Alter, July 27, 2013)

Over at NRDC Switchboard, Kaid Benfield points to a quote by Phil Myrick about building cities that work.

"Creating lively town centers and neighborhoods that enhance pride of place and promote local economic development is critical to improving local quality of life as well as quality of the environment. In fact, we can reinvent entire regions starting from the heart of local communities and building outwards.”

That's not the way it works in Hamilton, Ontario, a small city west of Toronto; it is a case study in how you mismanage assets and opportunities. I described the city earlier:

Hamilton, Ontario should be a great city; it has geography (a great location close to the border, a great big harbour that is now quite beautiful) topography (a nice "mountain" that keeps it from being boring) a major university and great transportation connections. It has (compared to Toronto) affordable housing, within viable commuting distance by commuter rail. It should be succeeding.

Instead, its main streets are five-lane throughways lined with empty shops; people who live in historic neighbourhoods can't shop for a quart of milk without getting in their cars.

Right now in its historic heart, the Gore, four historic buildings that have suffered from neglect for years are on the verge of destruction. Heritage activists are of course upset; The developer has filed no formal plans for the site but the city issued demolition permits. After last-minute meetings, the developer promised that he is going to save the important parts of the buildings, then he says that he will carefully take them apart brick by brick for future reconstruction.

The city refuses to protect the buildings (even though they are in a historic district) and the Provincial Minister responsible for the Heritage Act that governs such things refuses to act....

The keys to walkability include complete streetscapes that aren't interrupted by parking lots, lined with viable retail and restaurants and other uses that people want to visit. But they don't get that in Hamilton, never have. What a waste; it has so much promise, so much going for it, and never misses an opportunity to screw it up.

[flar]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Another one bites the dust: Hamilton continues to destroy its heritage, kill its downtown
(Treehugger.com, Lloyd Alter, July 27, 2013)


Hamilton, Ontario should be a great city; it has geography (a great location close to the border, a great big harbour that is now quite beautiful) topography (a nice "mountain" that keeps it from being boring) a major university and great transportation connections. It has (compared to Toronto) affordable housing, within viable commuting distance by commuter rail. It should be succeeding.

Instead, its main streets are five-lane throughways lined with empty shops; people who live in historic neighbourhoods can't shop for a quart of milk without getting in their cars.

Wow, this sounds like something I would write.

[SteelTown]

Latest....

All five facades will be restored.

http://yourhamiltonbiz.com/facades-of-threatened-gore-buildings-to-be-restored?issue=2013-08-07

[lucasmascotto]

Facades of threatened Gore buildings to be restored
YourHamiltonBiz.com
By Saira Peesker

Two Gore Park commercial buildings slated for demolition have been saved – or at least, their facades have.

The owner of 24 and 28 King St. E., developer Wilson-Blanchard, said Wednesday that the company plans to take down the facades, fix them and affix them to new buildings to be built on the same plots.

“We’re going to be dismantling the stones,” said Wilson-Blanchard Senior Commercial Property Manager Robert Miles.

“(We’ll) number them and put them on a plan, putting them back up and restoring the heritage components of the buildings.”

He said his company would soon meet with City officials to find out what heritage funding would be available for the project.

The fate of the buildings between 18 and 28 King St. E. has been a hot-button issue downtown since Blanchard announced his plans for a $120-million development on that block last fall. He later obtained a demolition permit for the strip of five buildings.

Heritage advocates pushed the company to restore the buildings instead, earning promises that three of the five would be maintained. Now, it appears that at the very least, the facades of all five will be restored.

Councillor Jason Farr said that behind the facades will be a new commercial building, constructed as phase one of the development, which could eventually span the greater part of a block. There has been discussion of a condo tower on the block as well, which Farr says would be ”built on an existing surface parking lot at a later date.”

Along with Councillor Brian McHattie, Farr has pushed the developers to work with the preservation community and says it’s a big step that they are now in talks with heritage planners. He called the latest plan “a good compromise” and said he’d glad the Gore’s heritage character will be saved by keeping the facades.

“Not everyone’s going to like this,” he told YourHamiltonBiz, noting no formal plans for the development have been submitted to the City. “But to maintain the face and bring some assessment growth and build the downtown is not a bad thing.”

McHattie was somewhat less enthusiastic about the deal, writing in a Raise The Hammer blog post that the developer has not legally committed to the plans, and that it appears the guts of all five buildings will be demolished.

He said the City’s failure to add the Gore district to the City’s Register of Buildings of Historic Interest until recently meant there was no way to prevent demolition permits for this project from being issued.

“The Municipal Heritage Committee recommended in November that the buildings be added to the Heritage Register, which was denied by Planning Committee and Council,” McHattie wrote. “This (latest plan) is not a desirable outcome, but the best possible political outcome, given the circumstances.”

[mishap]

I don't think this is terrible. It gives prospective tenants new building space, while preserving the look of the Gore Park area. Now if they could only try and replicate the facade of the building already knocked down.

[lucasmascotto]

It's not an entirely bad conclusion, after all, many older Victorian styled buildings in Toronto's core, have had a monstrous sized office towers or condominiums take their place while only incorporating shreds of the original facades (see picture below). That being said, it's most definitely sad to see a portion of our history go, especially at the hands of someone who doesn't have any sort of plan laid-out. Hopefully, this at least served as a warning and a wake-up call of the frailties in local office, our goals as a city, and policies in place to support preservation efforts.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That does look ridiculous, though, you must admit.

More pressing, really, is the total lack of a plan. Those facades will come down and be put into storage for God knows how long.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by lucasmascotto

That looks hilarious and extremely lame.

There are ways to fuse the old and new together so it feels seamless, yet still show off both aspects. The W Lofts is how it's done. Even the ACC looks good with the old Post Office facade in place.

That thing is just a tiny facade tacked onto a new build like it was an after-thought. Does the door even functional or is there a wall behind it?

[Beedok]

I don't give two hoots about preserving and old building due to it's age, but this plan is a disaster because it damages the urban fabric of the city.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Preserving old buildings is essential to the urban fabric of a city.

[Innsertnamehere]

that is generally considered far and away the worst old building facade in the city. for a better one, drop streetview onto Queen and & Yonge, and look at the Northeast corner. Same thing with King & Sherbourne. better yet, look at the five condos development.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

Preserving old buildings is essential to the urban fabric of a city.

Japanese cities are highly modern and out urban pretty well anywhere else on Earth. The issue is that a lot of new growth in North America has been very bad while the older buildings were built to a better urban form, but the new buildings are getting much better as our society moves to a less car centric system.

[Innsertnamehere]

the reason japanese cities are like that is because the americans firebombed or nuclear bombed all of their history away in the 1940's.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the reason japanese cities are like that is because the americans firebombed or nuclear bombed all of their history away in the 1940's.

That's the reason they don't have many historical buildings, yes. That doesn't affect the fact that they're still probably the most urban cities on earth "despite" the lack of historical buildings.

[lucasmascotto]

Preserving historic Gore facades only option, owner says
YourHamiltonBiz.com
By Abigail Cukier

The owner of a block of historic buildings on Gore Park says two of the buildings cannot be saved and preserving their facades is better than demolition.

Robert Miles, Wilson-Blanchard senior commercial property manager, is responding to complaints from the preservation community that the company plans to demolish 24 and 28 King St. E. and take down and fix the facades and affix them to new buildings on the same land.


“It’s not a matter of cost, it’s function. You can do whatever you want with the crap behind the façade, it’s not functional. You can’t use it for anything. It is not level. The foundations are crumbling. The electrical is shot. The plumbing is shot,” he said. “If it were a functional building, it would be cheaper to keep it.”

David Blanchard, president of Wilson Blanchard, announced his plans for a $120-million development on the block of 18 to 28 King St. E. last fall and obtained a demolition permit for the five buildings. The first phase of development would be a commercial building with the possibility of a condominium tower as well.

After heritage advocates pushed the company to restore the buildings, the earned promises that three of the five would be maintained. Now, it appears that the facades of all five will be restored.

Representatives from Wilson Blanchard met Friday with City of Hamilton staff from the building and urban renewal departments, as well as Councillor Jason Farr to review downtown loan/grant and heritage incentive programs. They also planned for another meeting with heritage planning staff to lay the groundwork for heritage designation of the facades.

“We found out we can take advantage of many of the programs to help with the historical cost,” Miles said.

The heritage designation is a four-month process, Miles said, including historical review and gathering public input. After that process, the company can apply for all of the heritage programs. In the meantime, Miles said it would work on developing its site plan.

Farr, who has urged the developers to work with the preservation community, called this plan “a good compromise.”

But not everyone is satisfied with the plan – or what they see as a lack of one.

Barbara Murray of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Hamilton branch is concerned that the company has not filed a concrete plan with the city.

“I am alarmed the facades will be down. Where are they being stored? Does the city have the right to inspect them?,” she says “Facades have been saved many times before but failed to be available and in good condition.

“We have heard it all before and many times it hasn’t proven to be true. We were told Lister Block was structurally unsound. Our branch retained an architect who we paid to refute it.”

Murray said in the case, she is looking for documentation from a structural engineer who is experienced in heritage buildings.

“The business community, property owners and councillors would learn not to make the same mistakes. Gore Park is an absolute treasure. Let’s try to do better.”

“I appreciate the effort of Wilson Blanchard and Councillor Farr. But we’ve had nice tries before and I don’t think this one even rates a nice try.”

Miles says the King Street buildings have been surveyed by an architect and structural engineer to figure out how they could be re-used. He adds that Wilson Blanchard owns more heritage buildings than anyone else in the city and spends money on preserving them. For example, the Gowlings building had heritage easements on it.

“We could only fix it up. We put it all together. But it had the infrastructure and is level and is handicap accessible. What we have here is a wood structure with 150-year-old stone foundations.

“We would have to dig, hold it up in the air and put in a new foundation. It would cost $2 million before you even blink.”

Miles says that when Wilson Blanchard is done with the buildings, they will look more like they did 100 years ago then they do now.

“We will put in stone pillars and rounded windows. We will make it look like it did. We don’t have that today,” he said. “We have dysfunctional stone falling off. We have stucco, brick, tile, a dog’s breakfast. We will end up with what we had 100 years ago with a functional, sellable asset behind it.”

[Dr Awesomesauce]

"We will end up with what we had 100 years ago with a functional, sellable asset behind it."

^When and in what form? That's all we want to know.