89 Park Street | ? | 2x31 fl | Proposed - Page 3

ScreamingViking · #41 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:10 AM**

That's a shame. I like the additional people this will bring downtown, but I think not incorporating the church structure is a HUGE wasted opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomax

Some renderings of what is planned for the site...

source

TheRitsman · #42 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:17 AM**

Oh...

I'm speechless, what an unfortunate decision. It's the epitome of bland replacing a historic property.

If they could increase the density of the north side of the lot to save the church, I'd much prefer that. This is a perfect spot to go above the 30 storey limit because there's nothing else around it to shadow.

King&James · #43 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:18 AM**

Very cool, great density, but don't see an ounce of the existing building.

TheHonestMaple · #44 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:32 AM**

Amazing!! Get it built.

Chronamut · #45 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:49 AM**

SERIOUSLY??? Theyre bulldozing ANOTHER historic building? For THIS??? I think a petition needs to go against this.

TheRitsman · #46 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

SERIOUSLY??? Theyre bulldozing ANOTHER historic building? For THIS??? I think a petition needs to go against this.

Let me know, I'll be petitioning for increased density along the North edge of the site to justify saving the church.

Chronamut · #47 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Let me know, I'll be petitioning for increased density along the North edge of the site to justify saving the church.

You go dude - yeah I am just outraged. I thought we had things in place to preserve pre-confederation buildings - but maybe it's not pre-confederation? I can't remember when this was built.. but regardless.. unfortunately not enough people may stick up for this one...

fwded this to heritage watch hamilton - ugh, still so mad.. have we learned nothing? The value of hamilton is in our historic buildings..

ScreamingViking · #48 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

You go dude - yeah I am just outraged. I thought we had things in place to preserve pre-confederation buildings - but maybe it's not pre-confederation? I can't remember when this was built.. but regardless.. unfortunately not enough people may stick up for this one...

Apparently very early 1900s is not old enough to matter.

Chronamut · #49 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Apparently very early 1900s is not old enough to matter.

Well regardless I sent it to heritage watch hamilton - if anyone can think of anyone else to send it to please feel free to - we were able to prevent the gore buildings from being demolished, maybe we can for this one too.

TheRitsman · #50 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Apparently very early 1900s is not old enough to matter.

I'm pretty sure age is less important that historical and architectural value.

Chronamut · #51 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm pretty sure age is less important that historical and architectural value.

If it was up to developers we wouldn't have a trace of original hamilton left - all replaced with big blocky residential towers..

ScreamingViking · #52 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I'm pretty sure age is less important that historical and architectural value.

I agree.

I do see value in this building though. Historically and architecturally.

Chronamut · #53 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I agree.

I do see value in this building though. Historically and architecturally.

Hopefully they and the city do too.

SteelTown · #54 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 1:33 PM**

Philpott Memorial Church | ? | 2 fl | Planning -> 89 Park Street | ? | 2x30 fl | Proposed

Innsertnamehere · #55 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 1:41 PM**

Just a note, but I count 31 storeys here.

SteelTown · #56 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 1:59 PM**

Fixed it

TheHonestMaple · #57 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 2:52 PM**

Surely the developer would know that the city (and other groups) are going to push back and ask that the historical building be integrated into the development. It makes you wonder, do developers go all in with their first submission - proposing to demolish, so that they can get away with, say, just integrating maybe the front entrance columns into the design. Rather than having to save the whole thing. The groups who want to save it will probably settle with that.

This also does bring up an issue that has been bugging me for some time. Do developers owe the public a duty to preserve historic structures? If the owner bought the old church building and property, and it is entirely theirs, why do we have the right to somehow prevent them from doing whatever they want with it? It's theirs, should they be able to do with it what they please?

If I bought a house, and there was some sort of ugly shed in the backyard that I didn't like, can I not remove it? It is mine after all. Can TheRitsman start a petition and lobby city hall to stop me from removing it? What gives him the right?

For the record, I am very much in favour of preserving historical buildings... including this Church. I would actually support a petition to save it. This is just something that's been on my mind. At what point can a petition like that be considered unfair interference?

Innsertnamehere · #58 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Surely the developer would know that the city (and other groups) are going to push back and ask that the historical building be integrated into the development. It makes you wonder, do developers go all in with their first submission - proposing to demolish, so that they can get away with, say, just integrating maybe the front entrance columns into the design. Rather than having to save the whole thing. The groups who want to save it will probably settle with that.

This also does bring up an issue that has been bugging me for some time. Do developers owe the public a duty to preserve historic structures? If the owner bought the old church building and property, and it is entirely theirs, why do we have the right to somehow prevent them from doing whatever they want with it? It's theirs, should they be able to do with it what they please?

If I bought a house, and there was some sort of ugly shed in the backyard that I didn't like, can I not remove it? It is mine after all. Can TheRitsman start a petition and lobby city hall to stop me from removing it? What gives him the right?

For the record, I am very much in favour of preserving historical buildings... including this Church. I would actually support a petition to save it. This is just something that's been on my mind. At what point can a petition like that be considered unfair interference?

This is all well established case law and the government absolutely has rights in this regard. It's the whole reason things like zoning exist. There are limits, but basically short of banning all sorts of economic activity on a site ("expropriation without compensation"), the government can place many, many restrictions. Something like heritage protection is a very well established thing which is very implementable, though it does have its limits. Oakville tried to make a specific use heritage with the Angus Glen golf course, rather than a structure, and I suspect that would have been stuck down in courts had it gotten to that point.. but Steve Clark convinced the developers to cancel the project before it got there.

I suspect the developer is making an initial salvo without heritage retention here. I hope they manage to save it.

I hope we don't end up with a 1-2 punch, first here, then with Tivoli a bit later..

LikeHamilton · #59 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 3:31 PM**

I have always personally thought this is the ugliest church in the city.

TheHonestMaple · #60 Posted **Jan 13, 2023, 3:36 PM**

I would like to see them save certain aspects of the church, but I hope that this doesn't significantly delay or even outright cause the project to be cancelled. We've seen it before, like you said with Tivoli.

I want to save heritage buildings, but this city needs those condo towers and the people and economic activity they would bring FAR more than it needs that old church. And I agree, it is pretty ugly and would need some serious work.

The city needs to prioritize revitalizing this area.... moving the men's shelter and filling in these lots. Driving east down york is one of the most depressing drives you can make in this city and there's no reason for it.