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

[mattgrande]

I believe those are per-building prices. If they are (and I believe there are four buildings), then that amounts to $4.4 million. Certainly nothing to sneeze at.

[coalminecanary]

Oh darn, the taxpayers are only going to cover half the costs. wah wah wah. Expropriate for 1.5 times what blanchard paid, designate, then sell at profit to someone who gives a shit. Problem solved.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Bingo!

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Oh darn, the taxpayers are only going to cover half the costs. wah wah wah. Expropriate for 1.5 times what blanchard paid, designate, then sell at profit to someone who gives a shit. Problem solved.

I guess the problem is that there is no one who is willing to pay the cost to do what you would like them to do. Has Graham Crawford made any headway in his fund-raising crusade to get the money needed to save the facades? If Blanchard is willing to pick up half of the added cost to preserve the facades that really is the best case scenario (or least-worst, depending on your perspective). Isn't he already sitting on a demolition permit for the site pending the outcome of these discussions?

[Jon Dalton]

I guess the problem is that there is no one who is willing to pay the cost to do what you would like them to do.

It may be tempting to assume that but we don't actually know because the buildings have not been on the market since Blanchard bought them. That was over 10 years ago in a different market than we have today.

While Graham Crawford's efforts are commendable, he is acting in an activist capacity rather than a real estate developer or investor. Activists follow developments like this one and propose solutions not solicited by the building owners, out of a non-financial community interest. Most developers looking for a profit wouldn't step in a hornet's nest of disputed properties that aren't even for sale. They make offers on available properties.

We can't properly judge the market's appetite for heritage sensitive redevelopment of the Gore buildings without a recent listing. However we can look at the evidence provided by other somewhat comparable properties - Treble Hall, James Street Baptist, the Dominion Furniture Building, Thomas Building, and the Connaught. The jury is still out on some of those, but there is a consistent record of money being invested and attempts being made to respect the heritage.

On the other hand, most of our recent demo by neglect examples had not been on the market for a while by the time they fell - Century Theatre, Balfour building, Acclamation Lofts site, Tivoli lobby for example.

I believe the most recent evidence suggests there is indeed a market for heritage sensitive redevelopment of the Gore Park properties if they were designated and put on the open market, either by Blanchard or through expropriation.

[davidcappi]

If they weren't to be restored, I'd love to see Mohawk or McMaster build a downtown campus in that spot. Either there, or in between the CIBC building and the Piggot Tower.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I guess the problem is that there is no one who is willing to pay the cost to do what you would like them to do.

This is wrong. At least one significant offer was presented to WB, and their response was "not for sale".

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

This is wrong. At least one significant offer was presented to WB, and their response was "not for sale".

Maybe it wasn't significant enough. Blanchard isn't running a charity and is under no obligation to sell unless they feel that it is in their best interests to do so.
Considering the properties are more than likely costing them money to operate and haven't been able to sustain themselves through rent over the years, I would think that they would want to recover those costs in the sale price as well.

[coalminecanary]

These properties have been tenanted almost continuously, and by Blanchard's own admission their improvement expenditures have been close to zero. Your estimations are not based in reality.

Besides your bad math, even if they had lost money over the past decade, that is nobody's fault but their own; they have been free to sell them at any moment.

Blanchard is holding city hall hostage in order to secure funding for the project - and his most recent story is that a million dollars isn't enough. He certainly isn't a charity, but he wants all of the taxpayers in the city to donate money to him as if he were one.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

This is wrong. At least one significant offer was presented to WB, and their response was "not for sale".

What was this significant offer, and did the party making the offer commit to restoring the properties?

[coalminecanary]

My understanding is that it was double what WB paid.

[CaptainKirk]

he owner of a historic block of Gore buildings says he’s not sure if he’ll take up the city on its offer of $1.1 million in grants to save as much of the buildings as possible.

David Blanchard, a principle in the Hughson Business Space Corporation, has a demolition permit for 18-28 King St. E., which overlooks Gore Park.

On Wednesday, city councillors gave conditional approval for $1.1 million in grants if Blanchard designates the buildings, built in the 1870s, as heritage properties.

Blanchard isn’t sure whether his group will take the city up on that.

“The only part (of the buildings) that will be maintained, if it is maintained, is the facades,” he told CBC Hamilton. “The rest of the building is crumbling.”

As for the grants, they don’t come close to being enough money to save the buildings, he said. The group is still short “at least $1 million.”

Getting the grants would also mean getting the properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, which adds a whole new set of conditions.

“We have to be assured we won't get burned," he said.

The block garnered intense interest this year when Blanchard announced plans to tear down the buildings and build condos and retail space.

There was public outcry, and city councillors Jason Farr and Brian McHattie intervened, trying to persuade Blanchard's group to at least save the facades. The city has been meeting with the group since January, said Glen Norton, manager of urban renewal.

Wednesday’s conditional approval was to ensure Blanchard’s group that the city will OK the money if they designate the properties, said Farr, who represents the downtown.

Once the buildings are designated, the developers would work with the city to see what could be maintained, he said.

“Now we can look at how we can make $1.1 million work toward achieving what a lot of people want, which is preserving as much of the buildings as they can,” Farr said.

The first grant, worth $850,000, is available under the Hamilton Heritage Property Investment Grant Program, which is for buildings designated under the heritage act that have had preservation/conservation/stability work.

If the buildings aren’t demolished, the developers will also be eligible for $250,000 under the Gore Building Improvement Grant program.

Blanchard said his group is looking for more financial incentives. The demolition permit expires in July, and each day the buildings sit there, it costs him money.

As it stands, he said, the buildings are in such poor shape that “we have nothing to attach to the façade right now.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...ings-1.2451410

[Beedok]

Good on the mayor too.

[thistleclub]

There's still a small window for demolition because of the crawl of the Ontario Heritage Act's procedural protocol.

The block could theoretically be savaged tomorrow and it would still be legal. Here's hoping otherwise.

[coalminecanary]

sit-in?

[bigguy1231]

I see a lawsuit coming.

[coalminecanary]

Council has legal right to designate, but I suppose he could launch one on the basis of "no fairsies"

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Council has legal right to designate, but I suppose he could launch one on the basis of "no fairsies"

I was thinking along the lines of bad faith bargaining. There was an agreement in place that the developers wouldn't demolish those buildings, even though they have a permit to do so, until the issue of the stability of those buildings was determined. The city also promised not to designate them without consulting with the owners.

I'll be surprised if the buildings survive the weekend. The demolition permit is still in effect and will be until the city formally serves the developer with notice with the intent to designate. The city also has to publish that intent in the Spectator. That process could take a week or more.

[oldcoote]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I was thinking along the lines of bad faith bargaining. There was an agreement in place that the developers wouldn't demolish those buildings, even though they have a permit to do so, until the issue of the stability of those buildings was determined. The city also promised not to designate them without consulting with the owners.

I'll be surprised if the buildings survive the weekend. The demolition permit is still in effect and will be until the city formally serves the developer with notice with the intent to designate. The city also has to publish that intent in the Spectator. That process could take a week or more.

It might be Blanchards legal right to do so, but I suspect that whatever remaining goodwill he still has in this town would be shattered if he actually did that.

I bet he's smarter than that. Accept it and move on.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I was thinking along the lines of bad faith bargaining. There was an agreement in place that the developers wouldn't demolish those buildings, even though they have a permit to do so, until the issue of the stability of those buildings was determined. The city also promised not to designate them without consulting with the owners.

Not that two wrongs make a right, but the greater example of bad faith comes from the developers. During these negotiations, they cleared out another building, demolished it and replaced it with a surface parking lot, breaking the law while taking $70,000 a year off the tax roll. This was in response to the offer of $1.1 million to save the buildings.

This is like shooting hostages while negotiating with the police. What the police do? I figure they'd start shooting.