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

[SteelTown]

Good work Farr.

[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"

[oldcoote]

nice to see Council demonstrating a backbone.

[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.

[coalminecanary]

The intent was published in the spectator today.

https://twitter.com/AndrewDreschel/s...17575523688449

[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.

[markbarbera]

These are also the developers who restored Pigott and Sun Life, Gowlings, Landed Bank Buildings (all at the corner of Main and James), 25 Main West, 1 Hunter and the Union Gas Building at Main and Hughson. While it is easy to vilify Blanchard as an evil destroyer of downtown heritage, the story has to be a lot more complex than what is being painted here.

[thistleclub]

Gore developer mulling legal options
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Dec 12 2013)

One of Hamilton's biggest developers is mulling legal action after council killed demolition permits for a strip of Gore Park buildings with last-minute heritage protection.

But most heritage advocates and business leaders argued Thursday the jaw-dropping move won't cause a chill between would-be developers and city hall.

Robert Miles, a member of the development partnership that owns 18-28 King St. E., said Thursday the consortium is consulting its lawyers.

"I'm not happy," he said, adding the group won't issue a statement before receiving legal advice. "It's ridiculous how the city has treated us on this issue."

Councillor Jason Farr argued the heritage hammer fell only after a year of informal negotiations — and a city offer of $1.1 million in heritage preservation cash.

"It kind of stinks that we had to play it like we did at the end, but I think everyone is aware it came after exhaustive efforts to compromise," he said. "I'm not worried about how the decision is perceived (in the development community)."


Read it in full here.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

These are also the developers who restored Pigott and Sun Life, Gowlings, Landed Bank Buildings (all at the corner of Main and James), 25 Main West, 1 Hunter and the Union Gas Building at Main and Hughson. While it is easy to vilify Blanchard as an evil destroyer of downtown heritage, the story has to be a lot more complex than what is being painted here.

Did they actually restore all of those? or are they just the property managers of buildings that happen to be old

I'm not sure what their past record has to do with these buildings. Their behaviour on these is clear for all to see. It's not really that complex....

[markbarbera]

Blanchard restored them.

http://www.investinhamilton.ca/wp-co...tOct23-09c.pdf

Blanchard has been involved in 15 downtown properties, including upgrading most of the smaller so-called B office buildings.

Blanchard and investors he has attracted have been a major factor in bringing the office vacancy rate down in the past seven years.

Kathy Drewitt, executive director of the Downtown Business Improvement Area, said 27 per cent of office space was empty in 2002; that has dropped to 18 per cent in the BIA's latest telephone survey. She called the latest venture "a huge positive for the city."

Still, Hamilton's vacancy rate is almost twice the national average of 9.4 per cent in the third quarter of the year.

Blanchard says his philosophy is simple: take a building that makes sense from an investment standpoint, improve it and then make sure the tenants are happy.

It has worked on three of the four corners at Main and James streets.

In the 1990s, Blanchard headed initiatives to convert the 1928 Pigott/Sunlife complex to condos, make the 1908 Landed Banking building into office space and turn the 1929 Bank of Montreal into high-end space for the Gowlings law firm. His other retrofitted projects include 25 Main West, the HSBC at King and Hughson and the former Union Gas building at Main and Hughson, as well as One Hunter, a 1950s Modernist low-rise across the street from the Hamilton GO Centre.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

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.

They own the properties, properties that might otherwise have been demolished years ago. They know what will work in downtown Hamilton based on their other successes. If they determine that certain buildings that they OWN are not viable then they should be allowed to do whatever they deem necessary to lower their expenses.

If the city wants to save these buildings or prevent parking lots then they will have to look at ways of lowering taxes on those sites until a developer can come up with a plan to either restore or replace the building. I don't blame Blanchard for demolishing the Jackson building if they are going to save 60k per year in taxes.

[coalminecanary]

That article does not say he restored anything. He puts offices into big buildings. Some are old and some are new. Restoration is not his business.

There's nothing wrong with his business plan, but there is something wrong with him treating historic buildings as if they were vacant land

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

That article does not say he restored anything. He puts offices into big buildings. Some are old and some are new. Restoration is not his business.

There's nothing wrong with his business plan, but there is something wrong with him treating historic buildings as if they were vacant land

Sigh.

They've saved a lot of history

Blanchard and associates are probably responsible for saving more history in downtown Hamilton than anyone else. At Main and James, for instance, they rescued the 1928 Pigott/Sunlife complex, the 1908 Landed Banking building, the 1929 Bank of Montreal temple.

The Landed Banking building at Main and James is another one saved by the Blanchard group. It's a copy of New York City's Knickerbocker Bank, since demolished.

(Paul Wilson/ CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...lton-1.1166760

Also,
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143188

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

That article does not say he restored anything. He puts offices into big buildings. Some are old and some are new. Restoration is not his business.

There's nothing wrong with his business plan, but there is something wrong with him treating historic buildings as if they were vacant land

You are missing the point. They are that companies buildings. They do not belong to the community. Not all old buildings are significant and the fact that they are old doesn't make them significant.

[matt602]

The fact that the buildings are situated at a prominent downtown location that is a key component to downtown revival IS significant. The fact that the developer has shown no evidence that they actually intend to proceed with a development on the property any time soon is significant. The fact that all signs are pointing to a demolition and empty gap that would leave a very bad looking scar and almost certainly hurt the downtown economically, is significant. When you're a developer that owns property which is that important to the success of the downtown core of a city as old and as big as Hamilton, you shouldn't just have free reign to do what you want with them because you own them, regardless of your track record with other buildings in the past.

Given Blanchard's excellent past of restoring historic buildings, he SHOULD know all this.