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

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Originally Posted by 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.

I completely agree.... you can't just do whatever you want in such a prominent area just because you "own the building" ....

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

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.

No I got your point. It's just wrong. Because we live in a society where other people exist and ownership of property does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. A concept which you'd likely support when it benefits you - such as if your neighbour wanted to tear down their house and put an aluminum smelter in its place.

These buildings along with the entire rest of gore park should have been designated years ago in order to preserve the character of our public square for the public good.

The experiences of cities who value heritage also show that heritage designations are good for property owners as well - unless the owner is a speculator.

Additionally, Blanchard's stories about the buildings falling apart are incorrect after all. If you take a look at the council meeting video you'll see that the city commissioned a study to determine their structural soundness, and the result was that they are not falling down and are good candidates for adaptive reuse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRRu4sbHc_4&t=2h52m10s

I'm interested in what your motivation is for unabashedly apologizing for this owner, who tried to hold the city hostage to get them to pay to develop a property that he bought with full knowledge of its cultural significance.

My motivation for supporting designation is to see an improved core with more residents and businesses, plus higher tax assessments and property values more in line with what a real city's downtown should carry.

History shows that designation and reuse of heritage properties achieves this vision.

History shows that premature demolition has the exact opposite effect: lower tax assessment, lower property values, less development, fewer residents, fewer businesses. Is that your vision?

[bluevue]

agree and agree with the above statements. The problem here is that council (and only council) could have dealt with this long ago to ensure this wouldn't have come to this...and now Farr looks like a Hero? Come on people....they watched the whole thing unfold before their eyes. Pure lack of incompetence to save our heritage in the first place. Get rid of these jokers!

[ScreamingViking]

Anyone else get the feeling this will not end with a lawsuit, but with the city or province giving a special grant (or tax relief in kind) to top up the $1.1 million and make it worth WB's while to "save" the facades and come forward with an actual development plan for the space behind them?

Precedent has been set with Lister.

[Beedok]

I personnally like this not because the buildings are old, but because there was no clear plan to replace them. If Blanchard had marched out with a comprehensive and logical plan about how he was going to fund his development and what he was going to build I would have been happy, but 'we're planning to maybe build X at some point' means a parking lot, and that would have devastated the urban fabric of Gore Park.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I personnally like this not because the buildings are old, but because there was no clear plan to replace them. If Blanchard had marched out with a comprehensive and logical plan about how he was going to fund his development and what he was going to build I would have been happy, but 'we're planning to maybe build X at some point' means a parking lot, and that would have devastated the urban fabric of Gore Park.

Seconded. Although I value the history of the buildings greatly, I ultimately don't want to see a giant empty field or a parking lot on Gore Park for the next 5-10 years while Blanchard figures out what the hell he's going to do with it. If he had a strong business plan and investors lined up, I'd be pushing in favor of it. "A target or whatever maybe" says otherwise though, as does his illegal parking lot at 20 Jackson...

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

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.

Even taking an extreme libertarian property rights above all viewpoint, the developer should at least be constrained to legal uses of the property, should he not? Blanchard has given ample evidence that the use will be illegal, at least for a significant period of time.

I own my house, so I should be able to do anything I want with it, right? I could put up a sign and run my business out of it and save a lot of money on rent. But I don't, because that would be illegal. So I do what everyone else does and figure out how to make money while playing by the rules.

I don't blame Blanchard for demolishing the Jackson building if they are going to save 60k per year in taxes.

Does that really sit well with you as a taxpayer? He would also save 60k per year in taxes by selling the property. Only in that case, a subsequent owner would be paying those taxes rather than you and me.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Does that really sit well with you as a taxpayer? He would also save 60k per year in taxes by selling the property. Only in that case, a subsequent owner would be paying those taxes rather than you and me.

A thousand times, this^^^

No patience for speculator apologists anymore.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Even taking an extreme libertarian property rights above all viewpoint, the developer should at least be constrained to legal uses of the property, should he not? Blanchard has given ample evidence that the use will be illegal, at least for a significant period of time.

I own my house, so I should be able to do anything I want with it, right? I could put up a sign and run my business out of it and save a lot of money on rent. But I don't, because that would be illegal. So I do what everyone else does and figure out how to make money while playing by the rules.



Does that really sit well with you as a taxpayer? He would also save 60k per year in taxes by selling the property. Only in that case, a subsequent owner would be paying those taxes rather than you and me.

If you lived next to me and you wanted to pull your dilapidated house down, I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as the lot was maintained. I also don't have a problem with the land use and zoning laws. But we are talking about a parking lot in a commercial area not a residential area.

As for the tax issue it's only 60k out of an over billion dollar budget it won't even be missed with all of the other development going on in this city. If they had sold it the new owner could have done the exact same thing and more than likely would have.

[Pearlstreet]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Anyone else get the feeling this will not end with a lawsuit, but with the city or province giving a special grant (or tax relief in kind) to top up the $1.1 million and make it worth WB's while to "save" the facades and come forward with an actual development plan for the space behind them?

Precedent has been set with Lister.

You called it, I'd second that. Lets see...

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

If you lived next to me and you wanted to pull your dilapidated house down, I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as the lot was maintained.

Very clever. Blanchard's buildings had functioning businesses in them until he evicted them. Any dilapidation was his own doing and not the fault of his neighbours.

So you welcome an aluminum smelter next door to your home if the previous house was "dilapidated"?

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

As for the tax issue it's only 60k out of an over billion dollar budget it won't even be missed with all of the other development going on in this city.

Plus 60k over there, plus 60k over there, plus 60k over there. Funny thing about setting precedents is that more people will follow them.

Why do you want our taxes to go up? I just don't understand it. I guess you have a lot more money to throw around than the rest of us.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Why do you want our taxes to go up? I just don't understand it. I guess you have a lot more money to throw around than the rest of us.

...as long as it's not thrown at light rail?


These graphics should be familiar enough to all, but anyways here's all the buildings we've lost since the 1950's

(image credit - raisethehammer.org)

...and here's some more wonderful parking lots courtesy of some more admirable landowners, kudos to them for standing up to all those meddling fans of big government who would tell them what to do with their own hard-earned property:









(Above images sourced from Google Maps, published on raisethehammer.org from 2007 to 2013)



About all of that pavement used to be multi-storey buildings of various shapes and sizes housing industrial, commercial and residential uses. All of it paid tax at a higher rate than does vacant land.

All of that land used to generate comings and goings of people to live, work and otherwise interrelate with the surrounding tapestry of land uses. This used to be what was called a city.

Instead of looking at $60,000 in lost tax revenue from one lost building, look at all of them. And instead of considering the loss at a yearly rate, consider how those losses have, and continue to compound over time. While we're thinking about the opportunity costs of land value destruction, why not also consider the implications, over decades, of downtown 'arterial'-ization of once livable main streets such as Cannon.

Imagine the prime real estate that would exist downtown if not lost to decades of blockbusting and traffic - derived gettoization? Over 60 years, how would the economics differ if heritage and livability concepts were allowed to drive policy? How about even just 20 years? The decisions we make today will carry at least as much influence.

If we are suffering death by a thousand cuts, as much as one, why would anyone support those wielding the knife?

[coalminecanary]

^^^ Great post -- spot on.

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

If we are suffering death by a thousand cuts, as much as one, why would anyone support those wielding the knife?

Only markbarbera and bigguy1231 can answer that question...

[ScreamingViking]

Well said, Jon Dalton.

[memph]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

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.

I think this is key, it seems like the taxes need to change. You incentivize developers to demolish buildings for parking lots and then throw money at them not to?

Tax rates on land value should go up and tax rates on building values should go down. That way instead of incentivizing parking lots you're incentivizing land owners to improve the value of their properties.

[SteelTown]

Developer appeals council bid to save Gore Park buildings

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...ings-1.2491740

A Hamilton developer has moved to hold up council’s bid to save a strip of historic buildings lining Gore Park.

A lawyer for Wilson Blanchard, the development firm that owns 18-28 King Street East, has issued a notice of objection to the city’s Dec. 11 vote to begin the process to designate the 19th century buildings as heritage properties.

Under the Ontario Heritage Act, if a party submits a notice of objection to a proposed heritage designation, the case is referred to the province's Conservation Review Board.

The board is then tasked to conduct hearings on the matter and make a recommendation to council on whether the designation should proceed.

Armed with review board's report, council may then decide on whether to approve the designation.

[ScreamingViking]

No surprise. And with no apparent plan in place, they have the time.

[Innsertnamehere]

How much you want to bet that Blanchard really wants a parking lot and is doing quick doodles (all we have really seen so far) to look like he wants to develop the site as an excuse to rip down the buildings.

If hamilton really wants to preserve its heritage, it should mandate that no structures can be torn down unless there is a building permit submitted for its replacement.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

How much you want to bet that Blanchard really wants a parking lot and is doing quick doodles (all we have really seen so far) to look like he wants to develop the site as an excuse to rip down the buildings.

If hamilton really wants to preserve its heritage, it should mandate that no structures can be torn down unless there is a building permit submitted for its replacement.

The parking lot bylaw was enacted because of him. But quite right the city could go further.

I think this is all about squeezing the city (and maybe the province) for more money.

[davidcappi]

Does anyone else feel like they're running out of time with this project? I mean, the PanAm games are coming up fairly soon, and the time it'll take to either restore these buildings or build something new far outshines that deadline. I have a feeling they're waiting for them to fall down.

ugh.