City Hall | 34m | 8 fl | Complete

[thistleclub]

Affordability wins
Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator
(Nov 3, 2008)

Marble was never really in the running.

Council's choice for the outside of City Hall came down to a rock -- limestone -- and something harder -- concrete.

It chose sandblasted white concrete at an estimated price of $66 per square foot over Adair blue-grey limestone at $127 a square foot to avoid adding $2.5 million to the renovation project now expected to cost $73.9 million.

Councillor Scott Duvall made it clear that white Georgia marble costing $192 a square foot hasn't been in the budget since 2005, even though that was the year council designated City Hall under the Ontario Heritage Act, listing marble as one of the features making it worthy of designation.

Heritage planners made a case for new marble, but the construction consortium in charge proposed substituting the sort of limestone used on the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., quarried in Wiarton. It said limestone also symbolizes quality and permanence and has natural veining like the marble and is less likely to show stains from industrial air pollution and vehicle exhaust.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger favoured the limestone, suggesting the money come out of a $48-million provincial grant, noting that council had allocated $5 million of that money for unspecified strategic initiatives and $5 million for unspecified economic development projects next year.

But he ended up on the losing end of a 10-4 vote last week.

The majority sided with Councillor Lloyd Ferguson who compared a sample precast concrete panel to marble on the west wall of City Hall and said, "The untrained eye won't see a difference."

The mayor said: "We don't put marble on our sidewalks. We shouldn't put concrete on City Hall."

Russ Powers said: "I know what I want. I can't afford it."

Chad Collins said: "For me this is really a no-brainer. Affordability is the heart of the issue."

Downtown Councillor Bob Bratina said the price of a renovated City Hall with 200,000 square feet of office space is now almost $75 million and the cost of renting 60,000 square feet in the renovated Lister Block $25 million -- giving the city 260,000 square feet for $100 million. For that, the city could have already built a new, 400,000-square-foot building big enough for all its staff.

Bratina said the city also could have picked up one of the two CIBC towers at King and James for $19 million and the Hamilton City Centre mall for $3 million, giving it more than 400,000 square feet for $21 million.

He voted against the concrete, saying: "To me, it would be ridiculous not to put marble back. To put concrete defies belief."

[SteelTown]

I was thinking since they are going to remove the marble why don't they re-use the marble for the new enclosed council chamber? Having the marble inside the new enclosure will prolong the marble from the harsh weather.

[flar]

^^but how will Mitchell get his cheap mantle and fire place (sic)?

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Affordability wins
Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator
(Nov 3, 2008)

Marble was never really in the running.

Council's choice for the outside of City Hall came down to a rock -- limestone -- and something harder -- concrete.

It chose sandblasted white concrete at an estimated price of $66 per square foot over Adair blue-grey limestone at $127 a square foot to avoid adding $2.5 million to the renovation project now expected to cost $73.9 million.

Councillor Scott Duvall made it clear that white Georgia marble costing $192 a square foot hasn't been in the budget since 2005, even though that was the year council designated City Hall under the Ontario Heritage Act, listing marble as one of the features making it worthy of designation.

Heritage planners made a case for new marble, but the construction consortium in charge proposed substituting the sort of limestone used on the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., quarried in Wiarton. It said limestone also symbolizes quality and permanence and has natural veining like the marble and is less likely to show stains from industrial air pollution and vehicle exhaust.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger favoured the limestone, suggesting the money come out of a $48-million provincial grant, noting that council had allocated $5 million of that money for unspecified strategic initiatives and $5 million for unspecified economic development projects next year.

But he ended up on the losing end of a 10-4 vote last week.

The majority sided with Councillor Lloyd Ferguson who compared a sample precast concrete panel to marble on the west wall of City Hall and said, "The untrained eye won't see a difference."

The mayor said: "We don't put marble on our sidewalks. We shouldn't put concrete on City Hall."

Russ Powers said: "I know what I want. I can't afford it."

Chad Collins said: "For me this is really a no-brainer. Affordability is the heart of the issue."

Downtown Councillor Bob Bratina said the price of a renovated City Hall with 200,000 square feet of office space is now almost $75 million and the cost of renting 60,000 square feet in the renovated Lister Block $25 million -- giving the city 260,000 square feet for $100 million. For that, the city could have already built a new, 400,000-square-foot building big enough for all its staff.

Bratina said the city also could have picked up one of the two CIBC towers at King and James for $19 million and the Hamilton City Centre mall for $3 million, giving it more than 400,000 square feet for $21 million.

He voted against the concrete, saying: "To me, it would be ridiculous not to put marble back. To put concrete defies belief."

C'mon Bratina. You're at hamilton city hall. NOTHING defies belief over there.

[realcity]

you know Staff and Council are going to f*%k this up.

It's already an underwelming building. I've never been in-love with it, but I can tolerate it. If anything the interior architecture is better then the ext.

If had 10 more floors it would look more proportional. It's okay but too stubby for me. The city should've put money into making the tower taller.

[ryan_mcgreal]

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1143/

Heritage Consultants Quit Over Concrete Cladding

E.R.A. Architects, recently the heritage consultant for the City of Hamilton's City Hall Renovation project, have just publicly announced their resignation from the project, citing the Council vote to replace the marble cladding on the City Hall building with preformed concrete.

City Council voted in 2005 to designate City Hall as a municipal heritage property, citing the marble cladding as a primary heritage feature.

Designation requires the property owner to maintain the building's heritage features, but Council voted in October to replace the marble in the four decade old building with preformed concrete cladding. This required Council to grant itself a special permit to violate its own heritage rules.

Council rejected the compromise option of using limestone cladding, which would be cheaper than replacing the marble but slightly more expensive than concrete. Heritage advocates accept that limestone would be an acceptable replacement for marble and far superior to concrete, but Council rejected this choice on the basis of cost.

Local heritage advocates pointed out that the Council vote to skirt its own heritage rules opens the door to private heritage property owners demanding the same leniency.

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, chair of the City Hall Renovation Committee and a strong advocate of the precast concrete option, agreed. "I would suspect that council would come on side with [the property owners]."

After acknowledging that the renovation "requires a balance of heritage, functional and financial objectives", E.R.A. Architects stated that they believe "the integrity of the design of the building" would be "too devalued for the firm to continue in its consultant role" now that the building's main heritage component is being removed.

Here is the full text of the letter:

E.R.A. decided to resign as heritage consultant for the Hamilton City Hall Renovation project when a large majority of City Council voted in favour of replacing the book-matched marble cladding on the building with precast concrete, against the advice of the A.B.E. consortium team who is carrying out the project.

The retrofit and conservation of the 1960s heritage-designated building necessarily requires a balance of heritage, functional and financial objectives. When the Council vote rejected even a compromise recommendation using limestone, E.R.A. decided that the integrity of the design of the building by Stanley Roscoe, at that time the City Architect, and its heritage value, recognized by the City’s own designation, would be too devalued for the firm to continue in its consultant role.

The pride of the citizens of Hamilton in their City Hall has been let down by the Council decision and by just how much will emerge as the precast concrete weathers and soils without the dignity of natural stone.

[oldcoote]

[Dundasguy]

Wrecking Ball...Wrecking Ball...

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Dundasguy

Wrecking Ball...Wrecking Ball...

What part of 'heritage designated' don't you understand? Just because you personally don't like modernist architecture, doesn't give you the right to deprive future generations. It's attitudes like yours that cost us this city's Victorian heritage. I'm surprised that someone from Dundas has so little regard for our history.

[SteelTown]

City Council voted in 2005 to designate City Hall as a municipal heritage property, citing the marble cladding as a primary heritage feature.

City Hall is designated because of the marble facade. Now that the marble will be replaced there's no real heritage element to City Hall.

I talked about this way when this thread started with possibly replacing the marble facade that you might as well demolish City Hall and start over again.

[flar]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

City Hall is designated because of the marble facade. Now that the marble will be replace there's no real heritage element to City Hall.

Not exactly, it's like a beautiful old house covered up in yellow vinyl siding.

[SteelTown]

Sure it's an International design but that isn't what got City Hall "heritage designated".

[highwater]

The marble was only one of many heritage features. The interior and overall design are excellent examples of the International Style. We've got to stop chucking perfectly good buildings into landfill. And we've got to recognize and protect our Modernist heritage before we lose it all, just like we lost so much of our Victorian heritage.

[block43]

Originally Posted by flar

Not exactly, it's like a beautiful old house covered up in yellow vinyl siding.

That sounds like my house. It's a pain in the @$$ tearing off the old siding and restoring the wood underneath...Sooooooo sloooooooooow.

[SteelTown]

The way the renovation is taking place is that they are just interpreting the International style. Everything is gutted out and replaced. Stairs replaced with new material but kept with the International style. Windows and framing replaced. Floor is replaced. What’s the point really? Now you are taking away a key element, marble façade, and replacing it with concrete.

There’s a difference between renovation and restoration, the Lister Block brouhaha comes into mind.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by highwater

What part of 'heritage designated' don't you understand? Just because you personally don't like modernist architecture, doesn't give you the right to deprive future generations. It's attitudes like yours that cost us this city's Victorian heritage. I'm surprised that someone from Dundas has so little regard for our history.

I find it to be ugly 60s architecture. The old city hall at York St and James actually looked like something salvageable.

[Jon Dalton]

And at the time people said 'it's ugly, let's build a new one.'

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by Millstone

I find it to be ugly 60s architecture. The old city hall at York St and James actually looked like something salvageable.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

I however am of the opinion that much of that much of 60's architecture has truly come into it's own, and is quite classic and very much sought after now.

Tearing down the older one was a crime that has been repeated all over downtown Hamilton.

[Dundasguy]

Originally Posted by highwater

What part of 'heritage designated' don't you understand? Just because you personally don't like modernist architecture, doesn't give you the right to deprive future generations. It's attitudes like yours that cost us this city's Victorian heritage. I'm surprised that someone from Dundas has so little regard for our history.

Ok, I have a hard time understanding your logic here. You are concerned with preserving the "heritage" of poorly built modernist architecture and two tiered parking lots, and basically accusing people who don't share your opinion (like me) of destroying Hamilton's Victorian past.

We'll I believe it's people like you that keep the abandoned and crumbling downtown the way it is because your trying to impose your politically correct values on everyone else. There, that's my silly and baseless accusation.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

And at the time people said 'it's ugly, let's build a new one.'

It seems weird now, but Victorian architecture was thought to be dingy and rotten in the mid 20th century. That's why they didn't think twice about tearing down most of downtown or replacing mansions in Durand with high rise apartments. Or surrounding that castle on James South with an ugly strip plaza.