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

[coalminecanary]

that's some real selective history right there

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That history of the south side of the Gore is both revisionist and, well, irrelevant, frankly.

And for the record, those limestone buildings are pre-Confederation. People with no interest in history, obviously, fail to understand the significance of such things - nothing can change that.

And creating good urban spaces is far more complex than simply throwing up a high rise. In fact, a strong argument could be made that skyscrapers have no place in good urban form at all. This is Hamilton, let's not forget - we're not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Sao Paolo for that matter. There's just no need for it.

Regardless of how this situation unfolded and who's 'at fault' the relevant parties must come together - like adults - and work this out. And by that, these buildings must be preserved - that cannot be up for negotiation.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

That history of the south side of the Gore is both revisionist and, well, irrelevant, frankly.

And for the record, those limestone buildings are pre-Confederation. People with no interest in history, obviously, fail to understand the significance of such things - nothing can change that.

And creating good urban spaces is far more complex than simply throwing up a high rise. In fact, a strong argument could be made that skyscrapers have no place in good urban form at all. This is Hamilton, let's not forget - we're not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Sao Paolo for that matter. There's just no need for it.

Regardless of how this situation unfolded and who's 'at fault' the relevant parties must come together - like adults - and work this out. And by that, these buildings must be preserved - that cannot be up for negotiation.

Creating a good urban environment is more than a highrise, yes, but it's more than a midrise too (which are frequently done far worse than highrises). As for good urban form and skyscrapers, any view of Hong Kong pretty well answers that question, that's an urban crush stronger than anything a midrise can give.

As for it not being Sao Paulo or Toronto, building highrises is how you help Hamilton gain that level of urban fabric. If we avoided big city buildings because we didn't have them then everyone would be living in farm houses.

Also I have an interest in history, but that interest in history is firmly based in how things change and progress. Nations and Empires living in the past stagnate and fall (and sit as laughing stocks for a while). Not saying we should tear down everything old, but if something is honestly going to be built and it's significantly bigger than what's there now then tear away.

The biggest question with this proposal is if he'll actually build.

[realcity]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

That history of the south side of the Gore is both revisionist and, well, irrelevant, frankly.

And for the record, those limestone buildings are pre-Confederation. People with no interest in history, obviously, fail to understand the significance of such things - nothing can change that.

And creating good urban spaces is far more complex than simply throwing up a high rise. In fact, a strong argument could be made that skyscrapers have no place in good urban form at all. This is Hamilton, let's not forget - we're not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Sao Paolo for that matter. There's just no need for it.

Regardless of how this situation unfolded and who's 'at fault' the relevant parties must come together - like adults - and work this out. And by that, these buildings must be preserved - that cannot be up for negotiation.

Why do you bother trolling a page dedicated to skyscrapers? And fans of skylines and tall buildings? Isn't there a lowrise building page you can go to?

[realcity]

there is no site dedicated to NIMBYs and low density, low rise buildings is there?

[fizzle]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

And creating good urban spaces is far more complex than simply throwing up a high rise. In fact, a strong argument could be made that skyscrapers have no place in good urban form at all. This is Hamilton, let's not forget - we're not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Sao Paolo for that matter. There's just no need for it.

Clearly it's more than just putting the buildings up- the infrastructure needs to be there to support it. But to suggest that a high rise isn't good urban form seems a bit crazy to me.

In many ways, the future of the downtown core is looking more and more like one where Hamilton becomes a de facto new 'suburb' of Toronto - a 1 hour or so commute in exchange for cheaper property values, and equivalent or better standard of living. To accommodate an influx like this, density isn't just a preference, it's a requirement. I don't think anyone expects or wants Hamilton to become CityPlace, but highrise development is inevitable and needed.

[Beedok]

Also this is the very heart of the city, a major city should have highrises at such a location. Hamilton might not be major yet, but we should be planning for that day. Otherwise you end up with serious infrastructure deficits like Toronto is trying to deal with.

We should try to get some history preserved, but something fairly tall would be nice to see there.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by realcity

Why do you bother trolling a page dedicated to skyscrapers? And fans of skylines and tall buildings? Isn't there a lowrise building page you can go to?

There's the realcity I remember.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

That history of the south side of the Gore is both revisionist and, well, irrelevant, frankly.

And for the record, those limestone buildings are pre-Confederation. People with no interest in history, obviously, fail to understand the significance of such things - nothing can change that.

And creating good urban spaces is far more complex than simply throwing up a high rise. In fact, a strong argument could be made that skyscrapers have no place in good urban form at all. This is Hamilton, let's not forget - we're not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Sao Paolo for that matter. There's just no need for it.

Regardless of how this situation unfolded and who's 'at fault' the relevant parties must come together - like adults - and work this out. And by that, these buildings must be preserved - that cannot be up for negotiation.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

As much as I hate to say it (and I hope I'm wrong), I think the writing is on the wall for Hunter. I wouldn’t dare to try to predict timelines or anything, but it seems like the provincial government is going to focus on West Harbour.

I think that’s a real shame, personally- Hunter Street is a beautiful building with lots of history in a good location. Effort should have been invested in doing what needed to be done to widen the tunnel to allow it to accommodate the train frequency that Hamilton needs. It makes no sense to have two stations less than two kilometres apart.

The current plan puts most of the new service into the GO Centre on Hunter:
http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2015/0...corridors.html

[coalminecanary]

There are tonnes of lots available for highrises. Blanchard should sell those buildings to someone who gives a shit and go buy a parking lot.

Oh but he doesn't want to actually BUILD anything so that plan's no good. He just wants to rip enough shit up that he can sell it to someone else. Past present and future be damned.

[coalminecanary]

And I'd like to add ... these buildings CAN be profitably restored. It's just not ENOUGH profit for greedy speculators.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

There are tonnes of lots available for highrises. Blanchard should sell those buildings to someone who gives a shit and go buy a parking lot.

Oh but he doesn't want to actually BUILD anything so that plan's no good. He just wants to rip enough shit up that he can sell it to someone else. Past present and future be damned.

Exactly. The conversation about high-rise versus mid-rise is not relevant to this discussion (but no long-time contributors should be accused of "trolling" because they hold the evidence-based opinion that mid-rise development is more conducive to good urban form...). We have many large surface lots downtown perfect for developing, but this particular developer hopes to "add value" by tearing down these heritage structures and creating another developable lot, hoping that someone will pay him for it. If the intent were to build something- anything, tall or mid-rise, crummy or amazing- he would buy a parking lot and build on it. But, as coalminecanary says, he doesn't want to actually build anything.

[davidcappi]

But who is going to pay for their restoration?

[markbarbera]

Perhaps Historia, the people behind restoring Treble Hall? Unfortunately, Treble Hall hasn't proven to be profitable for them as it remains mainly vacant since their restoration work there wound down in 2013.

But who knows, maybe they will end up involved with this site in some way. They are the company currently working on the Landed Bank at Main and James, another Blanchard property. Perhaps that working relationship will lead to some sort of collaboration here as well.

[Pigeon]

.

[davidcappi]

I wasn't making a comment at who would do the work, but who is going to pay for the restoration. Blanchard has made it pretty clear that the amount of money the city put up isn't enough to restore them, and nobody has proven otherwise. So unless this comes out of the public's pocket, I don't know who is going to foot the bill.

I'm just counting down the days until a collapse.

[HillStreetBlues]

Hamilton has Property Standards. They should be more stringent for heritage buildings. A property owner should be fined if he or she allows a heritage building to fall into disrepair, or tries to use the demolition by neglect tactic.

[coalminecanary]

These buildings will not "collapse" any sooner than the pyramids will unless there is willful destruction. As for who pays to restore them: the owner. And if the owner doesn't want to, there is a line up of people who will buy them. Problem is, no one who is willing to truly invest in these buildings is going to spend outrageous speculator prices to acquire them. The city needs to send a clear message to Blanchard and other fake developers that speculation doesn't pay. I'm so sick of speculator apologists -- especially on this forum of all places.

[davidcappi]

These buildings will not "collapse" any sooner than the pyramids will unless there is willful destruction.

I'm so sick of speculator apologists -- especially on this forum of all places.

Yeah okay bud. It's okay if some people have a different opinion as you, but labeling people as speculator apologists makes you sound like an intellectualist douchebag.