18-30 King St East | 106.9m | 32 fl | Proposed - Page 24

drpgq · #**461** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 7:01 PM**

I wish the city had ponied up the money to restore them, even though we would be giving in to Blanchard. As has been mentioned they're pre-confederation buildings on the main square of the city. It should be a no-brainer that they get preserved.

People defending Blanchard boggles my mind. There were functional businesses there until Blanchard booted them out.

matt602 · #**462** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

I wish the city had ponied up the money to restore them, even though we would be giving in to Blanchard. As has been mentioned they're pre-confederation buildings on the main square of the city. It should be a no-brainer that they get preserved.

People defending Blanchard boggles my mind. There were functional businesses there until Blanchard booted them out.

A lot of people seem to still be stuck in the "development at any cost" mindset of 5-10 years ago. We can and should demand better, especially for buildings as prominent and important to the downtown as these ones.

Beedok · #**463** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

I wish the city had ponied up the money to restore them, even though we would be giving in to Blanchard. As has been mentioned they're pre-confederation buildings on the main square of the city. It should be a no-brainer that they get preserved.

People defending Blanchard boggles my mind. There were functional businesses there until Blanchard booted them out.

Has anyone defended him? I know I haven't. I'm probably more critical of him than most here. (Even though people seem to think I'm not...)

coalminecanary · #**464** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 3:08 AM**

Read through this thread... There are plenty of examples of sympathy for the owners and blame placed upon everyone but them. Those posts speak for themselves - I'm not to blame for labelling - and for the record I wasn't calling you an apologist (however you were guilty of pulling out the "c" word for buildings which are not "falling down", "about to collapse", "shot", "done", etc).

In regards to the previous posts containing "anyone's-fault-but-WB" crap, my opinion is: I'm sick of hearing it. The current state of those buildings is one person's fault: the owner. These were tenanted until they decided to kick everyone out and launch a trial balloon - which failed.

Lots of people are restoring and rebuilding in this city, it's not a matter of a lack of funding. Look at the buildings next to mex-i-can as just one recent example. The CBC building as another, the sandbar is underway, plus many smaller scale projects.

If WB wants to make boatloads of money, they should find a way to do it that isn't off the backs of destroyed heritage, end of story.

I just can't believe we are even discussing this in terms of what kind of development would make demolition worthwhile. It's absurd - especially in a city with acres and acres of surface parking.

davidcappi · #**465** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 8:02 AM**

This forum most of the time

Beedok · #**466** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 10:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Read through this thread... There are plenty of examples of sympathy for the owners and blame placed upon everyone but them. Those posts speak for themselves - I'm not to blame for labelling - and for the record I wasn't calling you an apologist (however you were guilty of pulling out the "c" word for buildings which are not "falling down", "about to collapse", "shot", "done", etc).

'c' word?

davidcappi · #**467** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 11:17 AM**

collapse

Beedok · #**468** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidcappi

collapse

I just went through the whole thread, and found no instance of my having said the word 'collapse'.

markbarbera · #**469** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

. The current state of those buildings is one person's fault: the owner. These were tenanted until they decided to kick everyone out and launch a trial balloon - which failed.

It is overly simplistic to put the blame solely on the developer. Truth is, the developer applied for a demolition permit in 2012, and the city granted it. Demolition was delayed well into 2013 while the developer and the city attempted to negotiate an agreement to save the facades and incorporate them into the redevelopment. The negotiations reached an impasse, and the developer began dismantling the buildings in the fall of 2013. City hall then revoked the demolition permit and designated the buildings on December 13, 2013. The buildings have remain in their partially dismantled state since then.

If a demolition permit was not issued by the city back in 2012, demolition could not have started legally and the building would not be in its current state. If preservation of the site was a genuine concern for the city, then a demolition permit should never have been granted in the first place.

Why did the city grant the permit in 2012? Why has there been no review of accountability for those city officials who issued the permit, which precipitated this situation to develop to its current state?

To suggest that the city has no culpability for the current state of these buildings is disingenuous. Moreover, if no one at the city is ever held accountable for their role in how this has played out, nothing will stop this scenario from being played out again with some other developer.

oldcoote · #**470** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidcappi

But who is going to pay for their restoration?

There would definitely be interested buyers

fizzle · #**471** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

It is overly simplistic to put the blame solely on the developer. Truth is, the developer applied for a demolition permit in 2012, and the city granted it. Demolition was delayed well into 2013 while the developer and the city attempted to negotiate an agreement to save the facades and incorporate them into the redevelopment. The negotiations reached an impasse, and the developer began dismantling the buildings in the fall of 2013. City hall then revoked the demolition permit and designated the buildings on December 13, 2013. The buildings have remain in their partially dismantled state since then.

If a demolition permit was not issued by the city back in 2012, demolition could not have started legally and the building would not be in its current state. If preservation of the site was a genuine concern for the city, then a demolition permit should never have been granted in the first place.

Why did the city grant the permit in 2012? Why has there been no review of accountability for those city officials who issued the permit, which precipitated this situation to develop to its current state?

To suggest that the city has no culpability for the current state of these buildings is disingenuous. Moreover, if no one at the city is ever held accountable for their role in how this has played out, nothing will stop this scenario from being played out again with some other developer.

This seems like a fair and reasonable review of what's going on here.

Jon Dalton · #**472** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Why did the city grant the permit in 2012? Why has there been no review of accountability for those city officials who issued the permit, which precipitated this situation to develop to its current state?

That is a good point but the answer is they had no choice. Provincial law binds the city to issue a building permit within a reasonable amount of time (I think it's 6 weeks) once the application is complete.

A better way of putting it is why didn't the city designate the buildings way before 2012? They've had 100 years to figure out how important they were. That's the only way the city wouldn't have been forced to approve the permit. An earlier proactive designation may have even discouraged Blanchard from buying up the properties in the first place if their intent was only to tear them down. It definitely would have influenced the way they treated their buildings in the last 10 years.

coalminecanary · #**473** Posted **Jul 25, 2015, 1:46 PM**

I'm not saying the city is handling these or any other heritage matters properly - far from it. But in the end we all must take responsibility for our own actions, and WB are the ones who forced the businesses out of the buildings, sneaked the permit through while council was recessed, showed up with demolition equipment while heritage negotiations were underway, and then responded to the designations by tearing the facades off and leaving the buildings completely open to the elements for an entire cycle of seasons.

Being a bad neighbour (to all citizens of hamilton) is imho inexcusable even if you are doing it from the right side of the bylaws.

Dr Awesomesauce · #**474** Posted **Jul 31, 2015, 10:53 AM**

^

LikeHamilton · #**475** Posted **Dec 29, 2015, 3:44 PM**

Gore buildings' heritage legislation appeal won't be heard until spring

By Adam Carter, CBC News Posted: Dec 29, 2015 5:45 AM ET

After two winters being battered by the elements, a strip of historic buildings lining Gore Park will have to endure a third season of snow, sleet and cold.

The lengthy saga between the city and developer David Blanchard isn't coming to an end any time soon. Blanchard is appealing the city's last-minute heritage designation at the Ontario Environment and Land Tribunal – but that won't be heard until April.

So the buildings will sit in the city's centre for at least one more winter – neither torn down and rebuilt as something new nor restored to their former, decades-old glory.

"Every year that goes by makes restoration more expensive or less likely," said Philip Hoad, the city's former manager of Heritage Facilities and Capital Planning.

"It's very sad."

Blanchard did not respond to a request for comment for this story, but Ward 2 Coun. Jason Farr told CBC News that city staff have been in contact with developers Hughson Business Space Corporation about the buildings.

"I am hopeful that we will have some progress soon," Farr said in an email.

So far, there have been no outward signs of any process. Blanchard hasn't been speaking to media about his plans and the previous two winters haven't been kind to the buildings.

Some windows are broken, and the inner ceiling has fallen down in one storefront. The sprayed-on stencil designs painted over the plywood covering the exposed parts of the buildings meant to gussy them up for the Pan Am Games have started to fade.

According to documents submitted to the tribunal, Blanchard's objection to the city's intention to designate is rooted in that many of the original components of the buildings have been altered, including the first floors, window openings, original windows, and the removal of some of the original stonework.

"There has not been the necessary careful research and evaluation … to support the designation of the properties," the documents read.

Hoad says the real issue is that there is no teeth in current heritage legislation to do what is necessary to save the buildings.

"This is prime real estate – but it's all about money for these developers," he said. "It's heartbreaking, but nothing about this surprises me one iota."

adam.carter@cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...ring-1.3368333

coalminecanary · #**476** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 3:13 AM**

cue the apologists...

drpgq · #**477** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 2:01 PM**

Yeah I don't get why people defend Blanchard. What I find bizarre is that the downtown BIA has someone from Blanchard on the board. The BIA spends a lot of time and money doing stuff right out front of his decrepit storefronts on the Gore. It is bizarre.

Jon Dalton · #**478** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 9:45 PM**

He's the worst. Even other A-holes who only care about profit are doing way better. With today's real estate prices his argument that it's too expensive to fix isn't believable anymore.

Beedok · #**479** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 9:52 PM**

He is one person I do not trust.

Dr Awesomesauce · #**480** Posted **Dec 30, 2015, 11:57 PM**

He's the anti-Christ - full stop.