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

[durandy]

Originally Posted by drpgq

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.

well for one thing get the developer right. Wilson Blanchard is a property management firm and brokerage. David Blanchard is an individual who has a stake in a number of corporations including Wilson Blanchard and Blair Blanchard Stapleton. Hughson Business Space owns the Gore Buildings and David Blanchard clearly has a stake in it but no one knows if it's 10% or 100%. These aren't meaningless details. Blanchard may have an important role to play but it's simply ridiculous to attack the fact that an employee of Wilson Blanchard sits on the Downtown BIA because David Blanchard has a stake in the Gore buildings.

[ScreamingViking]

After two winters being battered by the elements

Watch the next line of reasoning for taking these buildings down will be something about severe mold infestation, just like that fool who wants to demolish that house across from St. Joe's for a parking lot... leave something open and damp long enough and Bob's not only your uncle, but a fungi too.

[Jon Dalton]

It seems like his defense against the designation is "I already wrecked them enough that they don't qualify" i.e. certain heritage elements are no longer there. I don't think the judge would buy that because buildings can qualify on a number of heritage aspects. The exterior alone and the fact that they are pre confederation buildings in Gore Park ought to be enough.

[markbarbera]

Folks, you've been played.

The city never intended to save these buildings. They did, after all, initially approve the demolition permit. Once council realized their demolition approval had caused an outcry from preservationists, they went into damage control. To save face in the run up to a municipal election, they 'acted' to 'save' the buildings from demolition after preliminary demolition had begun, and Councillor Farr was hailed as a hero. Meanwhile, the buildings have remained in a compromised state for an indefinite period of legal wrangling. Ultimately the buildings will come down, and council has managed to convince you all they tried their best to fight this villainous developer.

If council was truly intent on saving these buildings, a demolition permit would never have been issued in the first place. Heritage protection in this city is designed to be toothless.The city created the environment that brought on this situation. Nothing has been done to prevent this scenario from playing out again elsewhere in the city.

It is fine to vent anger at the developer for taking advantage of council's ineptitude, but don't let the city off the hook for their complicity in this chain of events. They created the environment that allowed this all to happen, and have done nothing to change that environment. Direct some of that anger where it needs to be felt if you truly want this situation to not be repeated.

[HillStreetBlues]

Great post, markbarbera. It will ultimately have been Hamilton's terrible city council that's responsible when these buildings are torn down. If they were serious about preventing it, we wouldn't still be discussing this. But they aren't.

[coalminecanary]

I think you are giving too much credit to council in your conspiracy theory... as well as ignoring the rules regarding demolition permits (which require by law that the city issue it) and the history of the permit (the application went in while council was on holiday). Also, council doesn't issue demolition permits.

Of course it's ultimately on council's shoulders but the root issue is an overall lack of designations citywide, not just these buildings. In other words, they should have been designated years ago, along with many other buildings, some of which we've now lost.

Hamilton: the best place to raze a building

[coalminecanary]

by the way i'm TMing that last phrase :-)

[davidcappi]

by the way i'm TMing that last phrase :-)

You absolutely should; I chuckled.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Hamilton: the best place to raze a building

Well done!

[flar]

So sad and ridiculous.

In Ottawa, there is a plain, decrepit and long-vacant building on the outskirts of the Byward Market, with no redeeming qualities at all--it's just old--and they have installed steel beams all around it to prevent it from falling down. It looks like a completely worthless building but somehow it can be salvaged while these much nicer and much more prominent buildings in Hamilton cannot be saved.

I have to agree with markbarbera here, Hamilton's City Council is ultimately responsible for the state of the city, and this is a prime example of how they let the city go to pot. Multiply this by all the other neglected buildings and underdeveloped lots downtown and you have the laughing stock of Canada's large cities.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by flar

So sad and ridiculous.

In Ottawa, there is a plain, decrepit and long-vacant building on the outskirts of the Byward Market, with no redeeming qualities at all--it's just old--and they have installed steel beams all around it to prevent it from falling down. It looks like a completely worthless building but somehow it can be salvaged while these much nicer and much more prominent buildings in Hamilton cannot be saved.

I have to agree with markbarbera here, Hamilton's City Council is ultimately responsible for the state of the city, and this is a prime example of how they let the city go to pot. Multiply this by all the other neglected buildings and underdeveloped lots downtown and you have the laughing stock of Canada's large cities.

Ottawa is clearly obsessed with protecting history, even to the point of inconveniencing everyone. Like the one very boring gas station at Richmon and Island Park that was protected in the name of knee-jerk nimby-ism. Hamilton and Ottawa are kind of like two extremes, one can't protect things that need protecting and the other protects things with no need of it.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by flar

So sad and ridiculous.

In Ottawa, there is a plain, decrepit and long-vacant building on the outskirts of the Byward Market, with no redeeming qualities at all--it's just old--and they have installed steel beams all around it to prevent it from falling down. It looks like a completely worthless building but somehow it can be salvaged while these much nicer and much more prominent buildings in Hamilton cannot be saved.

I have to agree with markbarbera here, Hamilton's City Council is ultimately responsible for the state of the city, and this is a prime example of how they let the city go to pot. Multiply this by all the other neglected buildings and underdeveloped lots downtown and you have the laughing stock of Canada's large cities.

Compare also to Oakville, where there are multiple large heritage districts containing often largely homes built in the 20th century. Heritage designation is not just about the intrinsic age of a building, but the 'associative' value of an area even if it includes junk built in the 70s. It's surprising that the Gore is not entirely protected as a heritage district.

[PaulBee]

Given their past history of sneakily demolishing an historic marble building on a weekend, I say be very wary of anything Wilson Blanchard, Stapleton, ec. propose. (I´ve seen them in action as a property management firm. Without evidence, they tried to blame a very vulnerable resident for something she didn´t do. They then asked her to pay the cost of the lawyer´s letter to her - perhaps a month´s income for this disabled person. Wilson Blanchard and friends are truly without scruples.)

[atnor]

According to my sources, an engineer and architect have deemed these buildings to have no significant historical value other than its age and relation to surrounding buildings. These buildings have gone under many renos in the past that there are no architectural or engineering value to salvage; a lot of jerry-rigging from years past ruined any true historical value. Other than the facades, which some are crumbling, its been deemed the structures have no value-- historical or practical. At this point I say tear them down and rebuild them similar to the project at James and York or tear them down for something of utility.

I don't want to argue, just posting what I heard from officials involved in this debacle.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by atnor

According to my sources, an engineer and architect have deemed these buildings to have no significant historical value other than its age and relation to surrounding buildings. These buildings have gone under many renos in the past that there are no architectural or engineering value to salvage; a lot of jerry-rigging from years past ruined any true historical value. Other than the facades, which some are crumbling, its been deemed the structures have no value-- historical or practical. At this point I say tear them down and rebuild them similar to the project at James and York or tear them down for something of utility.

I don't want to argue, just posting what I heard from officials involved in this debacle.

Problem is, tearing them down isn't necessarily going to result in any development. I'd be a little more supportive of that argument if there was actually a detailed proposal being held up by the presence of these buildings but thats not the case. Blanchard hasn't actually committed to any sort of development timeline or proposals for the site other than demolition thus far and in the end, a row of hundred year old abandoned buildings still looks a lot better than a giant empty lot in the core of downtown.

[atnor]

Originally Posted by matt602

Problem is, tearing them down isn't necessarily going to result in any development. I'd be a little more supportive of that argument if there was actually a detailed proposal being held up by the presence of these buildings but thats not the case. Blanchard hasn't actually committed to any sort of development timeline or proposals for the site other than demolition thus far and in the end, a row of hundred year old abandoned buildings still looks a lot better than a giant empty lot in the core of downtown.

The buildings were approved for demolition only to be stopped by public outcry. While Blanchard is notorious for parking lots, the public's insistence on "preserving history" when experts already evaluated there is no historical value has really slowed any progress for this block.

[The Gore]

I have never been in favour of these buildings coming down but given our track record they most likely will.
In my opinion, that stretch of King Street South is the "prettiest" block in the core - the jewel of the city. Is the solution a tear down -therefore another "cavity" with no real time-line commitment from a developer. We are finally seeing activity in Gore Park and a vacant cavity (even for a few years) is just a step back for that area.
Gee...in that immediate area we already have the old Robinson's/Royal Bank parking lot and the old Permanent Building parking on the east side - how long have these lots stood empty - over 20 years?
Haven't we learned - South King Street deserves better.

[davidcappi]

I've always thought the block between Hughson and John was far nicer in terms of aesthetics.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Here we go...

[CaptainKirk]

I've heard that some of the facades will be saved/restored.