98 James St S | 112.5 m | 34 fl | Planning

#1 Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 4:53 AM**

Content removed

ScreamingViking · #2 Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 9:27 AM**

Eagerly awaiting an actual rendering. That line drawing doesn't do much to sell the idea.

EDIT: I noted in the Canada thread that there are older churches downtown (right next door in fact) and the use of "rescued" will draw some sarcasm given the debate over this property.

CaptainKirk · #3 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 4:30 PM**

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...-down-james-baptist-next-month-1.2545655

In the next month, the historic James Street Baptist Church will start to come down.

Developer Louie Santaguida applied for a demolition permit last week to raze the back two-thirds of the building. If the process goes as planned, the demolition — or as he calls it, "the preservation" — will start in March. He’s just waiting for a go-ahead from the city.

“Work will be happening within the next three to four weeks,” he said. “We are securing the site for preservation.”

Santaguida’s Stanton Renaissance plans to retain the front facade and east tower of the building and replace the rest with an $80-million condo and mixed-use development. The 1878 church is part of a row of downtown heritage buildings that includes the Pigott Building, the Sun Life building and St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church.

The demolition is a sore spot for heritage lovers. While Santaguida’s team insist the building is beyond repair, the city’s heritage permit review subcommittee voted narrowly to recommend that staff allow its demolition.

“What I’m hearing consistently and consecutively is that demolition or collapse is imminent,” subcommittee member Joseph Zidanic said in October.

“If anything happens, I suspect it will happen by virtue of neglect or by virtue of some mechanical intervention.”

At the time, subcommittee members cited projects in Hamilton where historic buildings have been demolished and nothing built in their place.

"Unfortunately, we can’t live in the past," Santaguida told them at the time. "Unfortunately, a lot of our committee members are living in the past. We’re developing the future."

Santaguida applied for the demolition permit on Feb. 12. The time period for reviewing a permit is typically 20 working days, said Debbie Spence, city communications officer, in an email.

The demolition will be contingent on Santaguida fulfilling the heritage permit, which involves saving the heritage parts of the building. Crews have already removed the 1939 pipe organ, which took six weeks to dismantle and store in Niagara.

Santaguida hopes to firm up designs for the project by summer, with construction to begin later this year. He already has interested tenants, he said.

45 second Audio clip of Louie Santaguida http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Hamilton/ID/2414215157/

ihateittoo · #4 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 4:42 PM**

I know it's said over and over again but why is this demolition allowed to go through without solid building plans in place? A sensitive demolition like this should be contingent on the plans for the property and they are just vague musings.

If they demo the back 2/3s now and start construction "later this year" then this building which "can't be saved" will be exposed to the elements for months.

Lastly, does anyone know if this guy has secured financing? 80 million is a lot of money.

Will David Blachard use this a precedent for the gore?

Katrillion · #5 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 6:33 PM**

This should be a mid-rise building...

bigguy1231 · #6 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katrillion

This should be a mid-rise building...

Why? It's a downtown location.

Dr Awesomesauce · #7 Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihateittoo

I know it's said over and over again but why is this demolition allowed to go through without solid building plans in place? A sensitive demolition like this should be contingent on the plans for the property and they are just vague musings.

If they demo the back 2/3s now and start construction "later this year" then this building which "can't be saved" will be exposed to the elements for months.

Lastly, does anyone know if this guy has secured financing? 80 million is a lot of money.

Will David Blachard use this a precedent for the gore?

Allow me to answer those questions from 22 Feb, 2014.
*I don't know why.
*Yes.
*I guess not.
*Probably not.

HillStreetBlues · #8 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

“What I’m hearing consistently and consecutively is that demolition or collapse is imminent,” subcommittee member Joseph Zidanic said in October.

I think Mr. Zidanic is confused about the definition of the word "imminent." I've been in this building recently. The congregation was worshipping there within the last year. If he really believes collapse is "imminent," someone really ought to have condemned it and prevented occupancy.

What he really means to say is that the building, a heritage building of an advanced age as it is, needs preservation lest it fall into further disrepair. And that the remediation needed to keep it safe and standing is expensive. All of which the purchaser knew when he bought the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

"Unfortunately, we can’t live in the past," Santaguida told them at the time. "Unfortunately, a lot of our committee members are living in the past. We’re developing the future."

I think this is a really unfortunate thing for Mr. Santaguida to say. I think it speaks volumes about his intents to preserve even the facade of the building.

Jon Dalton · #9 Posted **Feb 22, 2014, 10:12 PM**

Least they could do is put out an updated rendering. I'm sure some guys on this board could do one in an hour. The one they've got looks so god awful atrocious it's not helping them make any friends.

High rises are attached to old buildings in big cities everywhere, all the time. No reason why they can't do it here. Just come up with something decent.

durandy · #10 Posted **Feb 23, 2014, 1:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I think Mr. Zidanic is confused about the definition of the word "imminent." I've been in this building recently. The congregation was worshipping there within the last year. If he really believes collapse is "imminent," someone really ought to have condemned it and prevented occupancy.
.

Totally. The only thing that's collapsing in this building is the mortar. I can't get over that this building is going to come down so recklessly while Council and the community went into fits over those undesignated and crappy buildings on the Gore (aside from the 22-24). You'd think designation would at least provide that the owner would submit plans first.

The only saving grace is that a designated building can't be left open to the elements. There are stricter property standards that apply, so presumably the developer will somehow be enclosing it? Or is willing to eat the penalties...

thistleclub · #11 Posted **Feb 23, 2014, 4:24 PM**

Via CBC Hamilton:

Developer Louie Santaguida applied for a demolition permit last week to raze the back two-thirds of the building. If the process goes as planned, the demolition — or as he calls it, "the preservation" — will start in March.

Via Stanton Renaissance:

Scheduled for demolition, the oldest church in Hamilton (circa 1882) has been rescued by Stanton Renaissance...

Kudos to Stanton Renaissance for saving JSB from that Santaguida fellow.

Beedok · #12 Posted **Feb 23, 2014, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by durandy

Totally. The only thing that's collapsing in this building is the mortar. I can't get over that this building is going to come down so recklessly while Council and the community went into fits over those undesignated and crappy buildings on the Gore (aside from the 22-24). You'd think designation would at least provide that the owner would submit plans first.

Gore is a lot more important for the urban fabric of the city.

ScreamingViking · #13 Posted **Feb 23, 2014, 10:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by durandy

Totally. The only thing that's collapsing in this building is the mortar. I can't get over that this building is going to come down so recklessly while Council and the community went into fits over those undesignated and crappy buildings on the Gore (aside from the 22-24). You'd think designation would at least provide that the owner would submit plans first.

The mortar is kind of important, isn't it?

It would have been just fine if the church could remain in its entirety, as a church (not for religious reasons - I just appreciate church architecture). If the congregation had been able to afford fixing it up.

I don't like the fact there's little beyond a conceptual idea right now either, and I hope the developer creates a nice tower and makes great use of all that old stone. But I think to redevelop it into something more means making some trade-offs, because I don't think remediating and preserving it strictly as the building it is would generate enough of a return on investment.