89 Park Street | ? | 2x31 fl | Proposed

[King&James]

Very cool, great density, but don't see an ounce of the existing building.

[TheHonestMaple]

Amazing!! Get it built.

[Chronamut]

SERIOUSLY??? Theyre bulldozing ANOTHER historic building? For THIS??? I think a petition needs to go against this.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

SERIOUSLY??? Theyre bulldozing ANOTHER historic building? For THIS??? I think a petition needs to go against this.

Let me know, I'll be petitioning for increased density along the North edge of the site to justify saving the church.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Let me know, I'll be petitioning for increased density along the North edge of the site to justify saving the church.

You go dude - yeah I am just outraged. I thought we had things in place to preserve pre-confederation buildings - but maybe it's not pre-confederation? I can't remember when this was built.. but regardless.. unfortunately not enough people may stick up for this one...


fwded this to heritage watch hamilton - ugh, still so mad.. have we learned nothing? The value of hamilton is in our historic buildings..

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

You go dude - yeah I am just outraged. I thought we had things in place to preserve pre-confederation buildings - but maybe it's not pre-confederation? I can't remember when this was built.. but regardless.. unfortunately not enough people may stick up for this one...

Apparently very early 1900s is not old enough to matter.

[Innsertnamehere]

Just a note, but I count 31 storeys here.

[SteelTown]

Fixed it

[TheHonestMaple]

Surely the developer would know that the city (and other groups) are going to push back and ask that the historical building be integrated into the development. It makes you wonder, do developers go all in with their first submission - proposing to demolish, so that they can get away with, say, just integrating maybe the front entrance columns into the design. Rather than having to save the whole thing. The groups who want to save it will probably settle with that.

This also does bring up an issue that has been bugging me for some time. Do developers owe the public a duty to preserve historic structures? If the owner bought the old church building and property, and it is entirely theirs, why do we have the right to somehow prevent them from doing whatever they want with it? It's theirs, should they be able to do with it what they please?

If I bought a house, and there was some sort of ugly shed in the backyard that I didn't like, can I not remove it? It is mine after all. Can TheRitsman start a petition and lobby city hall to stop me from removing it? What gives him the right?

For the record, I am very much in favour of preserving historical buildings... including this Church. I would actually support a petition to save it. This is just something that's been on my mind. At what point can a petition like that be considered unfair interference?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Surely the developer would know that the city (and other groups) are going to push back and ask that the historical building be integrated into the development. It makes you wonder, do developers go all in with their first submission - proposing to demolish, so that they can get away with, say, just integrating maybe the front entrance columns into the design. Rather than having to save the whole thing. The groups who want to save it will probably settle with that.

This also does bring up an issue that has been bugging me for some time. Do developers owe the public a duty to preserve historic structures? If the owner bought the old church building and property, and it is entirely theirs, why do we have the right to somehow prevent them from doing whatever they want with it? It's theirs, should they be able to do with it what they please?

If I bought a house, and there was some sort of ugly shed in the backyard that I didn't like, can I not remove it? It is mine after all. Can TheRitsman start a petition and lobby city hall to stop me from removing it? What gives him the right?

For the record, I am very much in favour of preserving historical buildings... including this Church. I would actually support a petition to save it. This is just something that's been on my mind. At what point can a petition like that be considered unfair interference?

This is all well established case law and the government absolutely has rights in this regard. It's the whole reason things like zoning exist. There are limits, but basically short of banning all sorts of economic activity on a site ("expropriation without compensation"), the government can place many, many restrictions. Something like heritage protection is a very well established thing which is very implementable, though it does have its limits. Oakville tried to make a specific use heritage with the Angus Glen golf course, rather than a structure, and I suspect that would have been stuck down in courts had it gotten to that point.. but Steve Clark convinced the developers to cancel the project before it got there.

I suspect the developer is making an initial salvo without heritage retention here. I hope they manage to save it.

I hope we don't end up with a 1-2 punch, first here, then with Tivoli a bit later..

[LikeHamilton]

I have always personally thought this is the ugliest church in the city.

[TheHonestMaple]

I would like to see them save certain aspects of the church, but I hope that this doesn't significantly delay or even outright cause the project to be cancelled. We've seen it before, like you said with Tivoli.

I want to save heritage buildings, but this city needs those condo towers and the people and economic activity they would bring FAR more than it needs that old church. And I agree, it is pretty ugly and would need some serious work.

The city needs to prioritize revitalizing this area.... moving the men's shelter and filling in these lots. Driving east down york is one of the most depressing drives you can make in this city and there's no reason for it.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I would like to see them save certain aspects of the church, but I hope that this doesn't significantly delay or even outright cause the project to be cancelled. We've seen it before, like you said with Tivoli.

I want to save heritage buildings, but this city needs those condo towers and the people and economic activity they would bring FAR more than it needs that old church. And I agree, it is pretty ugly and would need some serious work.

The city needs to prioritize revitalizing this area.... moving the men's shelter and filling in these lots. Driving east down york is one of the most depressing drives you can make in this city and there's no reason for it.

At this point I don't know it we NEED the condos - there are PLENTY being proposed and built at this point - one less won't hurt. I mean, look at how many are going to be built just across the street from this.

What we NEED are businesses and amenities.

[King&James]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

At this point I don't know it we NEED the condos - there are PLENTY being proposed and built at this point - one less won't hurt. I mean, look at how many are going to be built just across the street from this.

What we NEED are businesses and amenities.

Chicken and Egg. I would love to see a glut of compllteted condos or rentals , keeping prices in check , letting folks move on from less desirable abodes (encouge those to be updated), and drive demand for services / ammenities

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by King&James

Chicken and Egg. I would love to see a glut of compllteted condos or rentals , keeping prices in check , letting folks move on from less desirable abodes (encouge those to be updated), and drive demand for services / ammenities

if you think ANY of these are gonna be affordable right in the downtown core.. I've already seen 1 bedrooms going for like 3000 a month downtown

People aren't gonna be moving in from less desirable abodes, if they live in less desirable abodes that's usually because that's all they can afford..

it's all well and good to state we need more condos downtown - but let's face it, only rich people are going to be able to afford them. Which is fine but we have to keep that in mind.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

but let's face it, only rich people are going to be able to afford them. Which is fine but we have to keep that in mind.

That's a feature not a bug

Rich people spend money on services, restaurants and stores. The exact reason why all those low income rental towers in Durand don't really contribute much to the local shops. The people living there don't spend much money.

[SteelTown]

It would be nice if they saved and incorporated the two large greek columns into the new design.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

It would be nice if they saved and incorporated the two large greek columns into the new design.

Indeed, there are very very few places where columns, namely ionic columns exist anymore in the city.

[johnnyhamont]

Who's the developer behind this?

[TheRitsman]

We do need more condos and rentals especially. Hamilton needs to build 5000 new units every year for the next 10 to keep up with demand.