18-30 King St East | 106.9m | 32 fl | Proposed - Page 2

coalminecanary · #21 Posted **Oct 24, 2012, 11:24 PM**

quote from http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/talk/stor...st-condo.html:

Quote:

They’re not sure what they want to build, or what it’s going to look like.
But they are certain of one thing – they want a fresh canvas on their piece of King Street East and truly hope the wreckers can get to work on the first day of next June.

And here's a photo from the article. Jeez he's taking a big risk standing so close to those buildings. They could fall down on him at any moment!

durandy · #22 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:36 AM**

God, what are we, Brantford?

Maybe he thinks this is the equivalent of Mirvish/Gehry for the hammer. Or maybe he'll trade the facades for approval of some other variance. Either way just please please please let this have some architectural value.

Dr Awesomesauce · #23 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:36 AM**

The balls on these guys - it's absolutely stunning.

Some of the buildings on the south side of King are pre-Confederation and were designed by prominent Canadian architects (Rastrick + Thomas). The article suggests some talk that the facades could be saved but given that there's no precedent for such things in Hamilton, I'll believe it when I see it.

If those buildings are allowed to go, I will sell my home and leave Hamilton once and for all. That to me, would be proof that we are in deed a hopeless city deserving of the ridicule we receive at the hands of other Canadians. A parking garage facing Gore Park?!?

I'm so angry I could spit.

thomax · #24 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

If those buildings are allowed to go, I will sell my home and leave Hamilton once and for all. That to me, would be proof that we are in deed a hopeless city deserving of the ridicule we receive at the hands of other Canadians. A parking garage facing Gore Park?!?

I'm so angry I could spit.

My thoughts exactly except I am 19 and live with my parents so I can't sell the house, but I would never buy a house in Hamilton once I eventually move out. I've always thought moving to Toronto eventually would be the right thing to do, but after seeing the potential Hamilton has I've decided this past year that I would love to live in downtown Hamilton and be a part of the renewal and rebirth of the city. If these buildings come down then it is bye bye Hamilton for me...

flar · #25 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 11:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

If those buildings are allowed to go, I will sell my home and leave Hamilton once and for all. That to me, would be proof that we are in deed a hopeless city deserving of the ridicule we receive at the hands of other Canadians. A parking garage facing Gore Park?!?

I'm so angry I could spit.

I'm honestly thinking the same way. I'd been hopeful that I could move back to Hamilton someday, but that won't happen if something like this is allowed.

Hamilton is like an alcoholic friend for whom who you hold out some hope, but then they start doing heroin. You can only care so much before it just doesn't make sense any more.

The same goes for all the Hamilton promotion that I still do.

flar · #26 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:00 PM**

To put things in perspective, in Ottawa they formed a committee to prevent the demolition of these rather mundane houses.

Other places have learned to value their built environment and history. They understand these things are what makes a city.

Dr Awesomesauce · #27 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:09 PM**

To outsiders, I defend Hamilton tooth and nail.

However, everybody has their breaking point.

You either stop giving a sh*t or you bugger off somewhere better.

coalminecanary · #28 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:18 PM**

When I showed this story to my girlfriend the first thing she said was "f-this, let's move".

Many of you know how opinionated I am. A lot of citizens probably disagree with much that I fight for - spending on LRT instead of highway overpasses, building bike infrastructure, not tearing down ANY building (no matter how ugly) as long as it is still structurally sound (yes this included the "old" costco", Slowing traffic down through the core, etc.

But I have to say, the underlying driver for my thoughts is one question: "Will this decision make Hamilton more attractive to the younger generation". By this I mean the people finishing high school, college or university. Those who are about to make some major decisions about where they will spend most of their lives. Because if we are making decisions that turn these people away, then we are making decisions that will ultimately empty the city of everyone who will be a productive contributor to Hamilton.

If the city approves a demolition permit here, it's just another chip at the demographic that represents all future hope for this city.

Cheap real estate is only going to bring so many young entrepreneurs to town. If we don't make this city livable (and this includes treating our built heritage with respect) then we will never climb out of the hole we are in (and seem to be continually digging).

To those who say that any condo development is "a good thing" and "we can't save everything":

This kind of crap is what's preventing all of the other DESIRABLE developments from ever happening. The promise of a tower will lure many into allowing these self-serving developers to tear these buildings down, forcing us to live with a gore park lined with rubble for 4, 5, 10, 20 years while we wait for this imaginary monster to be built. And during this time, do you think the rubble is going to motivate a connaught redevelopment? Is it going to generate excitement for Stinson's pie-in-the-sky ideas? Is it going to cause a stir on any of the already vacant lots in this town? No. It's going to make all of those less likely to happen. And that's how we end up with more and more empty lots.

These guys are working for one thing: themselves. THey are not doing this for the good of the city. They will tear these buildings down because they think it will make the project an easier sell to financiers, and when nobody steps up - oh well! at least the property taxes went down!

If they want to do something good they should plan an infill project on the land that's already vacant on that block.

And do something about that godforsaken stucco.

movingtohamilton · #29 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

...Other places have learned to value their built environment and history. They understand these things are what makes a city.

The idea that any city would allow the loss of buildings like these is bizarre.

I have not lived here long enough to be completely jaded, and am quite willing to get involved to stop the wrecking ball. It seems to me that broad-based civic action is needed, based on a strategy that has a hope of succeeding.

There are immediate steps needed to be taken:

1). Get the facts: can the wrecking ball start swinging without approval? Are the staff and politicians at city hall sitting on their hands?

2). Quickly building a coalition -- a network of community-based groups, opinion leaders, historical societies, etc. To be blunt, the wealthy residents of the city must be appealed to for their support.

3). Get the story out to the wider mainstream media, which could put this whole thing under a microscope; shaming politicians for being willing participants in the impending destruction would help.

4). Get the residents of the "lower city" better informed and engaged. How about a petition table set up in Gore Park?

5). Call for a public meeting to kickstart a campaign to stop the destruction.

I'm willing to get involved; I just don't know people to contact.

Ideas? Comments?

thistleclub · #30 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 2:12 PM**

From another Paul Wilson piece, five years ago:

We turn to developer David Blanchard. He's been part of the local scene for decades. He and partners now own virtually all the so-called B office buildings in Hamilton, retrofitted towers that include 25 Main West, the HSBC at Hughson and King, the former Union Gas building at Hughson and Main. (There are only two A buildings downtown, the mirrored twin towers at King and James.)

Blanchard doesn't want to tell Yale Properties how to do business. But what would he do with the top half of the Stelco Tower?

"It should be made into condos. They'd sell in a minute. Look at that view.

"They say there are technical problems and they can't do it. I don't believe it." He says a 1,000-foot unit could go on the market at $250,000 to $300,000.

But what about filling the Stelco tower with office workers again? "All that space was designed to house the kind of big companies that aren't here anymore. Stelco, Westinghouse, Firestone, you name it."

It would be a mistake to hope that the big companies will be coming back to town. "I've been waiting for that for 25 to 30 years," Blanchard says. "It's not going to happen."

His outfit has saved vintage buildings. In the '90s, three of the four corners at Main and James were occupied by spectacular but empty buildings. But Blanchard and associates have brought all those corners back to life -- the 1928 Pigott/Sunlife complex is condos, the 1908 Landed Banking building is office space and the 1929 Bank of Montreal is now palatial quarters for the Gowlings law firm.

Blanchard is now starting work on a 1950s Modernist low-rise on Hunter, across from the Hamilton GO Centre.

It's an expansion and retrofit of the city's health department headquarters.

Blanchard says that's the formula. "Take these good buildings, fix them up, keep the city ticking."

movingtohamilton · #31 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistleclub

From another Paul Wilson piece,
Blanchard says that's the formula. "Take these good buildings, fix them up, keep the city ticking."

The perfect content for protest signs in front of the endangered buildings!

coalminecanary · #32 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 2:32 PM**

great find

coalminecanary · #33 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 3:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

The perfect content for protest signs in front of the endangered buildings!

or posters to paste up on all of his "holdings".

SteelTown · #34 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 3:25 PM**

I have a feeling this is just Blanchard's way of increasing pressure at City Hall to help Blanchard save the facade. Why else would he announce plans months and months in advance and without any finalized plans. He even mention that he was prepared to get negative feedback.

From the looks of it, it's certainly seems like it's working.

The last building he didn't announce his intention and quickly demolished the building facing Gore Park.

flar · #35 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 4:08 PM**

I hope he's not planning to hold the buildings hostage to get money from the city, but it appears that's exactly what he's going to do. The Lister debacle set a bad precedent.

coalminecanary · #36 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 4:27 PM**

It's time we made it financially impossible for people to do this.

durandy · #37 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

I hope he's not planning to hold the buildings hostage to get money from the city, but it appears that's exactly what he's going to do. The Lister debacle set a bad precedent.

I'm not sure it's all that bad a precedent. These are after all public goods people are forcing on private developers; doesn't seem so bad to me to use public money to preserve buildings that have public value. Given Blanchard's track record it would be pretty strange to see him pull the trigger here. Most likely he's just waiting for funds from the Gore revitalization fund, and I think fair enough.

SteelTown · #38 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 9:29 PM**

There's that $650,000 laying around for that former Downtown Supermarket Incentive Program. Oh wait Blanchard suggested a grocery store hmmm.

flar · #39 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by durandy

I'm not sure it's all that bad a precedent. These are after all public goods people are forcing on private developers; doesn't seem so bad to me to use public money to preserve buildings that have public value. Given Blanchard's track record it would be pretty strange to see him pull the trigger here. Most likely he's just waiting for funds from the Gore revitalization fund, and I think fair enough.

I tend to agree with your argument about using public money. The problem with Lister is they way they went about it. It was esentially extortion, and LIUNA milked the city for everything they could get. The owner has to assume some responsibility for the public good as well. It is well established that there are obligations and restrictions associated with property ownership, you really can't just do whatever you want.

coalminecanary · #40 Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 10:51 PM**

Basic upkeep is a responsibility that the public should not be financially responsible for. Unless everyone wants to chip in to buy a roof for my house that is ;-)

We have facade grants for actual improvements and I'm all for expanding these sorts of "Carrot" programs. We just need to remove carrots for demolition and introduce sticks for poor property care of these commercial buildings.