James Baptist Church sold

[ScreamingViking]

Hopefully it doesn't end up lining somebody's drainage ditch.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Lloyd could build an old time folly in his backyard for all I care. As long as those stone are reused. I just can't imagine them being smashed to bits in the demolition - seems like a terrible waste.

[CaptainKirk]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/44...storic-church/

The owner of James Street Baptist Church is now free to move ahead with tearing down about three-quarters of the 135-year-old Gothic Revival beauty.

A demolition permit was approved by city staff Thursday after conditions were fulfilled. At about the same time, the city's heritage committee voted to ask the developer to present detailed plans before making any moves toward demolition of the historically designated church.

Property owner Louie Santaguida plans to build a 25-storey, $80-million commercial and condo development, while preserving and integrating the stone entrance and tower along James Street South.

He presented studies to the city's heritage permit review committee showing much of the church is unstable and beyond repair. That committee approved the demolition request in October.

Alyssa Denham-Robinson, chair of the city's municipal heritage committee, says interactions between heritage members and Santaguida and his team have been nonadversarial.

"We have aimed to keep dialogue open. We want them to feel comfortable about coming to speak to us."

Efforts to reach Santaguida Thursday were unsuccessful. His office referred calls to a Toronto public relations firm, which did not return a call from The Spectator.

Councillor Jason Farr says he has urged the developer to tread carefully with public opinion.

"I've told him he needs to come forward with plans before the wrecking ball comes in. They need to show architectural plans and drawings."

Janice Brown, president of the Durand Neighbourhood Association, said the entire heritage protection process has been flawed because city staff deemed the demolition permit to be a minor alteration only. That meant it was reviewed by the permit review committee and then signed off on by a senior bureaucrat.

Brown says it should have been reviewed by the entire heritage committee and then city council. She said the public did not have proper input into the application and the developer should have been required to present a site plan before being given the clearance to demolish.

The neighbourhood group is asking council to reverse the demolition permit but she doesn't hold out much hope.

"I'm convinced this process has to change. It puts too much power in the hands of too few people … We have lots of designated buildings that need to be protected."

The heritage committee would like to see the former church's north façade preserved, along with the entrance and tower. Studies have shown that wall is not stable, but Denham-Robinson says it could be taken apart, catalogued and stored and then rebuilt in the new development.

Preliminary sketches have shown a glass façade through which the brick can be seen, says Denham-Robinson.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I'm not terribly pleased about the whole thing but unlike the Gore fiasco, at least there seems to be a plan and a time line in place for construction.

[Jon Dalton]

There's a house being renovated on my street and I got a notice about their plans to build a small porch on the back of their house. This had to go through the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance. The whole block got these notices with building plans and a date for a public hearing. Meanwhile a heritage building is getting a demolition permit with no public input. The city really seems to pick their battles.

[KDP]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

I'm not terribly pleased about the whole thing but unlike the Gore fiasco, at least there seems to be a plan and a time line in place for construction.

There does?

[CaptainKirk]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...onth-1.2187878

http://msarch.ca/posts/59-james-stre...al-development

[durandy]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...onth-1.2187878

http://msarch.ca/posts/59-james-stre...al-development

are these supposed to represent "the plan"? If that's all it takes I could solve Blanchard's problem in 10 minutes with sketch-up. Once his buildings are designated all he needs is a Drew Hauser in his pocket and a really shitty drawing and here's a demolition permit. What a total joke.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

It's my perception that the guys who own the church are eager to demolish and get cracking with this project. Maybe I'm wrong about that. We've certainly been fooled before.

[CaptainKirk]

Work will begin next week inside the former James Street Baptist Church to shore up historic elements that will be integrated into a new 30-storey tower.

In about three weeks, what developer Louie Santaguida of Stanton Renaissance calls a "physical dismantlement" of the rear three-quarters (15,370 square feet) of the church will begin.

A demolition permit for the building — which carries a heritage designation — was cleared by the city last week, and construction barriers were put around the property.

Santaguida said he's particularly concerned about the safety of the facade and roof facing Jackson Street. A portion of a window on that side recently fell out, for instance. Engineers he hired concluded sections of the church are structurally unsound.

"The church has been crumbling a slow death over the past number of years … We want to protect public safety."

Santaguida also says he will honour a request from the city's municipal heritage committee to come to its April 17 meeting to explain his development plans. A number of the committee's members expressed concerns at a recent meeting.

"It's hard enough to get a building designated in this city," said member Paul Wilson. "This building has been designated. It deserves special treatment. We have to look after it the very best we can. That's our job here."

A heritage permit review committee approved the demolition permit, which had been authorized by a senior staff member. However, the matter did not come before the full heritage committee or council.

"I think there is an impression that we aren't doing what we need to do, but the reality is we are going above and beyond," said Santaguida, whose development company has taken on several heritage projects in Toronto.

Anything that can be saved from the dismantled portion, Santaguida says, including stone and windows, will be preserved and stored with the goal of using it in the design of a glass-wrapped tower of condos, retail and offices. The stone entrance and bell tower facing James Street will be preserved in place.
By Meredith MacLeod

A final design on the estimated $80-million project is expected by summer.

"Our intention is to bring the exterior into the interior of the (new) building. How that is going to happen hasn't been finalized. I have lots of cool ideas that I hope we can bring to life."

If everything moves smoothly, construction could begin in the fall or early winter, he says.

He said he immediately fell in love with the 135-year-old Gothic church when he saw it. The church's congregation put it up for sale last summer over the costs of repairing the structure.

"The idea that a developer would knock the whole church down just threw me for a loop," said Santaguida.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/44...condo-project/

[matt602]

I'm usually a pretty big heritage advocate but in this case, I want this to just go ahead. Unlike another famous case in the downtown, this is a developer who does have the money, he has the plans and he IS going to construct what he's saying he will. It's a good quality design that's going to be great for the area, not just a knock em over and sit on it plan. I've also seen the interior of this building first hand shortly after it closed up. Even without being an engineer, I can tell that there's some serious issues with the structure. It's time to save what can be saved and move on.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by matt602

I'm usually a pretty big heritage advocate but in this case, I want this to just go ahead. Unlike another famous case in the downtown, this is a developer who does have the money, he has the plans and he IS going to construct what he's saying he will. It's a good quality design that's going to be great for the area, not just a knock em over and sit on it plan. I've also seen the interior of this building first hand shortly after it closed up. Even without being an engineer, I can tell that there's some serious issues with the structure. It's time to save what can be saved and move on.

Do you have any basis for a single thing you just wrote? Santaguida is a total unknown who has built nothing and ran an environmental company until two years ago when it went bankrupt. There's no design. We have no idea who's supplying the money. The entire basis for this 'structural instability' argument is that the mortar is crumbling. He has unsubmitted plans to develop a napkin sketch in a year. He bought a heritage building for a song because it's a heritage building that's supposed to be hard to demolish, and somehow managed to get a demolition permit!! And now people are calling him what they called David Blanchard in 1995 or what's his name Stinson in 2008. Holy moly.

[King&James]

I think there is a pretty short list of no nonsense, deeper pocket, non headline grabbing, developers in Hamilton. Would be great if we saw even more substantial mixed use development by them in these key pockets of downtown.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by durandy

The entire basis for this 'structural instability' argument is that the mortar is crumbling

That's kind of important for structural stability, no?

[durandy]

not always.

[masterwhite]

anyone know when the Demolition set to start?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

That's kind of important for structural stability, no?

The building does not have structural stability issues. Worshippers were using it routinely only a year ago. When the new owner talks about “structural instability,” it is misleading.

The truth is that this is a very old building which would be very costly to maintain properly. That is why the congregation could not afford to keep it, and that is the reason that the purchase price was what it was. A heritage building with huge deferred maintenance that must be done is obviously worth a lot less than a prime lot with a building on it that can be razed and redeveloped. The purchaser bought it from the congregation at a much-reduced price because they were under the impression (as other prospective buyers) that heritage designation meant something. The purchaser then turned around and claims it needs to be razed because of its condition- which would have been fully disclosed to him prior to the purchase.

And there is still no plan for redevelopment.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

The purchaser then turned around and claims it needs to be razed because of its condition- which would have been fully disclosed to him prior to the purchase.

It's quite possible that the Church group hadn't been able to afford a proper assessment and when the developper started checking things they realised the building was in much worse condition than was thought. Or the Church group's inspector just wasn't as good as the developer's. Not saying that it necessarily happened that way, but it is possible.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

The building does not have structural stability issues. Worshippers were using it routinely only a year ago. When the new owner talks about “structural instability,” it is misleading.

The truth is that this is a very old building which would be very costly to maintain properly. That is why the congregation could not afford to keep it, and that is the reason that the purchase price was what it was. A heritage building with huge deferred maintenance that must be done is obviously worth a lot less than a prime lot with a building on it that can be razed and redeveloped. The purchaser bought it from the congregation at a much-reduced price because they were under the impression (as other prospective buyers) that heritage designation meant something. The purchaser then turned around and claims it needs to be razed because of its condition- which would have been fully disclosed to him prior to the purchase.

And there is still no plan for redevelopment.

Last fall we chatted about the developer not doing his due diligence on building condition before he bought the property. I still don't understand why he failed to do that.

But I tend to place trust in what structural engineers have reported about the church. I just read through the report link that was posted earlier in this thread, and the structural instability is not just due to crumbling mortar. Stone has cracked, there are signs of movement, and in places the buttresses are separating from the walls. I'm not an engineer or an architect, but that seems like a serious set of problems to me.

I don't like the fact there is nothing more than a vague plan either, but I'm going to give the developer benefit of the doubt for now (much much more than Blanchard and his test of will vs. the city). I hope there is an attractive solution that provides the economic return for the developer while adding more life to downtown, and at least preserving part of the church and re-using materials from the sections that come down.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Last fall we chatted about the developer not doing his due diligence on building condition before he bought the property. I still don't understand why he failed to do that.

But I tend to place trust in what structural engineers have reported about the church. I just read through the report link that was posted earlier in this thread, and the structural instability is not just due to crumbling mortar. Stone has cracked, there are signs of movement, and in places the buttresses are separating from the walls. I'm not an engineer or an architect, but that seems like a serious set of problems to me.

I don't like the fact there is nothing more than a vague plan either, but I'm going to give the developer benefit of the doubt for now (much much more than Blanchard and his test of will vs. the city). I hope there is an attractive solution that provides the economic return for the developer while adding more life to downtown, and at least preserving part of the church and re-using materials from the sections that come down.

I just read through that report more fully, and agree with you about the stability issues. However, all problems can be corrected given enough resources, so this is only a question of how important we think our built heritage is. Nothing is impossible, only “not viable [with the money I’m willing to spend].” This is a 140-year-old church, the only example of a Protestant church designed by a prominent designer of catholic churches in the province, and the oldest Baptist Church in the city. It is a landmark in downtown, and is not replaceable. While it stands, it is possible to secure it so that it continues to be a landmark and continues to distinguish our downtown, even if that might be very expensive. Once it’s gone, it’s gone and all the money in the world can’t bring it back.

I guess my problems are the following:

1)The purchaser did not do his due diligence on the property. He purchased a church that, to the best of everyone’s knowledge at the time, had mortar issues with the north wall, which was sagging and whose repair was beyond the resources of the small congregation to repair. He purchased that church knowing that it was a heritage building. In most places, that means demolition is not an option, even when remediation is very costly. If “retaining and supporting the existing structure” was “not a viable option” at that time, and the City was going to allow demolition, the purchase price would have been very different. In a sense, the congregation will have paid for his wishy-washy diligence in this way, and the rest of us will pay for it through the loss of an important landmark.

2) This only would only be acceptable in the least if there was a solid plan in place. I’m of the mind that the municipal government should be accepting only a very detailed plan if it is being asked to allow destruction of a heritage building. A lot of people on this forum would understandably not be pleased with these vague sketches being proposed for a parking lot- in this case, it’s not possible to withhold judgment until we see the finished product, since the finished product means the destruction of something that is not replaceable. Given that, I think Hamiltonians deserve a very detailed plan of how this thing is going to add to the neighbourhood, and pay honour to the city’s architectural heritage. At least we should know what the building is actually going to look like.