HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton


Homewood Suites by Hilton Hamilton in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Hamilton Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 1:50 AM
Dundasguy Dundasguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
Update - Darko Vranich is paying less tax to Hamilton and earning more parking revenue to spend in Oakville. Our legal system has failed us.

The land needs to be expropriated. If there is no legal basis for that, a case needs to be made to the province using this and countless other precedents, for new legislation.

If a property in the core is vacant for 5 years, it should become the property of the city.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 2:02 AM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
I see Godwin's law hasn't failed us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
One way streets are more fascist than land expropriation. In Germany, there are to this day one-way walking signs in some parts. The reason? To maximize traffic flow. It sounds so ridiculous, but if you step back you'll realize how ridiculous one-way streets are too. I'm mentioning this because the boarded-up buildings are a result of one-way multiple-lane highway style traffic patterns that speed up traffic and decrease ability to attend to anything past the lane beside you. It often takes people several loops of going around one way streets to try to find a place to park! Limited street parking contributes to this. Its all the same issue, and fascism is a good analogy.

Last edited by adam; Mar 3, 2009 at 2:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 2:41 AM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Per Bob Bratina he expects construction to start this spring.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 3:13 AM
urban_planner urban_planner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
Per Bob Bratina he expects construction to start this spring.
oh when did you hear this or is he talking spring 2013 or something? Did you e-mail him to find this out?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 4:50 AM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dundasguy View Post
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!
Tough times call for tough meaures. What would you suggest, just letting it slide some more?
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 5:06 AM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is online now
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,911
Quote:
If a property in the core is vacant for 5 years, it should become the property of the city.
What the hell are you smokin'?


The guy at least does build some quality stuff when a makert is there for it. His One12 St Clair is pretty speculator given it involved incorporating a pre-cast 70s office block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 1:22 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacamano View Post
What the hell are you smokin'?


The guy at least does build some quality stuff when a makert is there for it. His One12 St Clair is pretty speculator given it involved incorporating a pre-cast 70s office block.
Freudian slip?
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 1:50 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_planner View Post
oh when did you hear this or is he talking spring 2013 or something? Did you e-mail him to find this out?
He PM'd me, on February 6, 2009. Here's a 'cut & paste' of his message.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina
HOWEVER, HE HAS APPLIED FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND I EXPECT A CONSTRUCTION START THIS SPRING.
Also, Bob informed me that this Hilton hotel could have been already built had the owner (I assume he was referring to Darko Vranich) not attempted to save part of the old HMP building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina
THE HILTON WAS HELD UP BY AN ATTEMPT BY THE OWNER TO SAVE PART OF THE OLD HMP BUILDING AS A HERITAGE STRUCTURE. MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT ON THAT INITIATIVE, AND SEVERAL MONTHS LOST. IN THE MEANTIME HE BUILT AND OPENED TWO NEW HOTELS IN SUDBURY, AND HAS ONE UNDERWAY IN NORTH BAY.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 3:59 PM
Dundasguy Dundasguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
Tough times call for tough meaures. What would you suggest, just letting it slide some more?
Although a time honored and much loved method of Hamilton city hall staff and politicians, Intimidation and threats don't help matters very much, especially with a guy like Darko. He has the staying power (money) and is holding all the cards. I'm not saying you have to like the guy or approve of the way he conducts business, but you have to realize that he is in control.

The city should make an effort to work something out via a joint venture or finding him a parner like he is doing at 112 St. Clair, they could also work out a special loan deal, etc. With things the way they are right now, it is a perfect time to start planning out for the next 3-5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 4:27 PM
crhayes crhayes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Hammer, Ontario
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Freudian slip?
LOL!


It would be nice to see this project start within the next 6 months!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 5:15 PM
urban_planner urban_planner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 794
man I hope Bob is right on this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 5:17 PM
matt602's Avatar
matt602 matt602 is offline
Hammer'd
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamilton, ON
Posts: 4,751
Seconded. I wish Darko had more publically spoken of his efforts to try and save part of the HMP building. It would have changed my opinion of him quite substantially. Even still, I hold against him the operation of an illegal parking lot on the site, regardless of his troubles getting the Hilton project off the ground. Illegal is illegal. He should be trying to set a positive standard here if he doesn't want the negative criticism.
__________________
"Above all, Hamilton must learn to think like a city, not a suburban hybrid where residents drive everywhere. What makes Hamilton interesting is the fact it's a city. The sprawl that surrounds it, which can be found all over North America, is running out of time."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 6:04 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dundasguy View Post
Although a time honored and much loved method of Hamilton city hall staff and politicians, Intimidation and threats don't help matters very much, especially with a guy like Darko.
Not threats and intimidation, but a policy that everyone knows about prior to buying and makes their business decisions accordingly. Downtown can't be the playground of out of town speculators and currently there is little to prevent it.
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 6:08 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
I didn't realize that plans had changed for the construction of this building; if so I wouldn't have felt the need to bring up the parking lot / tax issue again.
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 7:58 PM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
I would echo the feelings of many on how these individuals operate - I also understand that a big part of the problem is that the Vranichs own so many properties and can only do so much at once... which is detrimental to all the properties that sit vacant. They can also afford to leave something an illegal parking lot for years and go ahead with whatever opportunity in whatever location can get done at the moment with the biggest paycheck.

This is why we're not seeing any movement on certain properties at all because they're waiting for other things to get into place -- they own too many properties to make sure that anything is done in a timely manner. They will come out ahead in the end from owning so many properties, but it's not good for the city to have so many properties owned by the same people and have them move so slowly.

I can understand that at least they're doing something as opposed to owners who do absolutely nothing with every property they own - some of the projects that did get done, like those houses turned into commercial on the south-east corner of Queen/Main, are good inside and out - and the full brick restoration on the easternmost building impressed me quite a bit. Unfortunately, it will be years until anything is done on the majority of properties they own, and it will be all based on what's most profitable at the time.

For example, I heard one rumour that the derelict apartment building on King they own will get turned into the planned movie theatre, but they're basing that on a revenue stream from the Dundurn Lofts project (a property they now own) getting off the ground first and providing the money to do the next thing. I'm very skeptical on ever seeing those lofts get anywhere, but if there's an impetus to get that project done in order to enable a more profitable one like that movie theatre property, perhaps it will happen... one day - just as if the hotel project is now profitable it may have the go-ahead this year too.

On one hand, I understand that, as a businessperson, you have to put profit first and they have no greater obligation to better the city. If that's their character, that's their character. On the other hand, the city suffers from it, and (especially when it's an illegal use of property), that shouldn't be acceptable or tolerated. What the solution is there... who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
... a policy that everyone knows about prior to buying and makes their business decisions accordingly. Downtown can't be the playground of out of town speculators and currently there is little to prevent it.
I couldn't agree more. It likely couldn't be retroactive, but there should be something in place. I'm sure there's examples of other municipalities that have taken measures/put in policies that we could go from.

Last edited by emge; Mar 3, 2009 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 8:55 PM
paleale2 paleale2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Brantford Expropriation

Six-Five
Posted By MICHAEL-ALLAN MARION, EXPOSITOR STAFF
Updated 6 hours ago


A bare majority of city councillors has swung behind a controversial move to expropriate a stretch of 41 mostly dilapidated properties on the south side of downtown Colborne Street to clear a logjam blocking redevelopment projects.

Council voted 6-5 after an hourlong debate Monday to push through all three readings of a bylaw directing the city solicitor and other staff to begin expropriation proceedings on a stretch running from a vacant property at 23 Colborne and Icomm Drive all the way to 151 Colborne, just before Laurier Brantford's Grand River Hall, along with two properties on Water Street.

The value of all the properties is estimated at $11.5 million, but could eventually cost the city about $16 million, according to a proposed financing schedule.

Supporting the bylaw were Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors Mark Littell, Jennifer Kinneman, Richard Carpenter, John Bradford and Marguerite Ceschi-Smith.

In opposition were councillors John Sless, Vince Bucci, Greg Martin, Dan McCreary and James Calnan.

"I am happy a majority has supported this important step," Littell, who spearheaded the move as chairman of the South Side of Colborne Task Force, said after the meeting.

"We have invested $20 million in the downtown (in the past few years) and seen a lot of benefit from it. But the job must be finished. We've waited for the private sector. It hasn't happened, so we must step in and show leadership."

Several councillors recounted their frustrations over the city's lack of progress in revitalizing the south side of Colborne, which council had made a top priority this term.

Even though Laurier Brantford, Nipissing University, Mohawk College and the YMCA have all expressed an interest in building along Colborne, councillors expressed concern over the apparent inability of businessman Jack Lechcier- Kimel of Toronto-based Summit Glen Developments to carry forward projects on properties owned by Steve Kun, which he had tied up through conditional purchases and options.

They decided it was time to move when Lechcier-Kimel failed to meet some deadlines and the options expired.

"It became clear to me that we could still be sitting here two years from now and the south side of Colborne would still be the same," Hancock told council.

Continued After Advertisement Below

Advertisement
Bang for your Buck

Sless and Bucci argued the process could take longer and be more expensive if some of the owners choose to fight the expropriation in the hope of getting a higher price for their properties.

Under questioning, city solicitor Larry Tansley said that usually transactions that begin as expropriation proceedings end up in consensus agreements.

"We've been debating this over and over for 20 years," said Ceschi-Smith. "We're finally in a position where there is the political will to move forward. I'm confident that we will have developers ready as soon as we have the properties assembled."

McCreary failed in a bid to get a deferral for more information on the properties.

"I'm not in favour of going over the cliff one buffalo at a time," he said. "I just don't have faith this process will work," he said.

In the corridors later, many of the supporters said they were certain a proposal by the Y to build a sports and recreation facility that would also serve Laurier students would move forward.

- - -

South side of Colborne

City councillors voted 6-5 Monday night to begin expropriation of 41 properties along the south side of downtown Colborne Street.

In favour:

Mayor Mike Hancock Coun. John Bradford Coun. Richard Carpenter Coun. Marguerite Ceschi-Smith Coun. Jennifer Kinneman Coun. Mark Littell

Opposed:

Coun. Vince Bucci Coun. James Calnan Coun. Greg Martin Coun. Dan McCreary Coun. John Sless
Article ID# 1459009
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 10:25 PM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
Is Dundasguy one of the Vranichs??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 11:38 PM
Dundasguy Dundasguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam View Post
Is Dundasguy one of the Vranichs??
I really love these comments from some of the guys here.

To answer your question, YES, Darko, LIUNA, Harry Stinson and even Jesus Christ are all on this board to torment your collectivist conscience.

Buddy, get a life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 12:16 AM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Don't know about Darko, but LIUNA and Stinson watch this site for sure. And Jesus watches EVERYBODY!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.