7 Queen St N + 354 King St W | 77.2 & 41.7 m | 12 & 25 fl | Under Construction

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I am trying to understand how people see this building as historically significant. In what context?...

The context is not historical. It's present-day. I think the building itself is less important than the boiling over of frustration that people are feeling, when a developer basically does whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Meantime, small businesses are constantly harassed by the City for the smallest infractions, or have endless red-tape thrown in their path.

[markbarbera]

I am having a hard time following your thought process here. Are you now saying that the building's historical significance is not an issue? I thought you had claimed earlier in this thread.

If your issue is with the demolition approval being done without council noticing, then it seems to me that your issue is not really with the developer, but with the city staff who approved the demolition, as well as the councillor's staff who were obviously unfocused on what was transpiring within this ward during the run-up to last month's election.

[movingtohamilton]

There are many dimensions to this issue, and apologies if my thoughts aren't perfectly formed! There is historical context of course, but there is the issue of a developer who seems to have significant power in this city, and so on.

We can argue all day long about the importance of this particular building, but the overarching factor, in my opinion, is Hamilton's chronic state of being one step behind.

People (at least those opinions I read on social media) are completely frustrated by things like this sneak attack on a property post-election, and the outsize power of developers. A building gets knocked down on Jackson, the developer briefly (?) had an illegal parking lot on the property. What is being built on it? I'm sure you could add to the list.

Just my $0.02

[markbarbera]

I think you are confusing developers. Vranich is the developer that wants to demolish this building. He is not the same developer that demolished the office building on Jackson Street. He is the developer that is restoring and intensifying 150 Main West, and is building a 28-storey condominium tower next to it. He also just finished building the Homewood Suites and Staybridge Suites hotels. That's four new downtown developments in the past two years, all of which have added significantly to the city's tax base. From what I understand, he has plans for another hotel for this site. IMO we should be cheering on such developments.

[davidcappi]

I'm not super sad about losing it :/ One one hand, yeah, its an old building, but I feel like there are more effective uses of the land.

[Beedok]

Even if the new structure is no bigger than the old one if it's built close to the sidewalk that on it's own would be an improvement.

[king10]

Vranich has added numerous towers and tax dollars to our downtown in the past couple of years. Even his son has jumped on board and finished the renovation of the rental on king and Hess. I think the harping on him is unwarranted. He has delivered on his promises and doesn't buy land just to have it sit empty.

Be careful what you wish for. He could take all his money and pack up and leave for another city. Then we would be left with all the old decaying buildings that our hearts desire.

Also not every old building is historic. It seems every time a building is demolished there is an uproar. Is this going to be the case 50 years from now with buildings being built today? Not everything old is worth saving. Change is a good thing. We still have numerous amounts of century old buildings that have been reserved and can be preserved.

[movingtohamilton]

No Markbarbera, I'm not mixing up developers. I'm well aware that the Gore properties is not Vranich.

[movingtohamilton]

King10, I understand your sentiments but for every Vranich that might leave there are many more to take his place. Like all smart entrepreneurs he's in business to make money. Period.

[Beedok]

We also don't know for sure this came easily. There could have been months of hard wrung backroom deals.

[durandy]

I never understand it when people claim there is no development plan. As though developers have some obligation to share their plans with the public. Maybe there should be some obligation that developers file a plan before applying for demolition, though I wonder if soil testing is behind it, not to mention given recent history the risk of a surprise designation motion. I'd rather see a more robust demolition control bylaw and removal of the property tax break for vacant land than more obstacles in the way of development.

[movingtohamilton]

Beedok, we're supposed to be in the era of transparency, not the corrupt behind-closed-doors bad old days. Hamilton, wake up! It's 2014 not 1954.

[king10]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

King10, I understand your sentiments but for every Vranich that might leave there are many more to take his place. Like all smart entrepreneurs he's in business to make money. Period.

Im not sure there are develoeprs w Vranich'z pocket book lining up to build in Hamilton. How many developers do you know will build 20 story buildings before pre sales even begin. Do You think ppl are lining up to replace vranich as a major developer in Hamilton? I personally dont or theyd be here already.

Why do they have to replace VRanich, can they not co exist and both be developers in the city.

[king10]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

Beedok, we're supposed to be in the era of transparency, not the corrupt behind-closed-doors bad old days. Hamilton, wake up! It's 2014 not 1954.

Transparency when it comes to public dollars being spent. Private developers arent obligated to make public their development plans. This isnt communist Russia.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

Beedok, we're supposed to be in the era of transparency, not the corrupt behind-closed-doors bad old days. Hamilton, wake up! It's 2014 not 1954.

Why does something like that need to be public? If it were a heritage building sure. As just an average (if sort of old) building it doesn't seem worthy of wasting the time of the people in charge of keeping the public informed. Should we inform the public of everything? Swamp them with applications to build gazebos and replace fences so that the important points about heritage buildings and monuments are drowned out by irrelevant info? Keep the public information to things that affect the public both to save tax dollars and the time of activists.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by king10

Transparency when it comes to public dollars being spent. Private developers arent obligated to make public their development plans. This isnt communist Russia.

You really believe what you wrote? In Toronto, when a developer plans to knock down a building, there are notices posted on the existing building: developer name; number of stories planned; etc.

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by durandy

I never understand it when people claim there is no development plan. As though developers have some obligation to share their plans with the public...

In many cities, developers must "share their plans with the public". They certainly do in Toronto, which has had explosive growth in residential and commercial construction. Why this need for secrecy in Hamilton?

[movingtohamilton]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Why does something like that need to be public? If it were a heritage building sure. As just an average (if sort of old) building it doesn't seem worthy of wasting the time of the people in charge of keeping the public informed. Should we inform the public of everything? Swamp them with applications to build gazebos and replace fences so that the important points about heritage buildings and monuments are drowned out by irrelevant info?...

You're kidding, right? Why bother keeping the public informed?

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

You really believe what you wrote? In Toronto, when a developer plans to knock down a building, there are notices posted on the existing building: developer name; number of stories planned; etc.

The City of Toronto does not require a notice of demolition to be posted. They are only required to post notices of zoning amendments for redevelopments, just like here.

[movingtohamilton]

You're correct, on a strict interpretation. The notice posted typically describes that a "building of X stories is proposed to be constructed on this site". Pretty much guarantees that the existing building is coming down, in whole or in part (like saving the facade).