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

[Drybrain]

I usually post over in the Halifax section, but I heard about this and thought I'd add my voice to the indignant chorus. Don't get too down on Hamilton over it, though—there are developers and negligent property owners doings similarly stupid stuff up the 401 in Toronto (though there are some great developers there as well, who see the value of renovated heritage mingling with new construction), and out in Halifax, we've got a fair number of developers proposing to tear down the dwindling stock of solid old buildings and replace them with mediocrities, despite an abundance of buildable parking lots, etc. Hamilton's not alone in this foolishness, if that's any consolation.

Following heritage issues the last little while has made me aware how shockingly poor Canadian cities STILL are with city planning, in general. Even if these buildings were ugly, non-descript, with no heritage value, a property owner shouldn't be allowed to tear down non-condemned structures without an approved and imminent construction plan in place. Especially in a high-profiel location like this. You could end up with a vacant lot across from Gore Park for who knows how many years. Ridiculous.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^A couple of the buildings slated for demolition were designed by William Thomas who has a strong connection to Halifax having rebuilt most of Granville Street (circa 1859).

He's responsible for bestowing Hamilton with so many of its beautiful limestone buildings from St Paul's and the MacNab Street Church to Inglewood and the Manse at Park and Herkimer. Add to that list St Lawrence Hall, the Don Jail, Quebec's Custom House, Halifax Court House, and on and on and on.

His buildings shaped Eastern Canada and need to be recognized and preserved, not razed in favour of a parking garage/condo proposal by somebody looking to make a quick buck.

Here's just a sample of Thomas' work in Hamilton (courtesy of Flar - who else?)

St Paul's and the Manse



MacNab Street Presbyterian


Inglewood


Ballinahinch


South side of King (building at right)

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Here's a link to some very old photos of the buildings slated for demolition. There are also some interesting historical tidbits as well. http://henleyshamilton1.wordpress.com/

[LikeHamilton]

Poll in todays Spec

Poll

Heritage advocates are calling on both municipal and provincial representatives to halt the issuing of demolition permits for a stretch of Gore Park properties. Development firm Wilson and Blanchard applied for a demolition permit in December for a stretch of properties on the south side of Gore Park, between James and Hughson. Tentative plans for the site include a two-storey grocery store, an office tower and hundreds of parking spots. Heritage advocates want the buildings designated of historical interest to prevent demolition. Developers say the buildings are in poor condition and not candidates for restoration. What do you think? Read the story http://tinyurl.com/a2tlvy5 and take our poll.

The results as of around 10am today.

The buildings need to be preserved. 38% (224)

The developer owns the buildings and knows best. New development trumps preservation. 61% (360)

http://www.thespec.com/

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That 38% is much better than I could have imagined. If the numbers were flipped, I'd be nervous because my views always find me in the minority in Hamilton: that's how I know I'm in the right. It's just a geriatric rag anyway. I don't put much stock in it.

[durandy]

if the Spec made a poll asking whether all rapists should be castrated, I suspect you'd get similar numbers in favour. People generally are pretty stupid.

[palace1]

I'm not a polling expert but I would think objective polls should have a simple Yes/No answer or a numerical rating (i.e. 1 to 10)?

Why is the demolition option worded as two sentences "The developer owns the buildings and knows best. New development trumps preservation."

Seems like a loaded question considering there is no new development proposal or financing. Many buildings have been torn down for supposed future development but have remained empty, for example just on James St, Royal Bank, Robinson's, Zeller's, James St S beside Landed Banking & Loan.

The poll should be worded more like "Do you support the eviction of tax-paying businesses and the demolition of four Gore Park facing 130-170 year old buildings without a clear plan to replace them? Yes ? No ?"

[thomax]

"This petition services notice to Hamilton City Council that an emergency Council meeting should be held to designate 18-28 King Street East, Hamilton Ontario as historically significant under the Municipal Heritage Act."

> Sign the petition <

[drpgq]

I'm a little confused about one issue. Architect David Premi currently has offices in one of these buildings (I think). Is he part of Blanchard's proposal thingy or what?

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by drpgq

I'm a little confused about one issue. Architect David Premi currently has offices in one of these buildings (I think). Is he part of Blanchard's proposal thingy or what?

Yes

[movingtohamilton]

The issue is covered by the Globe and Mail today.

http://bit.ly/TQIv1J

[thomax]

Originally Posted by movingtohamilton

The issue is covered by the Globe and Mail today.

http://bit.ly/TQIv1J

Great article, they really focused on all the negatives of tearing the buildings down and didn't just keep repeating that they're old and could be replaced by something better. I like the comments on the article to. It is amazing reading the comments from the local news articles on the story and then reading the comments from a national news article on the story. With the local news articles everyone comments "Get rid of them, they're old, we need renewal" because that is all Hamiltonians know what to do when it comes to city renewal, and then you read the comments from people across Canada on the national news article about the story and everyone comments "It would be horrible to tear them down, history is what makes cities great, renewal projects like this never worked in the past for Hamilton, history needs to be incorporated into a renewal project like this to make it work". It made me happy to see that other people out there can see how wrong this is. Hamiltonians are Hamilton's worst enemy.

[markbarbera]

It would be nice if one of these articles would place a bit of context regarding Blanchard's development history. He certainly isnt a raze-and-leave-it kind of developer as some are trying to paint him. In fact he has an extensive portfolio of historic restoration downtown, like the Pigott Building/Sun Life Building condo conversions on James, the Bank of Montreal building at Main and James, and the Landed Building on the opposite corner.

This is a man who obviously does not shy away from restorations without good reason. If he says these buildings are beyond restoration, I would tend to believe him based on his record.

Don't get me wrong, I am disappointed to see these buidings go. I am still holding out hope that ther facades can be saved and incorporated into the new building's facade, much like Liuna is doing with the Thomas Building.

[bigguy1231]

They did mention in the article that he was responsible for the restoration of some historical buildings in the downtown.

[Pigeon]

.

[durandy]

Not everyone's demanding they be restored. I think 90% of people would be happy for the facades to be preserved.

[Pigeon]

.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Pigeon

If Blanchard is such a restoration buff, why doesn't he know how to maintain a building?

Another reactive project for the city.

The upper floors of these buildings were in rough shape long before he bought them. From the sounds of it they bought them with the idea of demolishing them, knowing they were beyond reasonable repair.

[Pigeon]

.

[flar]

I'm personally horrified that these buildings are considered not worth saving, but it's not really productive to just hate on Blanchard. I think argument that he has a record of perserving "heritage" buildings is interesting.

The buildings he has "saved" are all iconic buildings, I think these days unquestionably accepted as buildings worth saving. This is a significant change in public opinion, considering just a few decades ago lots of amazing buildings like these were town down.

The Gore Park buildings are different, they're just a row of old buildings to most people. They've never really looked at them because the fronts are all covered with cheap veneers and signage. Of course the charm of these buildings is as much the form the buildings make together than any of aspect of the buildings individually. This type of building is not the same kind of thing as the Landed Bank or Pigott building, which were made to be impressive and stand on their own.

Blanchard has a certain idea of what a "heritage" building is and his view is probably closer to the majority view. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people that place a high value on buildings like in Gore Park. People witht he latter view are plentiful enough that something like this is now preserved in many--I would say nowadays most--cities. It's too bad Hamilton is behind the times again.