They would likely need to do an archaelogical study anyways, which would determine if the project can go ahead, that's pretty standard stuff. But opposing it based on being in proximity itself is just silly.
 
BrenWilson said:
They would likely need to do an archaelogical study anyways, which would determine if the project can go ahead, that's pretty standard stuff. But opposing it based on being in proximity itself is just silly.
Click to expand...
Yeah so this may be dead in the water before it even gets built because of that.

And I dunno if it's silly, I am sure projects have been shot down for less. Personally my concern isn't so much its being built there, but that it looks very cheap - like if you had a style of it that attempted to match the surroundings instead of being modern/minimalist/brutalist even maybe I'd feel better about it. But it's just a huge slab that's always going to stick out. Give it some ancaster treatment - make it look like it fits better. It's such a prominent spot - it deserves a nicer design that maybe even pays homage to the surrounding area. I get the feeling this is just gonna be all precast slabs like the blue brick colored one in the west end closer to the cathedral of christ the king..

I get we have a housing crisis, but it doesn't mean we have to commie block everyone in like sardines just to accommodate them. I mean look at the retirement residence they just built up the block from this - it's beautiful - same with the one in downtown stoney creek - take cues from those. Downtown stoney creek is a very "homey village" type feeling.
 
Last edited:
Chronamut said:
In this case it means the most historically significant area of our ENTIRE city. Heck possibly even our entire province. Hence why battlefield house still exists in almost the exact same condition it did over 200 years ago. That plot of land is frozen in time, and will be for all eternity, because of its significance of the fact we are not american in its role in the war of 1812, and the fact reenactments are routinely done there to allow us to never forget that.

In this case frozen as is is what exactly IS wanted - but ONLY for this immediate area because of its historical significance. It's one reason when the doctors office across the street a ways down from this house was torn down nothing was allowed to be rebuilt on it because they found soldiers bodies as they dug down from that war. It's entirely possible they may also find soldiers bodies in THIS plot when they start digging, especially considering there is a cemetery RIGHT beside it. Finding bodies and linking them to that war would immediately cancel any sort of build on the plot, possibly any at all like with the doctors office. This plot may never be able to be built on in that way as a result - everything else built on it was purely surface, not dug down deep. We don't exhume and move bodies anymore to my knowledge to build things (amityville house anyone?) - imagine knowing that bodies were removed and you being superstitious of desecrating soldiers land, ghosts etc. As you can see below - the battlefield (or at least the reenacted, whether it was precisely fought there is probably a matter of debate) was RIGHT beside this plot, the plot in question being to the right and off the image on the right of the highway.


hamiltoncivicmuseums-reenactment-site-map.jpg


I wouldn't have issues with this built anywhere else (well aside from my usual "blockitecture gripes lol) - I just have issues with it being built right across from battlefield house. That's all.

And yes I get it there is a gas station kiddie corner and small apartment buildings across from the house, but this would significantly detract from the historical significance of this plot as as I have said before the tower in the back of battlefield house was meant to be a memorial for the fallen soldiers and meant to be something nothing immediately around it was higher than. But I guess we'll see where progress takes us on this one.
Click to expand...
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't battlefield house actually moved there after the fact? it was originally across the street and further east i believe.

also I understand the monument but i'm not sure where you're getting the whole "it's meant to be the highest thing in the area". where does that come from?
 
Chronamut said:
In this case it means the most historically significant area of our ENTIRE city. Heck possibly even our entire province. Hence why battlefield house still exists in almost the exact same condition it did over 200 years ago. That plot of land is frozen in time, and will be for all eternity, because of its significance of the fact we are not american in its role in the war of 1812, and the fact reenactments are routinely done there to allow us to never forget that.

In this case frozen as is is what exactly IS wanted - but ONLY for this immediate area because of its historical significance. It's one reason when the doctors office across the street a ways down from this house was torn down nothing was allowed to be rebuilt on it because they found soldiers bodies as they dug down from that war. It's entirely possible they may also find soldiers bodies in THIS plot when they start digging, especially considering there is a cemetery RIGHT beside it. Finding bodies and linking them to that war would immediately cancel any sort of build on the plot, possibly any at all like with the doctors office. This plot may never be able to be built on in that way as a result - everything else built on it was purely surface, not dug down deep. We don't exhume and move bodies anymore to my knowledge to build things (amityville house anyone?) - imagine knowing that bodies were removed and you being superstitious of desecrating soldiers land, ghosts etc. As you can see below - the battlefield (or at least the reenacted, whether it was precisely fought there is probably a matter of debate) was RIGHT beside this plot, the plot in question being to the right and off the image on the right of the highway.


hamiltoncivicmuseums-reenactment-site-map.jpg


I wouldn't have issues with this built anywhere else (well aside from my usual "blockitecture gripes lol) - I just have issues with it being built right across from battlefield house. That's all.

And yes I get it there is a gas station kiddie corner and small apartment buildings across from the house, but this would significantly detract from the historical significance of this plot as as I have said before the tower in the back of battlefield house was meant to be a memorial for the fallen soldiers and meant to be something nothing immediately around it was higher than. But I guess we'll see where progress takes us on this one.
Click to expand...
To be fair Fort York (established 3 years before Battlefield House, the Battle of York also happening 2 months before the Battle of Stoney Creek although with a less favourable result for the British) in Toronto is surrounded by a highway, train tracks and dozens of massive condo buildings and I don't believe it has impacted its ability to preserve and highlight the historical events that happened on that land.
 
UrbanOzz said:
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't battlefield house actually moved there after the fact? it was originally across the street and further east i believe.

also I understand the monument but i'm not sure where you're getting the whole "its' meant to be the highest thing in the area". where does that come from?
Click to expand...

yea, this isn't the original location of Battlefield House.

"The two-storey Georgian-style dwelling was completed in 1880 and was remodelled by five successive generations of the Nash family. In 1999, it was relocated to Battlefield Park and today houses a gift shop, exhibit gallery, and unique public rental space."

also, it doesn't seem to state that Battlefield Monument is supposed to be the tallest structure in the area. What it does say though is that it's supposed to provide a lookout to Battlefield Park. This development doesn't impede that. https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=8165&pid=0

someone above referenced Fort York and i think that's a great example of a historically important large area that is still great and respected today while being bordered by tall deveopment.
 
This development won't do anything to take away from Battlefield Park - in the same way all around it there's Highway 20, a 6 story apartment building, 3 story apartment building, gas station, a convenience store and homes isn't taking anything away from it. Hell, in about 2009 there were 2 homes (one might have been a Battlefield admin office) right at the front corner. If these are acceptable, then a condo across Highway 20 should be too. The Battlefield area is well marked off and isolated that there's it's not going to get overpowered by anything.

And the view of the tower will only get blocked by the condo for a very small stretch on King. As it currently is, there are already trees and buildings blocking the view. It's not that easy to see - and what you do see is a small portion of the top. I like down the street from there (literally a 12 minute walk to Battlefield) and I rarely see the tower.
 
UrbanOzz said:
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't battlefield house actually moved there after the fact? it was originally across the street and further east i believe.

also I understand the monument but i'm not sure where you're getting the whole "it's meant to be the highest thing in the area". where does that come from?
Click to expand...
Hmm yeah you may actually be right.. I was thinking it was the other house on the property that was moved.. but I think it was too. This begs the question of whether the fight was even done near this area. It would explain why the doctors office had solder bodies though as that location was indeed across the street and further to the east.. still, the battle most likely took place over a large area of land.. so architectural studies will still need to be done regardless, that and as I said the fact there is a cemetery just west of this plot means there may be spillover as well.

"Grandview (Nash-Jackson House) is a two-storey Georgian-style dwelling completed in 1880 and relocated to Battlefield Park in 1999. It is the starting point of a visit to the site and houses a gift shop, exhibit gallery, and unique public rental space."

I seem to recall being told as a kid that - mind you it'd be impossible to find the specific reference now but I know originally the goal was to be able to go to the top of the tower so that you could view the entire battlefield - you can read more about it here: https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=8165&pid=0

It was meant to be "prominent" on the landscape which is why it was built up so much.

The Battlefield Monument was constructed in the early part of the 20th century as a memorial to the soldiers that died fighting in the Battle of Stoney Creek in 1813.

The Monument was designed by a local architectural firm called F.J. Rastrick and Sons and the design was chosen to resemble the early 19th century Nelson Monument which still stands today in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Monument measures 100 feet tall, symbolizing the one hundredth Anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek on the date it was unveiled, June 6, 1913. This height also recognizes the one hundred years of peace between the United States and Canada which followed the War of 1812.

As with the preservation of the Gage House, it is Sara Calder whom we should credit for the construction of the Monument.

The Wentworth Historical Society, of which Sara was a member, had, since its inception in 1889, had the goal and intention to erect a monument to commemorate the Battle of Stoney Creek. In 1894, two offers for land for a monument presented themselves: the Gage farmhouse, four acres of surrounding land and 40 square feet of hilltop, including a roadway , for $1,900. Or a plot of land 42 by 60 feet located at Smith's Knoll on the north side of the road for $50. The men on the committee appointed to report on the matter recommended the second choice. Sara objected strongly; she held a belief "that towers and statues were the most appropriate memorials because a direct, visual impact stimulated patriotism and imperialism".
Therefore, situating a monument devoted to the commemoration of the Battle of Stoney Creek on a elevated piece of land such as was to the south of the Gage house would have an even greater prominence.

In 1899, Sara broke away from the Wentworth Historical Society, forming her own group, the Women's Wentworth Historical Society. The W.W.H.S. went on to purchase the Gage property and were determined to have their monument built.

Basically they put it there because they were determined for it to be seen from all angles. They wanted it to be prominent.

If nothing else this has caused everyone to learn a lot more about the tower and battlefield house hehe..
 
Last edited:
UrbanOzz said:
yea, this isn't the original location of Battlefield House.

"The two-storey Georgian-style dwelling was completed in 1880 and was remodelled by five successive generations of the Nash family. In 1999, it was relocated to Battlefield Park and today houses a gift shop, exhibit gallery, and unique public rental space."
Click to expand...

There are two houses in Battlefield Park. Battlefield House (The Gage House) and Grandview (The Nash-Jackson House). Battlefield House sits at its original location.

Grandview was the one that was relocated in 1999. It used to be located on the northeast corner of King St E and Nash Rd S, the current site of the Arbor Creek Care Centre.
 
thomax said:
There are two houses in Battlefield Park. Battlefield House (The Gage House) and Grandview (The Nash-Jackson House). Battlefield House sits at its original location.

Grandview was the one that was relocated in 1999. It used to be located on the northeast corner of King St E and Nash Rd S, the current site of the Arbor Creek Care Centre.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought... but history can be hard to remember all of over time.. I love where it's been relocated.. feels cozy.
 
Thaaank you! Matched my sentiments - I know my view will be unpopular but I don't care.

Also I told you that cemetery was gonna be an issue. I also knew the lack of character to match battlefield house was gonna be an issue. There are lots of reenactments that go on there and seeing pics with modern buildings in the bg with it would probably look very weird.

That and I just generally hated the design - it was bland. I also hate the counter-argument that we need more people so we should build whatever crap is proposed. No.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top