jta5 said:
Part of our history is that in North America we have zero 400+ year old buildings to preserve
Click to expand...
Not to be nit-picky but this statement, thankfully is not entirely true. The Taos pueblo, which is the oldest continuously inhabited residence is 800+ years old, there are several ecclesiastical + governmental buildings IN San Juan, PR and Santa Fe, NM that were built in the earliest quarter of the 1600's. And then there are various 17th century dwellings up and down the East Coast of the US, and Canada. Those are definitely worth preserving.
 
Pulkvedis Pods said:
Not to be nit-picky but this statement, thankfully is not entirely true. The Taos pueblo, which is the oldest continuously inhabited residence is 800+ years old, there are several ecclesiastical + governmental buildings IN San Juan, PR and Santa Fe, NM that were built in the earliest quarter of the 1600's. And then there are various 17th century dwellings up and down the East Coast of the US, and Canada. Those are definitely worth preserving.
Click to expand...
It was so cool heading to Boston and going into structures built in the late 1600s and early 1700s. We visited the Paul Revere House in Boston which was built in 1680! 343 year old house. Salem also has a ton of really old homes and buildings.
 
Chris R. said:
It was so cool heading to Boston and going into structures built in the late 1600s and early 1700s. We visited the Paul Revere House in Boston which was built in 1680! 343 year old house. Salem also has a ton of really old homes and buildings.
Click to expand...
They were too busy burning people vs homes :p
 
Chronamut said:
They were too busy burning people vs homes :p
Click to expand...
I found it quite interesting that because Salem was so small the "grand" story of the Salem Witch Trials only saw 25 people killed. Which, while still not amazing as they were all innocent and witchcraft obviously doesn't exist. I was surprised it was so few though.
 
Chris R. said:
I found it quite interesting that because Salem was so small the "grand" story of the Salem Witch Trials only saw 25 people killed. Which, while still not amazing as they were all innocent and witchcraft obviously doesn't exist. I was surprised it was so few though.
Click to expand...
Well, we assume they were all innocent anyways...

do you know why they call gay people fag gots? Because they were considered witches apprentices (apparently so were left handed people) and they were thrown on the pyre of the burning witches, and thus burned like fag gots on a torch. It's one reason why that term is so insulting, because every time you use it it's like saying "I hope you burn in a fire"
 
This was designated today at Planning Committee. This means the heritage structure will be required to be retained. It is just the main heritage structure fronting Park St (yellow within the red property line). We will have to see the next move from the developer on this, see if they propose something else or decide to sit on it.
1000004391.png
 
Another own goal for the city in my opinion. They should be working with developers to make projects like this a success on both sides, not slapping a heritage designation on a dilapidated building last second, and making it financially unreasonable to move forward.
 
I believe landowners can appeal designations now from what I recall about the changes the PCs made to the heritage designation process. I imagine Empire will do that immediately here.
 
Totally warranted. The existing church is such a bad geometry for integrating into a condo building like this one. Not worth it here IMO.
 
TheHonestMaple said:
Totally warranted. The existing church is such a bad geometry for integrating into a condo building like this one. Not worth it here IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree. The designated portion of the property makes up like 15% of the property. They could easily use the North section of the lot for a tower and have a portion between the western edge and the heritage structure. They will still be able to fit a substantial amount of units here. They mentioned a cut in half, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
 
Sure, but they'll have to basically rehabilitate the existing church. It's completely debilitated, doesn't even have the original exterior brickwork and is probably a disaster structurally inside. No developer is going to want to touch that thing. Also, it hardly has the historical and heritage feel that say the Connoloy does. Sorry, but this is a total L for Hamilton trying to keep this thing alive. Other churches, like the one on Main Street West near Mac had far more heritage value, yet the developer there was allowed to demolish. Makes no sense.
 
TheHonestMaple said:
Sure, but they'll have to basically rehabilitate the existing church. It's completely debilitated, doesn't even have the original exterior brickwork and is probably a disaster structurally inside. No developer is going to want to touch that thing. Also, it hardly has the historical and heritage feel that say the Connoloy does. Sorry, but this is a total L for Hamilton trying to keep this thing alive. Other churches, like the one on Main Street West near Mac had far more heritage value, yet the developer there was allowed to demolish. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The building is structurally sound according to the heritage report. It also meets I believe 8 of the 9 heritage designation requirements. I don't recall what they are, but that is pretty rare to my understanding.
 
There is a ton of lot/space to work with here and with a healthy dose of density I could easily see them incorporating some portion into the design. We really need the development community to step up and make some quality developments that incorporate what little building history we have remaining in Hamilton. Don't suppose bonusing those developers that make the effort would be acceptable, but I think it would be a great dynamic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top