I am glad for the designation, though share some degree of Chron's confusion about all of what it means. My amateur understanding is that what this simply means is any significant alteration that would require a demo permit or building permit will now also need to be accompanied by a heritage permit which effectively serves to give City heritage staff permission to bless any plans that protect the legitimate heritage features of the building while veto-ing plans that do not. Further clarification welcome.
I am glad on this week in particular because a friend just shared with me some pictures and stories from a trip they took around Europe. In very special cases like Rome and Athens, 2,000 year old buildings are preserved, but in routine, everyday cases, 400-800 year old buildings continue to grace cities all over the place. Not just the special, beautiful, important ones, but some everyday homes, shops and churches, etc. Stories of the past that foster a sense of belonging in people don't automatically get shared by old buildings, but these buildings offer a connection that grounds people to the past in a way that people in our society are emotionally and mentally sick from lacking (as various Indigenous leaders have been pointing out about westerners for a long time, or see Gabor Mate on "dislocation" for a western perspective example).
Part of our history is that in North America we have zero 400+ year old buildings to preserve, so the present generation is faced with decisions between preserving the 100+ year old ones like this, or continuing to recycle buildings after one or two generations (see Hamilton City Centre closed for demo 30 years after opening, the old Barton Centre Mall lasting one generation, or the near-decision to demolish Copps Coliseum after 40 years to replace it with a new arena, etc etc).
So I'm glad we can preserve Philpott's old building even if it isn't stunning simply because nobody builds buildings like this anymore, though I think it does have an aesthetic worth preserving on the two facades facing the intersection.
I'm not sure what the implications of the designation will have on the potential incorporation of the historic sanctuary vs the possibility of a facadectomy. On the one hand, I appreciate that the beautiful sanctuary is surrounded by hallways that mock modern accessibility standards and that doesn't lend itself to obvious economically viable purposes so it seems logical to bless a facadectomy that allows for both high-rises to still be built here. On the other hand, music folks in Hamilton keep saying we're desperate for music venues with capacity around 1,200 and so enhancing (rather than demolishing) space that fits the bill in the heart of the entertainment district seems like a no-brainer.
@Chronamut the 277M referenced is revenue (a woefully low estimate), not total net profit.
@TheHonestMaple Development can certainly proceed here. The designation may not even diminish the number of housing units built one bit, depending on how heritage staff end up feeling about the interior.
