TheHonestMaple
Active Member
The facade isn't even original. It was installed sometime in 1970s.
Hamilton 84 York Boulevard | ?m | 30s | Empire | Rafael + Bigauskas
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Chronamut
Active Member
It's actually quite beautiful inside and the interior is pristine. I posted images of the interior either here or on the other site. I suggest you look at them, or just google the interior.
I agree with chris and kingjames - you can always rebrick the exterior - it's not that big a deal. We should be preserving what little heritage we have left along this strip.
I think you're in the minority here TheHonestMaple - as was said before an old heritage building doesn't always have to be the taj mahal to be preserved - sometimes it's the history and cultural significance behind it - and this one does have a story - I encourage you to read up on it too.
Here are some images:
here's it what it would look likecleaned up with the 1970s look:
and how it looked originally:
I personally think it originally looked quite nice.
Last edited:
FF407
New Member
I'm with The Honest Maple. I don't see the heritage value here. I've been inside. In nothing that impressive. I'm generally for preserving heritage, I know we've lost a lot of stunning, old buildings I don't feel like is fits in that group.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
I take more issue with the fact that the city just slaps a heritage designation on it last second, and makes no effort to work with the developer. Robbing the citizens of Hamilton of a development that will contribute to the tax base, support the local businesses on James Street, and just generally make a more lively downtown. By designating this building heritage in the way they've done, we'll just be left with a crumbling old church for years to come that has little heritage value and is really just used as a place for vagrants to camp out on the front steps.
This building is not like The St. James baptist Church (site of the Connolly), which had far far more heritage value and was allowed to be mostly demolished and left abandoned for years now.
This building is not like The St. James baptist Church (site of the Connolly), which had far far more heritage value and was allowed to be mostly demolished and left abandoned for years now.
Hawrylyshyn
New Member
If it truly had heritage value, wouldn't it have been designated years ago and not right when a developer wanted to build a significant amount of housing?
Agree with above statements -- fully support heritage preservation, but I truly don't see the value of saving this building.
Agree with above statements -- fully support heritage preservation, but I truly don't see the value of saving this building.
Chris R.
Senior Member
This would be true in an optimal world, but Hamilton is a shit show. I don't think running denotes importance, but I do think Hamilton should actively be seeking heritage designation for anything that should have it. They should try to designate like one per month or something. The issue is that designation is a lot of work, and there are hundreds of buildings. The highest priority are buildings approaching demolition.
Chronamut
Active Member
It probably didn't have heritage protection before this because there was a church inside it actively using it, and thus it didn't need it, as it wasn't going to be demolished.
You generally file for heritage protection when a building is under threat of being torn down. So it makes sense to have filed for it now, and not in the past, when it wasn't under threat.
This feels like a west side story of "for" vs "against" lol. Not that it's in our hands regardless, we are just spectators, but still, interesting.
You generally file for heritage protection when a building is under threat of being torn down. So it makes sense to have filed for it now, and not in the past, when it wasn't under threat.
This feels like a west side story of "for" vs "against" lol. Not that it's in our hands regardless, we are just spectators, but still, interesting.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Very interesting conversation going on over on Reddit /r/Hamilton right now. Most people are echoing my comments on this one. The building has little heritage value, doesn't even have the original facade, and incorporating it into the development will be extremely expensive and doesn't really make sense. Some other people are calling out councillors and city staff for being NIMBY. Hamilton would benefit from the condo buildings, not the dilapidated church.
Chris R.
Senior Member
I don't agree that they're being NIMBY. They've spoken nothing relating to whether they approve of housing here or not. This was purely a conversation about whether the property met the requirements to be designated or not, which they agreed with.
The parking lot issue is a completely different issue in my mind. It was a conversation about literally whether to build housing or not, and the councillors that voted against that didn't want social housing in the downtown, nor the loss of precious few dozen subsidized parking stalls. They literally voted for housing not in their backyard.
Housing can still be built here, just with more effort from the developer, who frankly should have been aware of the age of the structure and the fact that is makes up one of the few properties surrounding the massive demolition of like 6 square blocks of downtown. Urban Renewal ruined downtown for decades and should rightfully be done carefully and thoughtfully moving forward.
Chronamut
Active Member
We should demolish jackson and the city center and put everything back how it was lolol
but yeah, the destruction of those blocks is as sore a point as cutting the trees down in gore park was, thus I am sure there is quite the kneejerk reaction to anything left along that strip.
For those that don't know - there used to be rowhouses from james street to bay and they just flattened all of it to build that whole complex, which never ended up being the urban renewal they thought, and ended up being more of a concrete jungle stain, and pulled vitality from gore park area.
Last edited:
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Unfortunately that won't happen. This developer will either sell the lot, or fight the heritage designation. Integrating that old church into the design will not happen, won't be financially feasible and just the footprint and building geometry makes no sense for a condo. I'll say it again, this is a big L for the city. They should have focused on maybe retaining some aspects on the building, not the whole thing.
Chris R.
Senior Member
If they were ever serious about building something here, they will likely move forward. Empire Communities appears to be a huge developer in multiple cities with deep pockets.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Empire is still going to build something here. It's just going to cost them more if they are held to heritage retention.
Empire is one of the largest builders in the province, and they've already done a lot of building in Hamilton itself, just suburban housing in Stoney Creek. They are the ones behind large housing subdivisions across Niagara and Haldimand counties as well. The is just their first high-rise application in Hamilton, which until now has largely been limited to Toronto. Empire built the largest towers in the Humber Bay area for comparison - they know how to do high-rise.
I suspect they will appeal the heritage designation as a first step. "retention" here given the condition of the facade will likely require a full reconstruction of the facade to match the original appearance of the building instead of a full retention, which won't be cheap.. so they'll push to avoid it if they can. If they can't, they'll likely still do it.
Retention also likely will be "facade" only, not the entire building.
Chronamut
Active Member
Yeah the facade will most likely be the original brick underneath look, which most people here have never seen outside of black and white pictures, not the stone covering which was more or less put on to try to protect it I believe, but the application of it ended up doing more harm than good.
I mean, it's brick, but at the same time, building codes have changed so there will probably be more that is required to have it stand on its own and not have the brick only "support" it so to speak which may require more - like maybe steel support underneath or something.
Or you know.. they may just pull a wilson blanchard and buy it and sit on it for 20 years until it collapses on its own COUGHCOUGHGOREPARKCOUGHCOUGH
I could see this being used like a small band venue - it already has the stage and seating inside, or as a convention center like carmens up on the mountain.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
I don't think the current facade just covers the original brick. I'm pretty sure they completely removed the brick and just replaced it. Because you can see in the sections where the original brick remains, the new facade is flush with it.