Stec
Active Member
Yes it's hideous! I'll take this proposal any day of the week over this ugly building littered with homeless.
Hamilton 84 York Boulevard | ?m | 30s | Empire | Rafael + Bigauskas
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Chronamut
Active Member
Not sure what you find ugly about it - it's revivalist architecture - sounds more like you're just a modernist lol boring clean rectangles and glass for everyone lol.. no character..
or maybe it's the homeless littering it that makes it hideous -but the good shepherd is right next to it - if you think that's gonna change with a new build..
Stec
Active Member
Maybe it's because we just drove by it yesterday after getting groceries at Tan Thanh Supermarket and saw all the stairs covered in feces and garbage and drug paraphernalia that left a very bad taste fresh in my memory but if I step back and pretend that issue never existed I still think this building is very ugly. It just looks very odd to me nothing about it is nice to me. Now I have never saw what it looks like inside so I can't speak to any redeeming qualities in that respect but I would not shed a single tear if this faced the wrecking ball. I love old heritage buildings I often go out of my way to photograph them and appreciate them... not this one!
Also I thought the homeless shelter next door is being moved out of this area because it doesn't fit with the new "entertainment district" plans?
vistaway
Active Member
Yeah, I walked around the building today and really tried to find some aspect I like about it, but I just can't.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Didn't you used to rag on me all the time for pointing out these exact issues....
Chris R.
Senior Member
I think the building is a bit of its own failure. The newer portions can surely be demolished without anyone having too many issues. I think if the false stone facade was removed and the windows were opened back up, it could be a really interesting building that would contrast against all the assuredly new buildings that are coming in the area.
Older photos do a better job of showing what the building could be. I'll try to find one and post it here. I know they've been posted on Skyscraper Page.
Found one:
Older photos do a better job of showing what the building could be. I'll try to find one and post it here. I know they've been posted on Skyscraper Page.
Found one:
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
part of the old brick facade is still visible I believe.
Chronamut
Active Member
They are basically refusing to move, and I guess the city can't force them to..
And yeah well the feces thing is another issue - making a new build and putting a condo here isn't going to magically fix that. If the homeless are there now they will be as long as the building next door is still there. Also that has to be factored in - the homeless aren't just going to magically disappear -this condo is going to be plagued with these people lowering the feeling of safety and wanting to engage around this building. The whole thing will flop and we will have lost another old building in the process. "Oh but they'll add security to get rid of the riffraff!" riiiiight...
Basically this becomes a "we know it exists but hide it away so we don't have to see it" thing - the homeless will always exist - there will always be needles strung around, people will always be pooping just because they've destroyed their lives, and their brains. I agree that that organization in that building next door probably shouldn't be there anymore, but I also accept their not wanting to leave due to gentrification. That and I am pretty sure they realize if they leave, that building is getting the wrecking ball next.
And as for the building, that's your opinion and you have every right to it, but clearly many others disagree, and that is their/our right as well. I personally love it. As Chris pointed above it used to look much better, and thus I also loved it more when it was in its original state. Sure it looks a bit tired now but so do lots of old buildings. I love peaked roofs and lunette window buildings and this is one of the very few left with both, as well as ionic pillars on the outside - love that too.
I also don't like the precedent it makes to say oh we have a modern build, now these ones are a bit damaged and they don't really fit into the "entertainment area" feel we want going, so let's demolish them too - also the construction involved for a build here endangers the foundations of the other heritage buildings around here (hence why that was included in their report), one that is fully designated, which, if damaged would, like this one allow the wolves in for demolishing them too.
Unfortunately there is no saving this one because you would have to rebrick the entire building due to the structural issues of the rusting and the mortaring right onto the brick - which is doable, but noone wants to have to do that on their own dime. Many of us just hate to see what's left of our history meet the wrecking ball one building at a time, esp for a build that is best termed "generic" and the best argument people have is "we are in a housing crisis and need more buildings" - well they don't have to be crap in the process - you can build nice stuff and still house people. But then the argument is well then those would be too expensive and yadda yadda yadda - this is RIGHT in the core - it can BE expensive looking and priced. At least match the heritage beside you for the podium.
If people had their way every building would look like it was made with lego. So tired of cookie-cutter designs. It's sad when "box squiggles" are seen as inventive, all because its easier to generate right angles in a 3D cadd program like autodesk revit. Where we "ooh" and "ahh" when anything that involves a non-right angle or a curve is introduced...
Last edited:
Stec
Active Member
Okay that does look more interesting and better than the current structure.
Chronamut
Active Member
Yeah it has good bones - it's just been disneyland facade covered up.
Here is a shot of the interior - it's actually a really nice building inside:
Some beautiful stain glass windows:
It definitely has elements that SHOULD be saved.
And I agree, the state it's in now - it's seen better..
Pre-covid:
Even with the stone facade, renders do it better justice.
Like with many buildings in hamilton - you're often blown away by how much nicer they are inside than outside when it comes to the older ones.. There is a pub along john st that is like that, and one on james close to the harbour.
Last edited:
Stec
Active Member
Not to derail this thread but I want to respond.... I will admit I am starting to get pretty frustrated with the amount of damage to public and private property I am seeing and the just terrible and unsanitary state of things mainly in the downtown core but I still lay blame at our elected officials and that is where we differ. I ragged on you in the past because of your constant attacks on the homeless and sometimes unfair generalizations about them. We just differ on who we blame.
Stec
Active Member
Well.... I def love the inside then! That lest render is actually pretty cool too, was that a planned expansion at some point that never happened?Yeah it has good bones - its just been disneyland facade covered up.
Here is a shot of the interior - it's actually a really nice building inside:
Some beautiful stain glass windows:
View attachment 535586
It definitely has elements that SHOULD be saved.
And I agree, the state it's in now - it's seen better..
Pre-covid:
Even with the stone facade, renders do it better justice.
Chronamut
Active Member
Usually neither of you are completely wrong or right and it sits somewhere in the middle - many of the homeless have lost their main processing faculties and are basically a shell of what they once were, but it's also the city enabling it to this degree. The homeless will never stop acting homeless, and no amount of shouting at them will change that either - they need a place to go that isn't all over the city shouting at people shooting up and pooping. Give them a place to go, or don't be surprised when they turn downtown,.. for lack of a better term.. to shit.
Chronamut
Active Member
Yeah you can see the more modernish build in the back that never panned out.
And yeah unfortunately this building has suffered the ravages of time on the outside, but the inside is still beautiful - look at those arches inside - it's really a shame to demolish anything like that that involved complex old support systems that were used in roman times and cathedrals etc.
The sad part is most of us will never go into most of these buildings, so no matter how nice the insides are, if the outsides aren't nice we gripe, because we all like to have something nice to look at on the outside too. And something just feels WRONG about a church being in a "modern" building - it feels like it deserves.. more.. regardless of whether you're religious or not. I mean the palace and capitol theatres were not much to look at on the outside when they existed, but the insides were beautiful. It's one reason I love doors open events and supercrawl because you get to go into places you'd never go into otherwise like churches.
Really hope they're able to save as much of the inside elements as they can...
jta5
Active Member
The committee voted unanimously to accept staff's recommendation to designate the building as heritage this afternoon.