Revitalization

Demolition of old Revenue Canada Building is a Disgrace

By Sean Burak
Published August 16, 2011

Losing our built form is an endemic problem in downtown Hamilton. The demolition of the old Revenue Canada Building at 150 Main Street West is a high profile case in which the city has clearly shown that it is not willing to uphold property standards, nor fight to avoid demolition of perfectly sound buildings in the core of our city - a core which is already choking on vacant lots and unnecessary surface parking.

Pre-demolition: Revenue Canada Building at Main and Caroline (RTH file photo)
Pre-demolition: old Revenue Canada Building at Main and Caroline (RTH file photo)

This highly visible demolition represents a lost opportunity for the City to demonstrate to developers that tearing down buildings is not acceptable without proof of secured financial interest in rebuilding.

Demolition permits should not be issued without approved building permits for replacement structures and, more importantly, contracts that outline time restrictions for following through on replacement construction with steep fines for not meeting deadlines.

This is the only way we will prevent further deconstruction of our city.

We no longer have an industrial base to support a city of our size. We need to strengthen the economic core of our city - and that means the downtown. Without the physical built form, we will never be able to grow.

That we have let this happen is a disgrace to the city, a disgrace to the taxpayers, and worst of all a slap in the face to the people who have poured their lives into the downtown, only to witness it crumbling around them.

I am ashamed to be a citizen of Hamilton today.

Sean Burak was born in Hamilton but raised elsewhere in Ontario. He returned to his birth town at the turn of the century and has never looked back. Sean is the owner of Downtown Bike Hounds.

60 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 16:01:13

Here here!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 16:14:58

Last time I checked on this one, wasn't this supposed to be a partial demolition where they are looking to take out the back section with the unusable metal plates and loading docks and they were going to preserve/reuse the front?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 16:25:18

I just checked the spec ... stop work order from ministry of Environment -Too Much Dust.

Well heres the kicker! Wasn't a reason given for the non suitability of residential conversion the presence of asbestos.
So (and im not going down to check it out ) half the block has been contaminated. May be even city hall if the wind is blowing right.

This story is so connected to Matt's tale of catherine st. 'Developers' with no concern as to what is around there properties and absolutly no respect for the people&city of hamilton. Vranich my have bitten off more than he can chew on with this one. Someone will have to pay for the clean up. Wafting asbestos through Hess and city hall ..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 16:49:20 in reply to Comment 68068

Asbestos has to be removed before a demolition operation like this can commence, and the Spec story makes it clear that the Asbestos has already been removed.

Although people who parked in Vranichs' lot were greeted to a coat of dust on their cars.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 16:55:54

Jason Farr says the south side of the building (facing Main) still will not be demolished.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:01:56

Sean

Thanks for the impassioned and sadly accurate plea about our built form as a city. I live in Ward 2 and Jason Farr, our Councillor, is scrambling trying to find out what the hell is going on. He has been kept in the dark by Darko. No surprise there.

Maybe Bob will be on Kelly again tomorrow to explain how this is good news for Hamilton?

In the meantime, I suggest holding your breath, at least if you are anywhere near the Federal Building demolition site. Not funny. Just true.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By revbrian11 (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:02:41

The point, regarding the need for an approved plan to ensure that yet another vacant lot is not left, is a very good point indeed. I don't know and would appreciate being enlightened - did the demolisher in this case have an approved site plan for a replacement structure? Beyond that concern, it is just so disheartening that a perfectly good, handsome structure such as the Federal Building could not have been preserved and put to good use as part of whatever was the proposed use for the property.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Steve (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:27:11 in reply to Comment 68072

If they are required to build another building to get a building permit they just let the building deteriorate until the city issues a demolition permit and then all previous ones wiped clean. That is what happened to the one at King & Wellington, southwest corner.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Steve (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:28:43

Sorry, I meant to say "get a demolition permit", not building permit. I was typing with dust in my eyes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anthrax (anonymous) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:30:01

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TnT (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:50:04

Oh my gawd! This makes me so sad. A week ago I walked around Treble Hall and was so elated by Jeff Feswicks vision and care he has put into preserving the building. Look up James and the expensive Reno of Lister. We will really appreciTe this in years to come. What is next? Demo of the BoE building? Demo of all of Gore Park? Jason Farr seems to have his eye on this project I hope he sticks to it. I don't know Vranich well except through his track record of destruction. If I had the money I would join the ranks of people renovating places like Sean at Bike Hounds, and all the investors on James St N.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BRATina (anonymous) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 17:56:03

This is another leadership tag team from BoBra and Murray. City staff should have been on top of this and Bratina has been underneath Vranich for some time.

Seriously, this has been the summer of ham from City Hall. The continuous missteps, lack of leadership, and closed-door decision-making have really lowered the bar on what to expect from council. I'm waiting for the Vranich Coliseum and Convention Centre brought to you buy the stellar negotiating skills of Chris Murray and "everything must go" Bratina.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 18:21:20

Looks like Jason was meeting with Vranich today and he will issue a statement on his website by the end of the day. He confirmed in an email earlier that the south facade is being retained. http://www.jasonfarr.com/

I just rode by and noticed the fencing just barely extends past the front of the building which would indicate they don't intend to take it down, 'accidents' notwithstanding. That would be harder to get away with when the building is made of steel I-beams.

I wouldn't pass judgment (any more than I already have) until hearing what Jason has to say.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 18:27:48

There is far too much Drama in this thread.

The plan is to demolish the rear side of the building and preserve the front facade/portion of the building and reworking it into a new development. That sounds to me like a good compromise for the site. It's keeping the heritage elements of the site, and what seems to be over half the original building, but leaving the developer room to work and build some new development at the site. It looks to me that the plan is to keep the entire west side of the building along Caroline.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

What's the problem here? Is there a desire to keep awkward, mismatching brickwork from the previously attached building, or the lack of street level grey facade that the entire back of the building lacks? Are we doing this, while the plan is to put underground parking in it's place, in an area plague with excessive surface parking?

I for one am glad that this partial demolition is going through and the reliefs are being reincorporated into the new development.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-08-16 18:35:02

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 19:11:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Grom (anonymous) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 19:23:38 in reply to Comment 68080

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DavidColacci (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 19:37:30

Sad day indeed. I have lost any faith remaining in the current council. An inept assembly of people with zero respect for our city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By James (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 20:38:07

I was watching this from my office window today and it was incredibly upsetting and disappointing. How far up BoBra's rear has Vranich crawled?

I will believe that Vranich intends to retain the south facade of the building when it actually happens. After all, why would a surface parking lot need art?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 21:04:49

All those windows, could have been an amazing condo conversion.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 21:45:36 in reply to Comment 68080

I think the concern is warranted, but I am (also) hopeful the project will demonstrate the potential for merging/balancing history with new development and some regentrification. As much as I love this building, I hate the wasteland of surface parking.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:37:48 in reply to Comment 68070

well not quite in the spec;

'Farr said Tuesday’s decision to try to save the west wing could ensure the preservation of the sculptures. He added Vrancor is considering covering the reliefs within the week, as the work continues around them.'

the article you link to is fated June 8

important points

'try to save' 'considering covering'

This is called hedging you bets . If preservation was a primary goal it would of been started before the demolition.

Todays article contains the even more intriguing paragraph

'The city said Vrancor will only violate their permit if they leave the west wing, 80 feet east of Caroline Street, intact. If they do this, Vrancor will be required to have an engineer’s report to ensure the stability of the wing.'

So the demolition permit is 'void' if the rest if is left standing. Tomorrow the city inspectors can walk in and demand the whole thing comes down.

So do you think Vrancor spent their money on an engineers report on how to save the building or an engineers assessment on how to make it structurally unsound as quickly as possible ?

Only the crane operator really knows.

To the people who think Vranich is 'cozy' with Bratina .. Have a look at Farr and his double speak on this and the catherine street saga. Is he really working for residents at this point ?

my bet .. this will be a parking lot before catherine street is cleaned up.

pls I need help with mark up is there a link?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:44:22

update from Jason Farr. Good use of Twitter by him.

http://www.jasonfarr.com/community-initi...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:47:15 in reply to Comment 68086

Vranich wants to make money, who doesn't. He isn't going to make much money on a parking lot, nor will he if the feds end up serving him a lawsuit for destroying the facade. The money is in building a condo/long term hotel that he can rent to students who will be using the new McMaster campus or anyone who might need long-term care at said facility. If he also ends up adding another Beaver & Bulldog restaurant in the core, all the better. What better place for a Beaver and Bulldog then right next to Copps and the Hamilton Bulldogs.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-08-16 22:50:16

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:53:37 in reply to Comment 68089

Yeah I am a little more than concerned after reading about the demo permit not being amended...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:53:59 in reply to Comment 68084

where will the freegans chill out?

dunno ? Ancaster, West Mountain, Stony Creek,Dundas .. now my tent is covered in rubble i need a new place to put it!

You don't have like a back yard do you ?

I'll hose the tent off before i arrive

sent from my iphone.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tecumseh (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 22:55:31 in reply to Comment 68090

I have to say I've recently been pretty impressed with Jason Farr, despite my earlier doubts about him.

Definitely a good job staying on top of this and keeping everyone informed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 23:19:13 in reply to Comment 68095

I just hope he's not being used as a mouth piece to isolate the developer from the public. Why don't we hear this info from the developer directly?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted August 16, 2011 at 23:24:53

Oh for fucks sake now THE CITY is trying to stop them from saving part of the building.

“If their intention is to keep that portion of the building, they’ll have to amend the permit,” said Debbie Spence, communications officer for the city’s Planning and Economic Development department.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

So that was their plan, get a permit to level the whole thing (easy enough), announce some good intentions later on then proceed knowing our building department would hold them to their original approved permit, then wash their hands of it.

Now the city will force them to demolish unless they can prove the west wing is structurally sound on its own. Can anyone guess the outcome of this?

Well played.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:19:21 in reply to Comment 68098

So that was their plan, get a permit to level the whole thing (easy enough), announce some good intentions later on then proceed knowing our building department would hold them to their original approved permit, then wash their hands of it.

This is beginning to feel very reminiscent of The Century debacle of January '10.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:49:06

An Historical and Contextual Aside:

In 1866, the Hamilton Board of Education erected the first high school in the area, the Hamilton Collegiate Institute, on this parcel of land.

Around 1896, it then became the Caroline Street School, which catered to the booming elementary school population. In 1904 it was one of the first schools in the area to offer 'domestic science'.

In 1925, the school reverted back to being a high school, named Caroline Street Collegiate, or Hamilton Collegiate Institute Auxillary, featuring grades 9 and 10.

In 1930, with Westdale Tripartite High School opening, Caroline Street was left vacant.

It then became a vocational school, the first boys' handicraft school, F.W. MacBeth School.

The building was declared redundant in 1948.

The Hamilton Board of Education sold the property to the Federal Government...and in 1955, the Federal Building in question was built. (More recent timeline info found here: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl... )

All information courtesy of 'Vanished Hamilton III'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LIvesay (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:50:10

Good for Jason Farr to be on top of this issue. And good for the core to be getting a substantial investment. How a publication like Raise the Hammer can say it believes in the urban center of the city and allow an article that calls a $140M investment in the center a "Disgrace" is a well, disgrace!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:55:11 in reply to Comment 68100

Private investment trumps heritage intervention most of the time, in this town especially.

Turn the clock back 10 years:

“A single block and a half stretch of James Street from just south of King Street is a study in how desperate the problem has become.

Walking south from the gleaming glass of the CIBC tower, the first building you come to is the former Royal Bank Building. Its owner, also Yale Properties, caused a furor last year when it announced plans to demolish the six-storey structure due to lack of tenants. Today, the building sits empty awaiting its fate.

Thirty paces farther up the street is the Pigott Building, the city's first skyscraper. When it was converted to condominiums in the mid-90s, it was considered a triumph of urban renewal.

But the separately owned commercial space on the first and second floors hasn't been such a success.

David and Sandra Gowans of Burlington picked that up in 1997 when the previous owners couldn't pay their debts. The Gowans set up shop with a business school, hairdressing academy and a restaurant. But they, too, ran into trouble and defaulted on their mortgage payments. The Bank of Commerce put the 15,000 square feet of space back on the market for $499,000 last year and then dropped that to $399,000. (A sale will not affect the residential condominiums above.)….

All of this is no surprise to David Blanchard, a broker with Blair Blanchard Stapleton Limited. Blanchard, who has an interest in a number of downtown properties, was in the headlines in 1999 when he tore down the former Canada Permanent building across the street from the Pigott Building. That prompted city council to pass a bylaw prohibiting developers who demolish old structures from opening parking lots in their place.”

http://www.thespec.com/news/article/7105--business-running-on-empty

A dozen years before that story broke – 1989 – Robinson's was bought up and knocked down. That was the same year that the Tivoli and the Century closed up and fire cleared out a pair of Regency-era buildings across from the Connaught, ca plot now occupied by the Gore Building. (Since the mid-60s, the block has also lost the National Trust (11-15 Main St E) just east of the Landed, as well as the rest of the streetwall at 17 and 21 Main East (Turner Building) that connected to the Union Gas Building at Main and Hughson.)



As will be obvious to anyone who has been following work on the Main/Caroline/Bay/George block, the "Permanent" bylaw was proven toothless when the HMP building – the SW neighbour to council chambers – was razed with the promise of a Hilton Hotel in its stead.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15908984&postcount=307

That became a parking lot.

Coincidentally, that was around the time that the BOE noise started in earnest.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15917729&postcount=308


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Branich (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 08:28:36 in reply to Comment 68102

Yes! Those buildings will start to rise any day now...just like they said they would almost 6 years ago. Remember the HMP development that was absolutely, positively going to be built in 2005...err 2006...make that 2007.

How long has Vranich owned the federal building? Other condo conversions (e.g. Core Lofts) have successfully been done in that timeframe, but the federal building (which is virtually across the street from the Core Lofts) couldn't be done?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 08:33:14 in reply to Comment 68089

Click on Guide to Comment Formatting under the comment box.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 08:49:27 in reply to Comment 68091

actually, in Hamilton you do make money on parking lots. Sad, but we reward owners for knocking down buildings and leaving the land empty.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Belleau (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 09:25:29

The Staybridge at 118 Market was a retrofit of a postal distro depot, no?

DV should just keep the existing Fed skeleton, cut window holes as desired, and stucco the rest. Adaptive reuse FTW!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 09:27:51 in reply to Comment 68106

I think the owners of Core Lofts wouldn't exactly describe the conversion as successful, seeing as they each were recently were hit with up to a $10,000 special levy to correct over $1 million worth of construction deficiencies.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By develop-nerrrrr (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 09:50:27 in reply to Comment 68084

And why did the back of the building turn to piss filled alcoves? Who left it in shambles when they tore down the adjoining building? Who left the site open to vandals? Who failed to maintain property standards and secure the site (and structure itself) from trespassers?

Whoever that was should be rewarded with a demolition permit and tax breaks!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 09:58:53

I would be thrilled to see the front half of the building used as part of a new development.

A few notes:

  • If this was indeed the grand plan, where was the press release? How about some on site renderings? Or any public information from the developer? Why was the public treated to months of silence followed immediately by a wrecking crew?

  • If this is the true plan, is there any way the developer can be held to it? We have seen the story too many times: sell residents/council on a nice pretty rendering, get the zoning you need, then change course to do "the economy" or some other "external factor".

The city needs to cover their ass - and in effect cover all of our asses - and ensure that the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here... A dose of skepticism can be healthy, especially when dealing with a developer who shows a strong track record of parking lot creation.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Branich (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 10:01:16 in reply to Comment 68113

The market demand for the condos was very positive. When they went on the market, they sold out in just a few days and were one of the fasting selling developments during that timeframe (even when compared to markets outside of Hamilton). What was the difference between that building and the federal building? Ownership.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 10:11:39 in reply to Comment 68115

The city needs to cover their ass - and in effect cover all of our asses - and ensure that the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here... A dose of skepticism can be healthy, especially when dealing with a developer who shows a strong track record of parking lot creation.

And much of the lead-in to this could have been better managed by the use of town hall meetings.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 10:23:11

"Gordon said the condo corporation recently reached an out-of- court settlement of a suit against Alterra for more than $1 million for alleged construction deficiencies in the building, including the garage. She said the condo board decided it was better to take a negotiated package than to spend another $200,000 in legal fees to fight in court with no guarantee of a better settlement."

If I'm reading that right, Alterra paid $1m plus toward construction deficiencies and the 103 residents paid $1m plus toward construction deficiencies. Halvsies isn't idea, but as the condo corp realized, it's probably a pragmatic solution once you've already moved in. I'm sure Tarion made a meal out of this case.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:07:50 in reply to Comment 68108

Reddit has a good approach - having a div slideout right next to the "post" button to bring up the cheat-sheet.

I still say I prefer filtered HTML to markdown though. HTML is a terrible syntax (like all XML) but having to learn only one markup language is better than learning multiple.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:17:45

We really have no reason to believe that a $140 development will appear any time soon. How many derelict fire-traps and rubble lots are owned by Vrancor within a mile of this site? How many rules and agreements have been violated with this site already?

People have claimed that Vranich and co are "developers". I'm really not sure that label applies - they're speculators. They buy and hold properties for the long term, waiting for an opportunity for enormous windfall profits. In fact, they're Hamilton's most infamous speculators. And that being so, we have to take what they promise with a grain of salt.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:12:10

"They buy and hold properties for the long term, waiting for an opportunity for enormous windfall profits."

http://youtu.be/OV6PSGFB0rA

The city has been hot for hotels for years – so while the Connaught rots, the Grand stagnates and Oscar Kichi withdraws to his Linc-side holdings, the city is left with a very small pool of hotel enthusiasts. Vrancor holds the keys to the main downtown hotels in Hamilton and Burlington, and has another half-dozen name brand hotels in its portfolio.

$1.2 million seems like a lot of money, but it's basically a city block. Shame the good hearted people weren't quicker on the buzzer.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/on-the-job/nice-guys-make-less-than-highly-disagreeable-men/article2127149

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 14:26:10 in reply to Comment 68112

You mean the former Staybridge? It was a hotel long enough to get Hamilton city funding for hotel rooms in the downtown core, I believe now it's a nursing home.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Belleau (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 15:01:26 in reply to Comment 68136

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 17:27:44 in reply to Comment 68140

Not hating, just pointing out what happened. What exactly makes us think that his new staybridge won't be turned into condos five years down the road? Or apartments? I don't know of anything that has happened since the last staybridge closed to make this one suddenly a "viable opportunity".

What's that saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

P.S. What happened to the former postal depot was more than stucco and some holes, as a postal depot is completely unfit for use as a hotel. They also added at least one floor to the building.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 17:30:08 in reply to Comment 68131

I still don't know how Vranich manages to have different hotel brands give him licenses to operate in the same city. Don't they consider it a conflict of interest?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JohnL (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2011 at 19:11:54 in reply to Comment 68144

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2011 at 19:37:04 in reply to Comment 68148

John... Step away from that beer.

I still think we should do this live and in-person. Just once.

Let's get the lackeys working on the details.

And we could STREAM it for those who can't make it to the venue.

'Joey Coleman presents RTH Live! With a special guest moderator.'

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2011-08-17 19:39:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2011 at 08:48:58 in reply to Comment 68151

And we could stream IT for those who can't make it to the venue. [emphasis juxtaposed]

I pride myself at choosing a video which is most appropriate for an RTH cameo and in this case, please welcome the one and only, Hamilton's most hated enemy, DARKO:

Strapped to the tracks
And the train's fast coming
Strapped to the wing
With the engine running
You say that this wasn't in your plan
Don't mess around with the demolITion man

Strapped to a chair
And the bomb is ticking
The situation was not of your picking
You say that this wasn't in your plan
Don't mess around with the demolITion man

I'm a walking nightmare
An arsenal of doom
I kill conversation as I walk into the room
I'm a three line whip
I'm the sort of thing they ban
I'm a walking disaster I'm a demolITion man

You come to me like a moth to the flame
It's lucky people I don't play that game
Oh you could be my greatest fan
I'm nobody's friend I'm a demolITion man

I'm a walking nightmare
An arsenal of doom
I kill conversation as I walk into the room
I'm a three line whip
I'm the sort of thing they ban
I'm a walking disaster I'm a demolITion man

Tied to a chair
And the bomb is ticking
The situation was not of your picking
You say that this wasn't in your plan
Don't mess around with the demolITion man

Let's get the lackeys working on the details.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-08-18 09:16:47

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Lippicutt (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:17:53

Darko, BoBrat and Peggy...now there's a threesome. Our downtown is safe.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:18:53 in reply to Comment 68069

Despite the Spectator story apparently the city has ordered another stop until they can prove asbestos has been removed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:21:44 in reply to Comment 68148

I care about the management of the hotel industry for the same reason I care about the lack of real challengers to incumbent internet and mobile phone providers, and the lack of real competition in the gas sector.

I think we should always pay attention when "competing" entities are owned by the same organization, because it creates a perception of competition, when in reality there is none.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:39:15 in reply to Comment 68166

According to commenters on the Spec, work is continuing this morning.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:51:07

Since y'all enjoyed my video contribution so much, I thought I'd share some still photos for your voting pleasure and as a means for me to scream, HEY, thanks a-hole bunch!

I just happened to be downtown today and thought to check on the demolition which was supposed to be halted once again until MOE was satisfied with Vrancor's asbestos abatement documentation:

FED BUILDING JPG Image

I think I saw MOE relaxing nearby though I wonder why they're hiding behind the van door? Perhaps they were avoiding the wrath of Vrancor.

MOE MEN JPG Image

I started to look through the rubble piles for any obvious evidence of asbestos. I zoomed in on two possible suspects. This was the first:

Rubble Pile JPG Image

Upon closer examination, I realize this is merely a bathtub overflow wrapped in fiberglass insulation. This was the second:

Rubble Pile JPG Image

IMHO as a plumber's helper for many years, I would have to say I saw no asbestos in the rubble pile today. However, I was photographing from 15 metres away and cannot in confidence completely confirm this. Although I believe the second image from the rubble pile is still somewhat suspicious.

In most instances where asbestos remains in older buildings, it was used to encase boiler pipes for insulation. This was the primary purpose for the space-age substance and formed the basis for my observance. Looking on the bright side, Vrancor has done a great job of controlling the dust and we shouldn't have to worry about inhaling asbestos even if IT exists.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-08-18 13:05:22

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JohnL (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2011 at 17:33:35 in reply to Comment 68151

insult spam deleted

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-09-29 20:55:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2011 at 19:48:02 in reply to Comment 68230

And who the f..k is Joey Coleman?

And who the f..k is JohnL? Grom? Me109?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2011 at 22:42:34 in reply to Comment 68238

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-08-18 23:00:44

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds