Comment 92664

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 26, 2013 at 13:12:54 in reply to Comment 92660

The public has every reason to be skeptical and demand full disclosure, given recent history. The consulting architect does have credentials in heritage, but the proposal to demolish 80% of a designated building is shocking and demands a high level of proof.

The condition of the building has NOT been known publicly for a number of months. I'm pretty well connected on these things, but the only piece of information I had was that the North wall was in bad shape. And this was not public information (where was it published?).

No one is proposing saving "all of the historical churches of Hamilton". But we should at least take every effort to preserve the historically designated ones ... that is why they were designated in the first place. We are already going to lose All Saints and probably the stone church near Canadian Tire, and Ascension is at risk. I don't see any evidence at all that we are preserving even the most significant 19th century stone churches, let alone "all" of them. Is there a single historically significant stone church in Hamilton that has been preserved once it no longer has a religious use? If there is, I am not aware of it.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-09-26 13:16:14

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds