DNA Submission to the Economic Development and Planning Committee on October 21st, 2008

RE:      Discussion Item 8.3 – Costs Related to St. Marks Anglican Church (Hamilton) (PED08128(a)) (Ward 2)

The DNA is appreciative of the commitment of the City’s Economic Development and Planning Committee to the revitalization of St. Mark’s for the City at large and the Durand neighbourhood in particular.

All of the options presented in the information report dated October 1, 2008, present interesting options for the future use of St. Mark’s.

Some of the proposed uses are preferred by the DNA because of the focus of retaining and respecting St. Mark’s heritage designation and expanding and legitimizing St. Mark’s as green space for our community and City. These are Option 2 (Secure and Mothball Building) and Option 5 (Demolish Building with Ruins).

However, and in particular, Option 1 (Make Building Structurally Sound and Useable) is by far the best proposed use of the St. Mark’s site from the perspective of the DNA. Only this option fulfills the dual goal of respecting the site’s heritage designation and use as one of two green spaces in the densely populated Durand neighbourhood. If the building was rehabilitated to make a “safe and functional community space” as stated on page 5, the neighbourhood would gain so much more than just a park. It would be the hub of the Durand neighbourhood which it is sorely lacking today.

This option respects the parkland deficiency in the Durand and acknowledges that it is extremely unlikely that such an opportunity for the development of green space and a community center will present itself again in the foreseeable future. In addition, with St. Mark’s close proximity to the City Hall and the downtown core, Option 1 goes a long way to achieve the City’s goal of beautifying the downtown by preserving and showcasing the site as a part of Hamilton’s heritage in a desirable park setting.

While Option 4 (Demolish Entire Building and Develop Green Space) is desirable from the perspective that it will potentially serve to protect St. Mark’s as green space provided the inclusion of additional parking is rejected - and I cannot emphasize enough that we do not need another asphalt parking lot in the downtown care – Options 4 falls sadly short of highlighting the heritage designation of St. Mark’s.

Admittedly, Option 1 as recommended is the most expensive option but the DNA asks the City and those present here not to make the cost of revitalizing St. Mark’s the determinative factor. The relative costs of the various options are not dramatically different, and Option 1, unlike Option 2 (Mothball), is a long term solution to the challenge of St. Mark’s which offers an opportunity for the City to show case one of its special sites in the core. While Option 2 is a valid choice, if chosen, I envision that we will be back here in the not too distant future discussing these same choices – to rehabilitate or demolish.

 

Thank you.