Urban planning tends to focus on architectural design and community needs without considering market forces. This can lead to potential mismatches between what is planned and what is feasible or sustainable from an economic perspective, impacting the long-term success and viability of urban projects.
One crucial aspect often overlooked by politicians and urban planners is that “cities are primarily labour markets.”1 Without efficient labour markets, cities cannot thrive. A well-functioning labour market is essential for enabling urban amenities such as public libraries and museums.
The failure to understand these fundamental urban economic principles often results in poorly conceived urban regulations. For instance, the decision of Hamilton city councillors to oppose the demolition of a 123-year-old church for a residential development of 750 units with street retail is a good example.
Empire Communities, which has already purchased the church, plan to build two 30-story apartment towers on the site. However, the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee has recommended that the building receive a heritage designation, potentially preventing its demolition.
The church, constructed in 1906 with red brick and later adorned with a stone facade in the 1950s, is deteriorating. Inspection of the original brick shows that it is crumbling. The congregation found that it was no longer financially feasible to maintain the building and has moved to another location.
The city planning staff maintain there isn’t enough evidence to demonstrate that the building can’t be preserved (“retained in-situ”) and incorporated into a new development. This is always true. The question is, at what cost? I would like to meet an engineer who can figure out how to build a 30-story tower on a deteriorating structure.
Essentially, the city’s stance implies preserving the crumbling building and using only half of the site for development. This approach doesn’t seem economically viable – it and doesn’t tackle housing affordability effectively if the number of potential new units is cut in half. Moreover, the criterion for preservation is a low bar. In the 15 years I’ve walked and driven by this building, I’ve never stopped to admire the architecture.
Source: Empire Communities submission to the City of Hamilton
The developer has suggested placing an easement on the property to preserve features like the Ionic columns and stained-glass windows, but the city sees this as an opportunity for the new owners to bear the maintenance costs of the building.
The builder points out that the area is already zoned for residential use and promises to expedite the project, aiming to start construction within 8 weeks if approved. However, if the city council moves forward with a heritage designation, significant delays are expected, as the developer would likely file a formal objection under the Ontario Heritage Act, potentially leading to an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal.
The city claims it has enough land and doesn’t need greenfield development, yet it opposes density in areas where it makes sense. A more sensible approach would be to integrate church features that can be salvaged into the new structure, and to negotiate features in the commercial space that would support community needs, such as a daycare facility.
The planning decisions surrounding Hamilton’s deteriorating church highlight the need for urban planners to adopt a more comprehensive approach that integrates heritage preservation with practical development strategies. By doing so, cities can achieve sustainable growth while preserving their historical and cultural assets for the benefit of both present and future residents.
1 Bertraud, Alain. Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities. MIT Press, 2018.
Independent Opinion
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely and independently those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of any person or organization in any way affiliated with the author including, without limitation, any current or past employers of the author. While reasonable effort was taken to ensure the information and analysis in this publication is accurate, it has been prepared solely for general informational purposes. Any opinions, projections, or forward-looking statements expressed herein are solely those of the author. There are no warranties or representations being provided with respect to the accuracy and completeness of the content in this publication. Nothing in this publication should be construed as providing professional advice including investment advice on the matters discussed. The author does not assume any liability arising from any form of reliance on this publication. Readers are cautioned to always seek independent professional advice from a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.
