545 replies to this topic

[Ms. B. Havin]

That "block busting" idea doesn't sound quite right to me, either (but I could easily be wrong). It was brought up in the Morley Soda Factory article:

"...one local building contractor said he thinks the owner is trying to 'block bust' the area by letting the area get run down to the point where nearby properties can be purchased cheaply. 'Why on earth would you let someplace like that to run down like that unless you wanted to block bust?' said Raymond Graham, who said the city should expropriate the properties." Source)

It seems to me that the surrounding buildings are doing great and that they're not going to get dragged down in value. The only things that get dragged down further and further are Kramer's properties.

I agree with Rorschach on the creativity question. And while we can justly villify Kramer, it takes two to tango. For years, her dancing partner has been the City.

[D.L.]

it's too bad the Soda building wasn't included in the Leiser building renovations, since that involves more than one building anyways

[amor de cosmos]

I can't help thinking that with this woman resisting these proposals from all these developers for all these years - to then someday decide to tear them down -without thinking she must be a complete lunatic. Apart from the fact that these actions are completely immoral and irresponsible, they really make no sense at all.

Like I said before, silly old bat. She's got no respect for the buildings she owns or the people who walk downtown & see them.

it's too bad the Soda building wasn't included in the Leiser building renovations, since that involves more than one building anyways

That would have worked out perfectly. The Morley Soda Water Factory building buts up against the old CRD headquarters building, so it's (at the moment) the "weak link" between revitalized lower Johnson St & soon-to-be-revitalized lower Yates St.

[Rorschach]

What about my idea that the request for a demolition permit is a move to limit responsibility for some potential disaster? The article said inspectors were finally let inside to inspect -- on the condition they not disclose the condition of the interior. Could it be she or the lawyers know the buildings are dangerously unsafe? And if something happens, can she say, "Well as soon as I found out I applied for a demolition permit but the city turned me down."

Things happen for a reason. What is the reason lawyers are claiming they want to develop and simultaneously apply for a demolition permit? It could be as simple as the new lawyers informing her that some clause in a will she thought prevented her from selling was void. But there's probably something else going on.

I hope our local intrepid reporters can sniff it out. Or maybe one of our stellar local letter writers will write in to the Times-Colonist with something? They always have some great letters.

[integracious]

Question number 1: Who has the Security contract on both buildings?
Question number 2: Who recently arrived at Ms. Kramer's doorsteps in Langford?
Question number 3: Would "LJ" please tell us the answer to question one and two which will likely lead us to the answer of question #4: Who is the developer likely behind this manoeuvre?
Looking forward to your reply LJ

[gumgum]

Why be cryptic when you can just spell out what you know, integracious?

[integracious]

Les Bjola

[gumgum]

What about my idea that the request for a demolition permit is a move to limit responsibility for some potential disaster? The article said inspectors were finally let inside to inspect -- on the condition they not disclose the condition of the interior. Could it be she or the lawyers know the buildings are dangerously unsafe? And if something happens, can she say, "Well as soon as I found out I applied for a demolition permit but the city turned me down."

But one of Heiman's recent article states how a publishing company was interested in buying and requested a chance to purchase less than a year ago - only to be ignored. If she's so concerned about liability then it would be easiest to pass off the responsibility to one of the long list of bodies that have expressed interest in purchasing. Everyone's a winner - we keep our Janion, a purchaser is happy, and Kramer has made a wad of cash and released her liability.

[gumgum]

Les Bjola

So are you saying Les Bjola is planning on developing something on the rubble of the Janion and the Soda building? Is this a theory or a rumour? Better yet, do you have proof? I just want to know EVERYTHING that you know.

[gumgum]

Question number 1: Who has the Security contract on both buildings?
Question number 2: Who recently arrived at Ms. Kramer's doorsteps in Langford?
Question number 3: Would "LJ" please tell us the answer to question one and two which will likely lead us to the answer of question #4: Who is the developer likely behind this manoeuvre?
Looking forward to your reply LJ

I'm not sure who you're implying this LJ is, but I noticed he was online last night so I sent him a private message, directing him to this thread - to give him a chance to respond.
He hasn't, so maybe his silence says something about what you're implying, integracious. But then again, maybe not.

Integracious, I wish you would be more forthcoming about your claims.

[gumgum]

Here's an interesting article from Jan 20th of this year:

Bjola promises mobile home residents they'll have place to go
Options include moving to a new park, or having relocation expenses paid

Developer Les Bjola of Turner Lane Developments, acting for owner Trixie [Clara] Kramer of Kramer Holdings, told more than 100 residents at a meeting yesterday that their options include being moved into a new park, to be built nearby, or selling their homes to the owner and having relocation costs paid.

Ok. So Bjola and Kramer have a professional relationship that runs deeper than Bear Mountain. Still doesn't mean Bjola is involved in this Janion and Soda demolition. Makes it likely, I suppose.

[G-Man]

Whatever! I seriously doubt there is any plan to do anything with these buildings. This is just postruing on the part of Kramer et al.

Les Bjola yeah right!

[gumgum]

I agree. It's more likely that nothing is happening with this site once it's torn down.

[Ms. B. Havin]

T-C editorial today, strongly in favour of protecting the buildings, and also quite critical of city:

Historic buildings worth protecting

(...)

This problem was foreseeable and possibly avoidable. Almost three years ago, developer Michael Sharpe urged council to require owners of vacant buildings to pay an annual fee, starting at $1,500 and increasing by that amount each year. The mounting fees would create an incentive to do something with derelict buildings that were hurting their neighbours. The proposal never went anywhere.

There are other options. In Winnipeg, buildings must be maintained in a way that makes them safe for occupation even if they are not in use and owners are fined if they fail to meet the standard.

Or Victoria could set standards for appearance and enforce them, with significant financial penalties. Such action, by requiring owners to maintain buildings, would encourage their use.

Even under existing rules, the city could have done more. The Local Government Act, for example, allows municipalities to inspect potential heritage properties at any time. That would have allowed early detection of problems and the owner could have been forced to make repairs to ensure the buildings did not pose a risk to firefighters.
(...)

See article for more.

[KublaKhan]

Are there any pictures of the interior out there that you know of Kubla Khan?

Yes.

[Rorschach]

I was looking closely at the Janion this morning and I could not spot any indication that the foundation was sinking or slipping. In fact, the design is probably a lot better than I gave it credit for in earlier messages. It's not a box, but sort of a wedge. The foundation seems to have taken into account the slope of the lot and its proximity to the water very carefully. It appears to me to be fortified against such a failure. There are just a few areas where it appears bricks have crumbled away or fallen off and it looks like physical damage rather than failure due to age and deterioration.

I truly have no idea how in the heck it could be brought up to modern earthquake standards other than building a modern interior building within the existing shell and anchoring the old exterior to the new construction.

The building looks as solid as a brick **** house. The exterior needs to be cleaned up and the windows and doors replaced. I really would like to see what the interior looks like someday. There were plenty of modern products at the recent home show that could be used to restore the exterior appearance to vintage luster. I wonder how much time and money it would take to make the place at least look good from the outside? Kramer should at least do that. Unused since 1948! Outrageous.

I like Winnipeg's by-law. Makes perfect sense and it would seem to solve our problem very nicely. Firefighters were inside there recently when some homeless person broke in and barricaded himself in there. I forget if the guy who broke in started a fire. I would imagine with everything boarded up as it is the place is a literal fire trap.

Is there any lurker out there who has been inside? Please someone post a few details.

[KublaKhan]

I was looking closely at the Janion this morning and I could not spot any indication that the foundation was sinking or slipping. In fact, the design is probably a lot better than I gave it credit for in earlier messages. It's not a box, but sort of a wedge. The foundation seems to have taken into account the slope of the lot and its proximity to the water very carefully. It appears to me to be fortified against such a failure. There are just a few areas where it appears bricks have crumbled away or fallen off and it looks like physical damage rather than failure due to age and deterioration.

I truly have no idea how in the heck it could be brought up to modern earthquake standards other than building a modern interior building within the existing shell and anchoring the old exterior to the new construction.

The building looks as solid as a brick **** house. The exterior needs to be cleaned up and the windows and doors replaced. I really would like to see what the interior looks like someday. There were plenty of modern products at the recent home show that could be used to restore the exterior appearance to vintage luster. I wonder how much time and money it would take to make the place at least look good from the outside? Kramer should at least do that. Unused since 1948! Outrageous.

I like Winnipeg's by-law. Makes perfect sense and it would seem to solve our problem very nicely. Firefighters were inside there recently when some homeless person broke in and barricaded himself in there. I forget if the guy who broke in started a fire. I would imagine with everything boarded up as it is the place is a literal fire trap.

Is there any lurker out there who has been inside? Please someone post a few details.

You are correct. Solid and sound. The interior is in an elegant state of decay. Original wainscoting, crown mouldings, etc. There is a large room (adjacent to the parking lot between the new Fancy-Schmancy Chatchka Inc. place) that might have been a dinning room or ballroom or so forth that is covered in little pieces of plaster that obviously came from the ceiling. it looks like the entire ceiling plaster fell in one massive sheet and scattered on the floor like an exploded jigsaw puzzle. It's fantastic. It's relatively litter-free. Maybe an old newspaper, a coffee cup (Tims?) and maybe an odd soft drink bottle here and there. Aside from the protest that took place inside/outside back in Sept. '06, it's safe to say that the Janion has been unoccupied for a very long time. Which isn't to say that it hasn't been infiltrated. It has.

[amor de cosmos]

Yes.

You can't just say that & then not post the pics on here!!!

[KublaKhan]

You can't just say that & then not post the pics on here!!!

Of course I can.

[EDIT] the cheesy little smiley face thing is supposed to be beside my post text, and not in the upper left hand corner[/EDIT]

[Baro]

I think if someone was to accept the dangerous mission of sneaking in there and taking some pics to really document the current state of the buildings, both structurally and architecturally, it may fuel the public outrage enough to finally protect and do something wit these little gems.