1947/48 Houses Moved?

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
482
4
18
#21
scotto
08-19-2008, 12:27 AM
I've been told my house on Kirk Road was down at Van Wagners' beach prior to Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

Back in the 50's there must of been a lot of extra room on the strip because many homes were moved from VanWagners'. Before the City started buying all the lots for parkland, I remember it being very crowded down here.

Scott, why were there so many houses moved from VanWagners at that time?
________________________________________
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
7,012
218
63
The Beach Strip
#22
scotto
08-19-2008, 12:27 AM
I've been told my house on Kirk Road was down at Van Wagners' beach prior to Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

Back in the 50's there must of been a lot of extra room on the strip because many homes were moved from VanWagners'. Before the City started buying all the lots for parkland, I remember it being very crowded down here.

Scott, why were there so many houses moved from VanWagners at that time?
________________________________________
From what I have read, Confederation Park was being constructed, many of the farms and houses were taken over by the City. There are still two left, but I believe they belong to the Conservation Authority, one is their office.
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
482
4
18
#23
scotto
08-19-2008, 12:27 AM
"I've been told my house on Kirk Road was down at Van Wagners' beach prior to Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

Back in the 50's there must of been a lot of extra room on the strip because many homes were moved from VanWagners'. Before the City started buying all the lots for parkland, I remember it being very crowded down here.

Scott, why were there so many houses moved from VanWagners at that time?
________________________________________

From what I have read, Confederation Park was being constructed, many of the farms and houses were taken over by the City. There are still two left, but I believe they belong to the Conservation Authority, one is their office."


Scott, does this mean that the land that the houses were on where Confederation Park is now,wasn't owned by the people who owned the houses, as you've said in another thread (I don't know which one now) was/is the case on Hamilton Beach? And do you have any news paper articles that indicate what the reaction was from the home owners on Hamilton Beach, to suddenly being crowded out by these new houses? ________________________________________
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
7,012
218
63
The Beach Strip
#24
Scott, does this mean that the land that the houses were on where Confederation Park is now,wasn’t owned by the people who owned the houses, as you’ve said in another thread (I don’t know which one now) was/is the case on Hamilton Beach? And do you have any news paper articles that indicate what the reaction was from the home owners on Hamilton Beach, to suddenly being crowded out by these new houses? ________________________________________
I could get some direct quotes from the book, "Memories of Van Wagner's Beach and Parkview Survey", but I don't it at this time.
However, the people did own the land that their homes were on, some welcomed the new park and some didn't.
The only Beach residents that had homes but didn't own the land was on the Burlington side, these where all cottages that had a 99 year lease on the land located between the lake and the rail line.
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
482
4
18
#25
scotto
10-22-2014, 09:36 PM
Scott, does this mean that the land that the houses were on where Confederation Park is now,wasn’t owned by the people who owned the houses, as you’ve said in another thread (I don’t know which one now) was/is the case on Hamilton Beach? And do you have any news paper articles that indicate what the reaction was from the home owners on Hamilton Beach, to suddenly being crowded out by these new houses? ________________________________________

I could get some direct quotes from the book, "Memories of Van Wagner's Beach and Parkview Survey", but I don't it at this time.
However, the people did own the land that their homes were on, some welcomed the new park and some didn't.
The only Beach residents that had homes but didn't own the land was on the Burlington side, these where all cottages that had a 99 year lease on the land located between the lake and the rail line.
________________________________________

Scott, it is the quote from Dorothy Turcotte’s book in the thread ‘Oldest House’ that seems to indicate that all of the land on the beach was leased to the peaple who built houses.

scotto
11-06-2013, 03:45 PM
Scott,
“From Dorothy Turcotte's book "The Sand Strip"

When the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway laid its line across the Beach in 1875, a new era began on the sand strip. Until then, anyone wishing to reach the Beach from Hamilton or Toronto had to come by boat or dirt road, or else take the train to the Great Western Railway station at Burlington.
Now, access to the Beach was easy.
Lots were laid out in 1875, and were auctioned off, then subleased to the purchaser.”

Scott, I’m a little confused. What is meant by ‘subleased to the purchaser’? ‘once a person bought a lot, he/she then had to lease it?

Do you know how big the lots were? And were they all the same size?

Yes that is confusing, I can't see someone back in the day spending loads of cash on a great summer home to only lease the land.
But that is what happened to the smaller cottages on the Burlington, the lease expired and they were all removed, some were paid out, others not.
Something to check out further.”

http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1537.html

and this page also seems to refer to lots on ‘the beach’ being leased.

“The second surveying party represented the city of Hamilton, which had acquired control of all vacant Crown Land in the name of recreation for its people. Just what that meant in practical terms soon became evident. The surveyed lots were sold at an auction to individuals who then subleased the land for $10 annually. Revenues from the annual rent, purchasers were assured, would be spent on the further development of the beach. The leasing arrangement ensured that the city would have money to spend on the area, since it was denied the right to collect other taxes from the residents.”

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"The+...inst+Them:"+Class,+Environment,...-a081762577



________________________________________
 

David O'Reilly

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
482
4
18
#26
scotto
08-19-2008, 12:27 AM
I've been told my house on Kirk Road was down at Van Wagners' beach prior to Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

Back in the 50's there must of been a lot of extra room on the strip because many homes were moved from VanWagners'. Before the City started buying all the lots for parkland, I remember it being very crowded down here.
________________________________________

“A land assessment roll from 1890 provides some idea about twenty-four of the summer resort properties found south of the canal. Whereas the average permanent beach resident owned 1/2 acre of land valued at $400, the average summer resident owned only half that space but it was assessed at nearly double the amount.”(28)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"The+...inst+Them:"+Class,+Environment,...-a081762577

Scott, I wonder if the lots were still this size in the mid 1900’s.

In the thread ‘Hamilton Street Guide’ you state, “
http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-503.html

10-30-2013, 05:39 PM
If anyone can give the current names of streets I will make notations on this note.

Many of the streets had a name change when the Beach became a part of the City of Hamilton, many of the streets were removed for different reason, the main one was the building of the Skyway Bridge.
Gary Evan's has donated a whole chapter in his latest book explaining what happened to Beach sidestreets and how they were named originally.
We also have a few older maps that have the names that you have listed, I will see if I can dig one up.”

Does Gary Evans say anything about the size or number of lots that were expropriated for the Skyway?
________________________________________
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
7,012
218
63
The Beach Strip
#27
“A land assessment roll from 1890 provides some idea about twenty-four of the summer resort properties found south of the canal. Whereas the average permanent beach resident owned 1/2 acre of land valued at $400, the average summer resident owned only half that space but it was assessed at nearly double the amount.”(28)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"The+...inst+Them:"+Class,+Environment,...-a081762577

Scott, I wonder if the lots were still this size in the mid 1900’s.

In the thread ‘Hamilton Street Guide’ you state, “
http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-503.html

10-30-2013, 05:39 PM
If anyone can give the current names of streets I will make notations on this note.

Many of the streets had a name change when the Beach became a part of the City of Hamilton, many of the streets were removed for different reason, the main one was the building of the Skyway Bridge.
Gary Evan's has donated a whole chapter in his latest book explaining what happened to Beach sidestreets and how they were named originally.
We also have a few older maps that have the names that you have listed, I will see if I can dig one up.”

Does Gary Evans say anything about the size or number of lots that were expropriated for the Skyway?
________________________________________
The thread with the street changes show most if not all of the sidestreets at that time, I believe Clare and Grafton stayed with the same name as well as few that were numbered such as Sixth Ave.
The lots by then (1950's) were not half acres on the sidestreets but cut up into the lots that are still there today, I live on one which is measured at 40 by 100 feet which is very common.

By the mid 1900's we are looking at building the new Skyway Bridge, Peggy has just picked up a new map that I have never seen, but it shows all the lots on the Beach, their size and if they had a house sitting on them and this would be before they were bought from the owners to build the Skyway. I don't recall the number of houses removed, but a whole survey at the edge of the harbour was removed (Kenmore).
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
7,012
218
63
The Beach Strip
#28
scotto
11-06-2013, 03:45 PM
Scott,


http://hamiltonbeachcommunity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1537.html

and this page also seems to refer to lots on ‘the beach’ being leased.

“The second surveying party represented the city of Hamilton, which had acquired control of all vacant Crown Land in the name of recreation for its people. Just what that meant in practical terms soon became evident. The surveyed lots were sold at an auction to individuals who then subleased the land for $10 annually. Revenues from the annual rent, purchasers were assured, would be spent on the further development of the beach. The leasing arrangement ensured that the city would have money to spend on the area, since it was denied the right to collect other taxes from the residents.”

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"The+...inst+Them:"+Class,+Environment,...-a081762577



________________________________________
David;
From what I have read, Hamilton didn't get the property taxes from the Beach back then, Saltfleet did. So the lease agreement gave Hamilton some form of tax income although it wasn't officially a tax. So yes confusing, I can't imagine spending a large fortune on a home such as the Moorings or Elsinore and not having legal right to the land.
 
Top Bottom