architecture

May 9, 2007

Don’t let the decision makers of Hamilton destroy one of the few architectual icons in the city. In the past I haven’t been so kind to our poor City Hall, as this 1998 editorial cartoon illustrates. But over the past few years I’ve learned to appreciate it better and better despite it being neglected and allowed to fall apart by negligent politicians. It needs upgrades, it needs some scrubbing, surrounding features need to be changed or renovated, but most importantly — it needs a lot more love by Hamiltonians and its politicians.

Here are my reasons for why we need to save Stan Roscoe’s City Hall:

— Hamilton can’t afford a new City Hall. This is a choice between renovating at $69 million, or rebuilding from between $115 to $150 million. The extra amount to rebuild is money the city doesn’t have — that is unless they add it on our already high property taxes which they most certainly will do.

— We’ve been down this road before. City Council voted to go with renovations beginning in 2005. Work has already begun and contracts have been made to continue what was decided upon several years ago. There are more important issues to deal with.

— It was designated as a heritage building on May 9, 2005. That means most, but not all, of the buildings’ heritage features will be maintained during a costly renovation. Any decision by council to demolish the building is going to be met with litigation.

— The elected politicians of Hamilton never received a mandate by voters to tear down City Hall as it was never raised as an issue in the last election. While it might sound hokey, a City Hall is more than just an ediface, it is like a legislature, or a Parliament, or an icon that belongs to the people, not by the politicians who work there on a day to day basis.

— The replacement will be an on-the-cheap, unstylish monster. Ask yourself this: has there been any civic building constructed in this city over the last 25 years which really stands out as an attractive architectural marvel? Is the 21st century style of the new Federal Building or the Juravinski Addition any better than the 1950’s International meets modernist Style of our current City Hall? Have a look at this website to see some of the monsters built in Hamilton over the past 50 years.

— As a further point to make on a rebuilt City Hall one really has to wonder if such a new structure is going to stimulate development and people friendliness around the building as Mayor Eisenberger suggests. That’s highly doubtful given the 5 lane Main Street highway directly in front of City Hall. The only way pedestrian traffic will increase is if the city commits itself to radically altering the flow of vehicular traffic in the area, and that simply isn’t going to happen in a place like Hamilton.

— Is it really in our best interests to demolish a building and fill a landfill up with the refuse at a time when we’ve been talking about saving the planet and doing our part to reduce, reuse, and recycle? It seems pretty irresponsible to do such a thing with a building that was intended to last several lifetimes, not just a 47 year span.

Admittedly, the building ain’t a pretty sight these days. The white marble is blackened, the grey forecourt looks horrendously shabby and the council chambers above the entrance has the appearance of a frat house thanks to interior renovations which ignore how it appears on the outside. Do the necessary restoration to return the once handsome building to what it once was. And finally, never let what represents the heart of this city whither away to resemble an embarassing dump.

FEEDBACK

I think it’s possible for private investment to mix with public dollars to build a shiny new City Hall that we can all be proud of and not have to be taxed to the gills on. No matter how much they spruce up the present City Hall it’ll always look boxy, drab, and out of date. There are some really great new city halls in Ontario, eg. Kitchener’s city hall.

T.A. Trocker (May 14, 2007)

Thursday December 21, 2006

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 21, 2006

McGuinty accuses NDP of theatrics over pay hike

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty accused the NDP on Tuesday of using unprecedented stalling tactics and theatrics to delay a 25-per-cent salary hike for provincial legislators.

New Democrats have been colourful in expressing their anger over the pay boost for members of the provincial parliament, announced in a surprise move by McGuinty’s government last week. The NDP has been trying to force the related bill to a committee for public hearings.

The provincial legislature had been scheduled to rise on Dec. 14, but the government announced it would sit another week in an effort to pass the pay hike.

Before a Liberal caucus meeting Tuesday, McGuinty invited Ontarians to “grab some popcorn” to watch the NDP’s performance.

“…It is really without precedent in the annals of parliamentary traditions,” he said of the New Democrats tactics.

The legislation would see the MPPs earning 75 per cent of what their federal counterparts make and would increase a member’s base salary to $110,775 from $88,771. (CBC) 

 

Tuesday November 20, 2001

November 20, 2001

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 20, 2001

Secrecy at City Hall becoming the norm

Mayor Bob Wade just doesn’t get it. He still believes, apparently, that council members are entitled to meet in secret any time they don’t want the public, or the media, listening in or looking over their shoulders.

Councillor Marvin Caplan is beyond not getting it, but we’ll return to that in a moment. Wade has to be the focus of any discussion of council openness or the lack thereof.

A recent series of five closed meetings continues a trend the mayor began even before he took office. Last November, he called a closed-door session of councillors — elected but not yet sworn in — to discuss, among other things, their own salaries. The meeting, the first time they sat down together, was in a Hamilton Place boardroom. No problem, the mayor said. They weren’t yet members of council (all but one were still sitting members of existing councils) and he wanted to give them a chance to “vent” away from staff and media.

A greater concern than any one of these questionable meetings of council members is that secret meetings are becoming business as usual at City Hall. There is a disturbing philosophy emerging: The mayor and some councillors clearly believe the public and the media get in the way of their work.

Too bad. Public accountability comes with being on the public teat.

Councillor Caplan’s take on the five closed meetings? “I think there should be more stuff in camera, not less.”

What is he thinking? What is wrong with an elected official who wants more secrecy in place of openness and transparency? Councillor Sam Merulla says the meetings should be public — but has raised no objection. So much for principle. (Hamilton Spectator)