This is a response to former Hamilton councillor and lawyer Herman Turkstra, who shared some very thoughtful views and insights today about the merits of the Board of Education campaign. Herman is a man I have great respect for.
Hi Herman,
What I will say is that you’re correct on a big point- this issue is multi-faceted. I didn’t suggest in the video that this was a heritage building, or that it should be restored based on those merits. I simply feel that it’s a waste of materials to tear down any building which can be feasibly renovated and adapted for ongoing use. I think we do need a fuller sense of the actual costs of maintaining that building. The board may understand those costs better than I do, but they just need to tell me, the information has not been divulged to me, and as far as I can tell, the option was not fully researched or seriously considered. I have been literally stonewalled in my attempts to better understand that.
You bring up valid points about the merit of the style of architecture- a respected friend of mine who is now a semi-retired architect tells me he can’t stand it. Others who I respect just as much tell me they love it- as you point out, you know that opinions are split on that.
Someone asked me the other day whether the building is worthy of heritage preservation, whether this is a significant piece of architecture. I responded “Let’s say there’s no meaning to the building at all and put that aside- that’s subjective and everyone has an opinion one way or the other. Is it a sustainable practice to pay for the construction of public buildings and only use them for 45 years? Will the new Board of Ed that has been proposed for Crestwood be torn down in 45 years? If so, is the construction worth it? If so, should the Board of Education be in the business of owning office space? Doesn’t their track record of property maintenance suggest that the Board should lease rather than own buildings?”
Again, as you point out, it’s not one issue, there are several issues in play here. I agree that keeping the Board downtown is as important if not more important than saving architecture. The implications of moving the seat of governance for the school board further away from the neighbourhoods who need to access it most are frustrating.
I appreciate your point- if the building is torn down, let’s get a commitment that what takes it’s place is a building that does more for the city than it’s predecessor ever has or ever will. What I can offer to that is my learned cynicism as a young Hamiltonian (I was born in 1982- well after what anyone would consider Hamilton’s ‘glory days’). I simply haven’t lived through a period where buildings were torn down and replaced with something superior.
York Street was replaced by a wider road, a halfway house, a highschool/jail, one or two social service organizations, a swiss chalet and a quizno’s. My father, who operated a service station on York street throughout the 1960′s, still tells me again and again how much he misses York Street. How much potential he felt it had. He feels disappointed, and that disappointment has carried on to me. I feel I try my best to represent him.
If I felt in my heart that the only way McMaster could participate in developing downtown was to develop on this particular property, and tearing down the building was the only way to facilitate that, I’d just get out of the way and choose another battle as you suggest.
I simply can’t understand the absolute need to develop this project at Main and Bay. I simply can’t understand the need to tear the building down when a viable plot of land is available directly to the North. I simply can’t understand how this kind of project can happen without a better approach to community consultation. I don’t understand how the City, the School Board and McMaster, despite the health campus project’s multiple potential benefits, feel it is proper to conduct business behind closed doors. I understand why public bodies need to go in camera, for valid legal concerns. But significant decisions were made out of public view. That’s a fundamental concern, regardless of the project.
My biggest question is how these three partners can’t deliver a project of this magnitude without it being an entirely positive development as it should be. As the plan currently stands, barring a last-minute change, there are numerous negative aspects of this plan that I pointed out in the video. I just don’t know why we always need to subtract in order to add, or why current assets always need to be sacrificed in order to make progress.
I feel like I’ve written you a short novel here- but I have a lot of respect for you and I do want to make sure you can see where I’m coming from. If you’d ever like to discuss it further I would love to have coffee. I have a copy of “You Can Fight City Hall” by Vince Agro on my desk, a book you had a part in advising. I know you to be someone who can very likely help me understand this city better, because I have no plans to call any other place my home.
Thank you- have a great weekend.
