"Hamilton's dead. Or is it?" Globe & Mail article

[Jon Dalton]

I'm just going to regurgitate what I posted on another, less serious website where this article came up: I'll have to give this a better read when more sober/alert but having skimmed it, it seems to give a more thorough rundown of our state of affairs than the last several TO articles on Hamilton. However the big issues, it kind of scratches on then runs away from. Healthcare and education as our biggest industries, and that's not a problem? Poverty? Maybe it's just too much of a white elephant but I'm more convinced than ever that the demographics of our core shape the image and prosperity of the entire city, in recent history for the worse. How do we change those demographics? I see the influx of middle class Torontonians, especially knowing some of them personally, our best potential for salvation. Think of it as an influx of money combined with urban values. Those two in combination are what Hamilton has been lacking for the last 60 years.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

I'm just going to regurgitate what I posted on another, less serious website where this article came up: I'll have to give this a better read when more sober/alert but having skimmed it, it seems to give a more thorough rundown of our state of affairs than the last several TO articles on Hamilton. However the big issues, it kind of scratches on then runs away from. Healthcare and education as our biggest industries, and that's not a problem? Poverty? Maybe it's just too much of a white elephant but I'm more convinced than ever that the demographics of our core shape the image and prosperity of the entire city, in recent history for the worse. How do we change those demographics? I see the influx of middle class Torontonians, especially knowing some of them personally, our best potential for salvation. Think of it as an influx of money combined with urban values. Those two in combination are what Hamilton has been lacking for the last 60 years.

You're correct that the demographics of the lower city have to change. But it's not enough that middle class Torontonians simply live in Hamilton. For the city to suceed, it really needs an economic engine at home. There needs to be wealth generation in Hamilton. At one time Hamilton was an economic powerhouse, and that's when everything good about the city came to be. Without economic activity, a city dies. It's really as simple as that.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

...but I'm more convinced than ever that the demographics of our core shape the image and prosperity of the entire city, in recent history for the worse. How do we change those demographics?

Rumour has it the Connaught is slated for affordable housing, which is pretty much a doomsday scenario for diversifying downtown's demographics.

[FairHamilton]

New economy jobs are what is needed in Downtown Hamilton. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be the interest or the will from Hamilton politicians, or bureaucrats to actively pursue companies that will create wealth.

I'm glad what I've been preaching, jobs, jobs, jobs, since moving to Hamilton in March 2008 is gaining some traction, on this forum and outside this forum.

In the past, my signature was "It's the jobs, stupid", and I got into heated discussions with those who thought creating a good urban landscape would attract people and then employers would to locate close to those people.

Nope, it's the jobs first, http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...highlight=jobs.

Unfortunately, it seems that all the developers and politicians want to attract is subsidized housing to boost downtown population density. And that has nothing to do with wealth creation. What we need is a change in local government and a paradigm shift in the outlooks and thoughts of bureaucrats. And we need it soon.

[realcity]

Originally Posted by highwater

Rumour has it the Connaught is slated for affordable housing, which is pretty much a doomsday scenario for diversifying downtown's demographics.

You gotta be kidding?

One third the hotels rooms of London and 3x the affordable housing. ALL of Hamilton is pretty much 'affordable housing'. 3-bedroom, 2 baths, 2-story houses for miles between Barton and Main for less then 130k.

Ya Hamilton is def moving in the right direction.


That's it... I'm moving to Toronto.

[rousseau]

Even the province has had trouble in this town. In the late 1970s, the Bill Davis government wanted to give Hamilton a light rail transit system that would link its downtown and waterfront to the airport. The government saw it as a chance to test-market something it wanted to sell worldwide. But Hamilton was sure that if the province wanted to give it something like that, there must be something wrong with it. So it said no to a freebie that would have transformed the city. Needing a place to show off its system, the province wound up selling it to British Columbia for Expo 86. In Vancouver, they called it the SkyTrain.

Holy fuck.

[jgrwatson]

Wow - that is a great article.

It really hits the nail on the head in terms of what Hamilton projects . . . I especially agree with the notion that politicans live in the suburbs, come downtown for a few hours, and hightail it back out.

In fact. The AGH is having their Internation Film Festival this year and the coordinator commented at the last meeting that "people are coming downtown who have never been downtown" and the AGH is going all out to accomodate and make people comfortable. I hope it works!

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Holy fuck.

They are a great band.

In all seriousness, it would have left us fuming at the piece of junk we were 'given'. A system okay for serving suburbs (Scarobough LRT), but ill suited for serving Hamilton downtown.

The fact they couldn't sell any worldwide much beyond Scarborough, Vancouver & Detroit should say all that needs to be said.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Holy fuck.

I'm not up to speed on the history of it, but Wikipedia suggests that the test system Vancouver got was a 1km, single-station run, or about a quarter of the Expo 86 track; it was the Expo dollars that enabled its extension, I would imagine. (That line is far larger than that now, of course.) Take away the Expo funding and it's entirely possible that Hamilton would have no more than that initial stretch of of aging elevated rail lashed around its core today, almost 30 years later.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

I'm not up to speed on the history of it, but Wikipedia suggests that the test system Vancouver got was a 1km, single-station run, or about a quarter of the Expo 86 track; it was the Expo dollars that enabled its extension, I would imagine. (That line is far larger than that now, of course.) Take away the Expo funding and it's entirely possible that Hamilton would have no more than that initial stretch of of aging elevated rail lashed around its core today, almost 30 years later.

I was around for this, and lived through the issues with Scarborough's LRT and it wasn't pretty. The UTDC was essentially a white elephant with troublesome, poor, and unwanted products.

Another important point, is the rolling stock from that period is now obsolete, so new lines need to be run with different rolling stock that needs different equipment. This results in rolling stock that can not be used system wide, and increased costs for all kinds of other reasons (i.e. repair & maintenance). Think about how long Toronto's streetcar rails have been in the ground and that new rolling stock will fit, just like the rolling stock of 50, 60 years ago.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

They are a great band.

In all seriousness, it would have left us fuming at the piece of junk we were 'given'. A system okay for serving suburbs (Scarobough LRT), but ill suited for serving Hamilton downtown.

The fact they couldn't sell any worldwide much beyond Scarborough, Vancouver & Detroit should say all that needs to be said.

I often struggle with the question of whether we would be better off having accepted the proposed elevated transit of the early 80's. It certainly adds nothing to the street level aesthetic of the corridor it passes through. I've seen streets in Paris, the worldwide mecca of street life, where the metro runs elevated, that are absolutlely sketchy. Elevated transit removes passenger traffic from the street. In Vancouver BC the SkyTrain has largely avoided vibrant commercial streets in its alignment. The new line is underground except for the outer suburban portion. If the proposed Hamilton rapid transit had bypassed streets like James South, I feel that it would have been a net benefit. However the era of elevated rail as a preferred alignment is clearly over and cities from big to small have come full circle to street level transit, and this is the best time for Hamilton to get with the program.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

I often struggle with the question of whether we would be better off having accepted the proposed elevated transit of the early 80's. It certainly adds nothing to the street level aesthetic of the corridor it passes through. I've seen streets in Paris, the worldwide mecca of street life, where the metro runs elevated, that are absolutlely sketchy. Elevated transit removes passenger traffic from the street. In Vancouver BC the SkyTrain has largely avoided vibrant commercial streets in its alignment. The new line is underground except for the outer suburban portion. If the proposed Hamilton rapid transit had bypassed streets like James South, I feel that it would have been a net benefit. However the era of elevated rail as a preferred alignment is clearly over and cities from big to small have come full circle to street level transit, and this is the best time for Hamilton to get with the program.

My understanding (and if anyone was there and can correct me, have at it): The preferred "W" route that would have gone forward in 1981 had its southern terminus at the Canadian Tire at Mohawk/Upper James, an underground station at Mountain Plaza Mall, tunnelled through the escarpment to an elevated stop by St. Joseph's Hospital, slipped over to Hughson and headed north until it hit the TH&B (where it didn't stop), chased the rail line west to loop around Hunter/MacNab, ran around the Family Court and then headed over to the transit island on MacNab (elevated station), then east on King to James, north on James to King William, east to an elevated stop across from the Rebecca St bus station, then up Catharine to an optional elevated station between the Ramada and the Connaught, over to the TH&B and back into its mountain lair. It would be nice to have Vancouver's 60km of Skytrain, but that's not what was on the table -- and without Vancouver's socioeconomic profile and the 1986 Expo and the 2010 Olympics to use as leverage, it's not at all clear what would have come from Hamilton’s initial foray into elevated rail. It might have simply codified the era's hostility toward streetlife and made further transit innovation a political minefield. Who knows? I'm glad that LRT is being addressed more openly and thoughtfully than in generations past.

[matt602]

I definitely think we dodged a bullet on the RT system, especially having experienced the Scarborough RT every day for a few years. A horribly un-urban design with tons of flaws. It has and still will cost the city of Toronto for many years to come.

[go_leafs_go02]

Well the Skytrain in Vancouver is one heck of a success!

[realcity]

^ exactly

Hamilton would've been better off with a less-then-stellar RT line then no RT line. Just curious... was this under mayor moron Jack MacDonald's watch?

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by realcity

^ exactly

Hamilton would've been better off with a less-then-stellar RT line then no RT line. Just curious... was this under mayor moron Jack MacDonald's watch?

Yep, Jack was a great proponent of the system. It would have been built if he had his way.

[SteelTown]

I wish City Housing would focus more towards home ownership, like Options for Homes, than always affordable housing.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I wish City Housing would focus more towards home ownership, like Options for Homes, than always affordable housing.

That and a mix of subsidized, geared to income and market rate housing. Diversity is extremely important to the urban fabric.

[SteelTown]

I had a picture of the Skytrain showing it would be elevated and literally running the East side of the Connaught, currently a parking lot.

[realcity]

Whether elevated or not, that's irrelevant. What matters is how accessible, the number of stops, frequency and where the stops are.

How is underground different from elevated? Walk up, walk down, same shit.

*Personally elevated looks cooler* *and better views*

Chicago is an El-Train and is successful. Detroit's EL doesn't extend far enough into the suburbs to be used to capacity. We should learn from that.

In fact many Great Lake cities can't have underground trains bc of soil or rock issues --- whatever -- even Hamilton is challenged for underground, apparently there is an underground river. *Personally I think this is false and just repeated and an excuse to why we don't underground stuff and super-talls. but anyway.

The system whether elevated or underground just needs to connect important areas and have strategic stops.

TTC Subway is small by comparison to other cities but wherever there is a stop there is a cluster of development. Property values are relative to proximity of a TTC stop.