Special Report: Education

City Needs More from McMaster to Justify $55 Million

Imagine the possibilities for downtown revitalization in a joint bid by McMaster and the City to build a student residence in the vacant Royal Connaught building.

By Joey Coleman
Published July 18, 2011

Hamilton City Council is considering a request from McMaster University for $55 million to build a medical arts building on the property that currently houses the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board headquarters.

The McMaster building is being promoted as a major breakthrough for downtown redevelopment. McMaster estimates that the building will bring 450 jobs, 4,000 student visitors, and 54,000 patient visits to the core each year.

They are making an offer they believe City Council will be too afraid to turn down, lest they become known as the Council that kept McMaster from locating downtown.

We've already seen City Council make decisions motivated by fear of a major community stakeholder leaving the table. The stadium debate last year was the starkest example of this dynamic in play.

Repeatedly, members of Council would state variations on, 'I don't want to be remembered for losing the Tiger-Cats'. This unwillingness to walk away from negotiations, even if the other party was not negotiating, allowed the Ticats to dictate the terms of the stadium debate. The end result is a renovated stadium with limited city building potential.

City Council must not repeat this error: we need to ensure that the city-building potential of McMaster University downtown is not lost.

Council Needs More Value for $55 Million

This building will not fix what ails the core and City Council needs to receive more in return for the $55 million that McMaster is requesting.

McMaster is dangling the possibility that, in the future, the university may consider building commercial space and condominiums on the north side of the property where the school board parking lot currently resides.

Upon first glance, it appears McMaster is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength. The University has the funding to build their medical centre anywhere they choose. None of the funding for the building restricts the location.

David Braley, now a member of Canada's Senate, donated $50 million to McMaster's Faculty of Health Sciences in 2007. $10 million of this donation is directed to the new family medicine centre. Braley was clear in 2007 when he stated, during the donation announcement in the McMaster University Student Centre, that McMaster should work with all three levels of government to locate in Hamilton's core.

During the media scrum following the announcement, Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, stated, "I cannot think of any place better where $10 million can go than here at McMaster to go towards building a family medicine building in the downtown core."

It is clear that the political direction that influences McMaster is pushing the university to locate the building downtown. The province and federal governments have both committed funding to the project.

Opportunity to Negotiate

McMaster's negotiating position is equal to City Hall. They need the money from the City to expand their medical program successfully.

The university's bond rating was downgraded in 2010 to AA by DBRS Credit Rating service. The downgrade was reflective of concerns about the university's high pension deficit and the expectation that McMaster will be returning to the bond market in the near future to raise $100-million.

McMaster, like all Ontario universities, received a partial reprieve from pension plan solvency obligations last summer. The province extended the usual five-year timeline for meeting solvency obligations to ten years for universities. McMaster's pension deficit previously stood at $373-million, the second highest of any Canadian university.

The University's unfunded pension and post-employment liabilities reached $589.9-million in 2009-10. The plan's most recent evaluation was completed on July 1. It was expected to return a higher liability figure. (No response was received from McMaster University's office of public relations to email sent last Monday, July 11 requesting the updated figure.)

McMaster's debt was $153.3 million as of April 30, 2010.

MIP: Trump Card or Bluff?

Patrick Deane, the new president of McMaster University, has wisely started addressing the long-term financial challenges facing the institution. It is in this context that one must view the University's requirement that City funding for the new building include a long-term lease commitment to house staff of the City's public health department.

McMaster's hand contains a we'll-move-it-to-Innovation-Park card. Will McMaster play this card or is it a bluff?

McMaster could play this card, but playing it will impact the long-term revenue of the university. The MIP lands are designed to generate revenue for the institution by housing private corporations (leasing revenue) and facilitating research that generates patents which can be licensed or otherwise commercialized.

(I wrote about IP policies for Maclean's in 2007.)

The family medicine centre will not be a revenue generating facility and there is a limited supply of land at the MIP. It is not in the long term interest of the University to locate the facility at MIP due to a lack of presently available capital funds.

The City does have its own trump card. McMaster needs the $20 million upfront and $35 million long term. It is not in the City's interest to overplay its hand either.

The City is facing the real possibility of a vacant building directly across from City Hall. It's not healthy for a prominent intersection such as the one housing City Hall to contain two vacant properties. It will further depress the downtown core.

The medical building will not correct the greatest problem facing the inner downtown core. It will not bring any new permanent evening population into the downtown.

Downtown Campus

What would really benefit downtown is for McMaster to locate a student residence building in the core with an eventual expansion of undergraduate programs there.

The City of Hamilton should request, in exchange for $55 million for the medical building, that McMaster sign a Memorandum of Understanding committing to locating their next student residence in the downtown core.

The City should include a commitment to assure a third of the mortgage on the building in exchange for a commitment from the university to operate the residence as a summer hotel. The addition of hundreds of hotel spaces in the summer will greatly assist the city to secure convention business (one of our main barriers is a lack of accommodation). Additional conventions will make HEFCI a more attractive asset to potential private sector operators.

Hundreds of students living in the core will spark a boom in businesses catering to a younger demographic. One only needs to look at King and Main streets west of Catherine to see the impact of a student residence on the core.

The Columbia College student residence in the former Holiday Inn on Catherine Street South is the driving force supporting a number of small businesses. The sushi restaurants in this area have become an attraction drawing people to the downtown core.

Imagine the possibilities that a joint bid by the City and McMaster University for the vacant Royal Connaught Building would create.

University conversions of high quality hotels are success stories for every institution that have expanded their residences using this method. It's also more cost-effective than the construction of a new building.

There's an opportunity for City Council to see great returns on $55 million. They just need to see the forest for the trees they are hiding behind.

This was first published on Joey's personal website.

Joey Coleman is Canada's first crowdfunded journalist and the only full-time dedicated reporter at City Hall. Joey cover's every meeting at City Hall, and livestreams meetings - enabling everyone to know what is happening at City Hall. He does all of his work without a paywall, thanks to hundreds of Hamiltonians who contribute to his crowdfunding campaigns. Support Joey's latest crowdfunding campaign here. Read more of his work at http://www.joeycoleman.ca/, or follow him on Twitter @JoeyColeman.

35 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 09:39:54

This may sound too much like city building or planning? How about using the money to lever McMaster to distribute their student housing at LRT nodes through the core. This could be a good seed for node development, and would offer more affordable off campus housing with excellent university access via the LRT B-Line.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 09:56:01 in reply to Comment 66333

This is part of the idea.

A Super-Express bus starting at the Connaught, stopping at Gore Park, Jackson Square, and Queen Street then super Express to Mac would be a major step to getting students downtown.

Westdale was planned to be a single-family home area of the city. Downtown's are designed to be higher density, more "lively", and should attract single individuals.

Making downtown attractive to students will do more to correct housing problems in Westdale than any other measure the city can implement.

Winnipeg, where I attended first-year, operates super-express buses to the University of Manitoba (which is on the southern skirts of the city) from many regions of the city. There is no student ghetto because most students locate themselves in more affordable areas with super-express service.

The super-express operates inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon.

We had a huge opportunity to prove to students that downtown living was viable in 2008 when the Brandon Hall residence fire displaced hundreds of first-year students into downtown hotels.

Instead, we kept the same overcapacity bus service with no midday or evening express service. These students discovered that buses were just as likely to bypass you as they were to pick you up.

The lesson for these students - don't live anywhere that you need bus service to get to school.

We should've operated express buses for these students, added capacity, and held special events (such an outdoor movie night at City Hall or the AGH) to welcome them to the core.

In terms of LRT, we should be building McMaster to Downtown, Downtown to James St N GO Station first.

Comment edited by JoeyColeman on 2011-07-18 09:56:18

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By John Neary (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 12:29:49 in reply to Comment 66337

I have thought for some time that an A-line "stub" would make sense as an initial project together with the B-line. LIUNA Station to St. Joseph's is 2 km. Adding an east-west spur from LIUNA to Hamilton General would be an extra 1 km and would link three of our four hospitals to the university, both train stations, and the downtown. The hospitals generate a massive amount of automobile traffic which might be mitigated by LRT connections.

And ending the A-line (for now) at SJH would defer the expense of tunnelling up the mountain.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 10:58:44 in reply to Comment 66337

"A Super-Express bus starting at the Connaught, stopping at Gore Park, Jackson Square, and Queen Street then super Express to Mac would be a major step to getting students downtown."

I don't see that as being substantially different from the Beeline. I mean, the Beeline has what, 2 stops between Queen street and McMaster? Not exactly really delaying the students all that much.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 11:07:24 in reply to Comment 66345

Much as the express is more attractive because of branding (it really only saves a few mins from downtown to Mac), a SuperExpress holds a greater attraction.

The Beeline no longer enters the campus and only every other stops in front of the hospital.

(It's a guessing game to decide which stop to wait at going downtown)

A super-express is designed to operate at peak times (arrive at McMaster for :20, leave McMaster at :30), the hourly change of classes.

It also better reflects the actual transit operation - many buses are full by Queen Street and operate "super-express" to McMaster due to capacity issues at those peak times.

A further extension would be three super-expresses in the morning to McMaster and three out in the evening from McMaster along two lines:

Valley Park - Eastgate - Downtown - McMaster

Limeridge Mall - Meadowlands Terminal - Main and Cootes - McMaster

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 13:44:50 in reply to Comment 66346

SuperExpress service would have the added advantage of being an opening to right-size the costs of Mac's U-Pass, which offers HSR service at less than 18% market value.

https://www.msumcmaster.ca/services/hsr/overview.htm;jsessionid=B5480486809CF46B2BED39FCB92F2ADA

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 11:53:45 in reply to Comment 66346

Better idea: let's build an east-west light rail transit line that connects McMaster with downtown. Say - it could even continue eastward, to, I don't know, Eastgate Square.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By WRCU2 (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 14:11:50 in reply to Comment 66350

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-07-18 14:35:02

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 15:18:24 in reply to Comment 66360

LRT was the closing word in JC's first comment, which is what I responded to (I'm sometimes guilty of commenting on comments):

http://raisethehammer.org/comment/66337

In truth, transit isn't discussed at all in JC's piece. The question is more one of leveraging the $55 million, of which you might make the case that $35 million – the portion of the commitment related to leased space for Public Health – would be spent in whole or large part even without the arrival of a new McMaster campus. Yes, that decision does alter the office vacancy rate in the core. A key question, it seems to me, is what is it worth to the City of Hamilton to lure McMaster to make a substantial new investment east of Frid Street.

Ideally, yes, that should come with an MOU for a downtown residence. Could that residence double as a June-August hotel? Sure. Would that alter the hotel vacancy in the core (just above 50% capacity last year)? No doubt.

The fact that the Columbia residence was once a hotel is only one of many omens here. Hamilton's alleged "hotel shortage" is a matter of perspective, and lengthy enough to merit its own essay, but it comes down to the same old chicken-and-egg problem that we see with regard to downtown condo development. The difference here is that the city would either be competing full-time with private businesses that are already struggling or paying to mothball the facility until such time as the city lands a major event or convention that is on track to max out the rooms in the core, activating it on demand. A 450-student residence would be a game changer, but it would also be a third of the city's total existing hotel stock. The Sheraton and the Crowne Plaza, FWIW, have 520 rooms between them. (Granted, I suspect few are as bare-bones as a student residence.)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 15:38:09 in reply to Comment 66366

I included LRT as it's part of the game changing nature of locating a university residence in the downtown core.

Our vacancy problem is concentrated during the winter months. Our problem during the summer is that we don't have enough "vacant" rooms for conventions. Many conventions don't mind the "bare-bones" accomodation of a university residence serving as hotel space. When on assignment, I prefer "university hotels". Mostly because they include common spaces and I'm a university reporter so it's a good excuse to be on the campus.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 16:05:06 in reply to Comment 66369

If convention business is mainly May-August, it's a novel solution, then. My understanding from the recent audit was that the 30-year-old Convention Centre's limiting factor was that it was one of the smallest such facilities in the province, offering 52,314 sq ft of rentable space, only marginally larger than the 8-year-old London Convention Centre (43,357 sq ft). But downtown London has almost two-and-a-half times the convention-quality hotel rooms of downtown Hamilton. An 8-month residence might get around this issue, but it seems to me that increased convention centre competition from other communities – and from postsecondary institutions and other local hotels – has to explain in part why trade show and convention traffic doesn't end up here.

It's certainly an endangered facility, though: KPMG notes that "The Convention Centre's payroll over the last four years is virtually 100% of event revenue and substantially higher than the comparative set." In 2010, it was 98.5%; its 2007-2010 average was over 91% of gross revenue, while payroll at "similarly sized convention centres" for the same period averaged out at just over 45% of gross revenue. That suggests that they have little opportunity to engage in dynamic pricing to lure in events, a hurdle that is independent of local hotel stock. And it's not getting any younger.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 15:34:38 in reply to Comment 66366

Maybe worth mentioning that McMaster already engages in a similar May-Aug arrangement as regards its Mary Keyes Residence (280 capacity) and Les Prince Hall (389 capacity) – and hosts conventions as well.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 09:19:42 in reply to Comment 66368

Excerpted from MeetingsCanada.com's 2009-2010 Incentive Travel & Meetings Buyer’s Guide:

HAMILTON
• Admiral Inn Hamilton: 56 rooms, 2 suites, 2 meeting rooms
• Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum: 30,000 sq ft of exhibit space, 4 meeting rooms; largest seats 1,400 theatre style, 1400 for banquet
• Copps Coliseum: 117,000 sq ft of exhibit space
• Crowne Plaza Hamilton: 199 rooms, 9 suites
• Hamilton Convention Centre: 40,000 sq ft of exhibit space, 19,662 sq ft of meeting space, 19 meeting rooms; largest seats 2,191 theatre-style, 2,000 for banquet
• Holiday Inn Express Stoney Creek: 136 rooms, 264 sq ft of meeting space, 2 meeting rooms
• McMaster University: Residence accommodation for 3,200, 18,000 sq ft of exhibit space, 100 meeting rooms; largest seats 600 theatre-style, 1,000 for banquet
• Royal Botanical Gardens: 20,000 sq ft of exhibit space, 10 meeting rooms; largest seats 500 theatre-style, 400 for banquet
• Sheraton Hamilton: 301 rooms, 3 suites, 13,000 sq ft of meeting space, 13 meeting rooms; largest seats 600 theatre-style, 480 for banquet
• The Coach House at Dundurn Castle: 1,200 sq ft of meeting space, 1 meeting room; largest seats 120 theatre-style, 80 for banquet
• Visitors Inn: 1,250 sq ft of meeting space, 1 meeting room; largest seats 60 theatre-style, 50 for banquet

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 15:59:58 in reply to Comment 66368

The major advantage for McMaster in partnering on a downtown residence with the City is that a 1/3 of the debt won't be on their books which is significant.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred STreet (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 16:07:40 in reply to Comment 66378

True. And maybe it's the only way forward. Paying 33% of McMaster's expansion into downtown is probably a bargain in the bigger scheme of things. But at a certain point the public sector is going to want to take a breather.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 14:30:59 in reply to Comment 66360

If we're talking about rapid transit connections between downtown and McMaster, it is absolutely on topic to talk about LRT.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By WRCU2 (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 14:39:53 in reply to Comment 66361

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By me 109 (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 19:54:42 in reply to Comment 66363

Sorry bud... I was in the washroom.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Hands (anonymous) | Posted July 20, 2011 at 10:33:27 in reply to Comment 66425

Make sure that washroom is properly zoned. Just sayin'.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 13:49:37 in reply to Comment 66350

I believe the B-Line not entering the campus was Mac's decision, requirement, demand...

Any other bus, like a super-express, would suffer the same fate.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 10:36:23 in reply to Comment 66337

"In terms of LRT, we should be building McMaster to Downtown, Downtown to James St N GO Station first."

The first half seems like a no-brainer, especially if there's a McMaster campus downtown.

The second half would be a $60m, 1km direct line that extends the route without a guarantee of consistent ridership. While that would be consistent with the Metrolinx vision, so would extending it half as far, to James South and Hughson, where you enjoy the added advantage of an existing multimodal, multi-operator transit hub -- and an upmarket residential/professional base nearby, offering a walkable connection between St. Joe's, the Health Campus and MUMC -- or simply all the way to King and John, bringing you many of the same benefits as well as a hotel/residential/nightlife cluster and McMaster's existing downtown campus.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 10:49:03 in reply to Comment 66339

That said, I can certainly appreciate the romance of rails in the James North prioritization, and have no doubt that it would be a major self-image shift for locals and outsiders both. I guess I tend to get bogged down in the dour realpolitik of this town and would expect service to go where the numbers are. My own baseless prediction would be would that we'll see provisional hourly GO Service to LIUNA Station for the Pan Am Games, and if that experiment doesn't result in impressive adoption numbers, it'd be easier to backburner additional investments.

In any event, even the 5km from Mac to Bay Street would be an Olympian achievement given the current political climate. Anything else would be gravy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 10:40:48 in reply to Comment 66339

My thinking was along the lines of making sure we connect both GO stations to the LRT ensuring that we can attract investment from Toronto into Hamilton's downtown office towers in the form of auxillary offices.

Instead of locating staff in Brampton, companies can locate in Hamilton with their staff able to make meetings in Toronto with ease.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 10:51:58 in reply to Comment 66340

That's certainly a compelling argument. It all depends on GO planning at this point. Lucky for us, Metrolinx is immune to political pressure! ;)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 12:25:01

McMaster to Justify $55 Million? Not without more programs in human nutrition!

I like hearing what you have to say Joey and I wish you had said more about Crown Point and the rationale behind the improved literacy test scores among Queen Mary third graders. I know those revelations would have spawned more pointed discussions; Lord knows I tried although no one would listen. Folks don't yet accept the definitive connection between expensive disease research that cures NOTHING and the simple lack of personal nutritional accounting.

A Mac inspired Family Medical Centre downtown will not turn poverty, disease or a dying downtown around. Only slippery-slope reporting of facts that educate people can bring our prosperity back into everyone's equal.

Pointed community meetings are crowned on the third Monday of every month Joey, which is tonight BTW, just in case you were planning on going;-)

And thanks for sharing.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 15:03:32 in reply to Comment 66351

I'm volunteering on another Boys and Girls Club project tonight. Duane will be there as always representing the Club. Thanks for the invite, I will hopefully attend this fall.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 18, 2011 at 13:53:34

Does the integration/centralization of Public Health facilities here (the biggest reason for the extra floors neede) entail pulling the department out of the nearby Wright House? What's to happen with it?

Come to think of it, how many office buildings downtown are relying on rent from government offices? The Lister, Wright House, Standard Life tower, One James South, 21 King East, 250 Main, etc... Shifting these offices from tower to tower may help with various revitalization projects (pretty much the only reason non-residential stuff gets developed in the core), but what about the spaces they leave behind?

Downtown has suffered with an enormous excess of office space for years. More simply is not needed. We need to stop moving offices out of the core, and stop building new offices.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zozo (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 16:13:52

Any discussion at all on bringing students downtown definitely deserves our attention. In fact, I would go so far to say that it should be a #1 priority for the city. We need to do everything we can to not only attract the student population to downtown, but to retain them. We have two major post secondary schools in this city whose combined population is around 40 000. We need to show this body of population, not only why Hamilton is a great city to attend school, but why Hamilton is a great city to live in.

The vision statement of this city is: "To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities."

This is a great vision, but it lacks conviction. If it is our goal to "To be the best place in Canada to raise a child" we need to realize that it is not the status quo that will be performing this action, but the youth of this city. This is a great strategy, because if you can make the 1st part true, the rest line up perfectly. We need to show the youth of this city (visiting or otherwise) how we are adapting to meet their needs.

The beautiful thing about getting campus living downtown; is that while the City does it's part to make student living the best possible, the free market will do its share by making sure there are youth oriented businesses downtown to provide.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zozo (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 16:14:03

A market place, studying a large population, with new ways to make money? Sounds pretty innovative to me.

A population that is peer oriented, that is all about talking to others on equal footing and maintaining strong social ties where ever they go? Is that an engaged citizen or what?

A population looking to work where they live, deciding to stay there afterwards, and make a life for themselves? A diverse and educated population, cementing their skills and knowledge into our economy. Now that's an opportunity!

We need to really look at this issue, and any related to attracting and RETAINING the educated youth these administrations bring to our city. It is quite simply a wasted strategic resource not to.

Comment edited by Zozo on 2011-07-18 16:14:57

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zozo (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 16:21:14

As for LRT, let get the population first, and work with what we have. Get better bus service, more frequect trips and longer running times going. And then, once things realy start reving up (3-5 years) take advantage of this success story and spend some money on LRT (maybe even with the support/partnership, ie $$$, from local business who have gained so much from good city planning)

Comment edited by Zozo on 2011-07-18 16:22:00

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 17:17:04

I'm all for the "We'll give you the money, but the one string attached is a student residence in the core."

It might spurn action on the Connaught, or it might build a new building over the old BoE parking lot next to the art gallery and remove yet another block of surface parking. It also is the perfect thing for the Hamilton Bulldogs and Copps to capitalize on.

My only concern is the people asking to preserve the old building across from city hall, which apart from it's front mural and west side statue, is not worth preservation.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted July 18, 2011 at 21:35:19

The $100 Million Vrancor project to build 628 condo units, two extended stay hotels and 20,000 square feet of retail space across the street from the Board of Education site is a major factor driving the City of Hamilton to shell out $20 Million up front and $35 Million in long-term rent in the proposed McMaster Family Medicine Centre/Hamilton Public Health Centre while offering little to no resistance to the demolition of the Board of Education building. Without the McMaster project, how long would it take for the Vrancor project to come to fruition? http://www.thespec.com/news/business/art...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-07-18 21:36:01

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Shawn Selway (anonymous) | Posted July 19, 2011 at 10:28:24

Good and very informative article and comments. Thanks Joey.

Returning to the ostensible purpose of this project ( but remaining in the utopian mode with everybody else), if the intent is actually to deliver family and public health services to the eastern regions of the old city, then buildings modelled on the new North Hamilton Community Health Centre might be a better choice.

The Centre, which opened early this spring, is a very handsome two storey structure (McCallum and Sather) of 30,000 square feet. LEED certified. Located in the middle of the neighbourhood, beside the rec centre and a school. Ninety staff serve 8000 clients. Cost was about 16 million.

This would imply that you could build 4 more of the same for 64 million. Put them in the centre of four neighbourhoods. For example, one could go into a rehabilitated Sanford school,or on its site, beside the new Cathy Wever school and the Pinky Lewis recreation centre, all on the same block. "Synergies", as the apparatchiks say, would result.

Moreover, we would begin to move the built form of the city toward walkabilty and reduced auto dependence.

Allot one of the four centres a little extra dough, say 23 million instead of 16, and you could place it downtown in a rehabilitated Board of Ed building. (Assuming it merits retention) This totals out at 70 million, down from the 105 required under the current proposal.

House the students in a rehabbed Connaught and they would be on a main transit line between the university and med school campus and the various Community Health Centres to the East.

Of course, all of this presumes that health care delivery and training is in fact the object of Mac's exercise here. Personally, I believe with all my heart and soul that this is the case. I'm having a little trouble recruiting my mind, though. I must seek help.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 10:06:16

Tangentially related: I just read an essay in the Paris Review about a student who went to Harvard and was frustrated at how isolated the school was - physically, geographically and culturally - from its host city.

I arrived at Harvard from Montreal, which is a pretty fucking hip place to be an eighteen-year-old. I’d been going to bars for a while, and I was in a political theater company that did shows in lofts with homeless people and South American activists. And we went to pubs and got old gay men to buy us drinks. It was a pretty cool, fun, and exciting life for a kid in Montreal. It was a very vibrant place, and young people were really part of the life of the city.

Then when I went to Harvard, the place was full of these nominally smart, interesting people, all of whom at the age of eighteen seemed perfectly happy to live in dormitories and be on a meal plan and live a fully institutional life. And that was completely maddening! This was the opposite of everything I’d hoped for from the environment I’d be in.

By design, the university wants to be an enclosed institution, so you’re required to live on campus, which means that you’re not living in the city. You don’t have a landlord or neighbors or those kinds of things. You’re pretty much required to sign up for the meal plan, which means you don’t interact with people in restaurants or grocery stores or any of that kind of stuff. The drinking age is twenty-one, and it’s strictly enforced in the city but mostly unenforced on campus, which means if you want to drink or go to a party, you can only do that on campus, but if you want to go see a band at a club, you can’t do that.

I spent my first year trying to figure out how to participate in the life of the city in some way, but by the end of my first year I think I gave up because the pull of the university community was so strong and the boundaries were so hard to overcome.

In fairness, there's a generous dollop of hipsterism going on here, but the underlying issue - of a school determined to close itself off from its surroundings - is familiar.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-21 10:07:48

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted July 27, 2011 at 15:17:56

This thread has probably died it's natural death, however I found this comment I wrote about Connaught student housing in Dec. 2010

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you divide 12 by 3?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds