Raise the Hammer

Interviewing Joseph Singer was a nice touch. If that doesn't move people a little, I'm not sure what will.

Thanks for your hard work. Let's stop the madness.

p.s. The interior of the building is fabulous. We couldn't re-created that if we tried.

You haven't been inside? It's almost as cool as the GO station.

Did you even watch the video, or are you wilfully ignorant?

incredible.

The BoE building was part of the dark ages of Hamilton where we tore half the city down and relocated thousands of people. Now our idea for remedying this is to follow the exact same method. They would have torn City Hall down too and look at it now. Let's learn from our mistakes!

The staircase, the interiors, the whole aesthetic - we're only just starting to appreciate it. Great job Matt, absolutely stunning video.

Is your house worth saving?

Solution: A pro-heritage private interest steps in and outbids McMaster, buying time as well as the building. Then the city buys an equivalent parcel of land to donate to McMaster, streamlining the construction process and preserving funding guarantees from senior government, without which McMaster would remain west of Dundurn.

While I am perhaps not as big a fan of the architecture as some. I can't help but think that a city with as many vacant lots and completely derelict buildings as Hamilton whose "leaders" believe the solution to anything is to demolish a perfectly good building must be run by people in the throes of some sort of deep psychosis.

I can't help but think ... deep psychosis.

Yeah. And then some.

I wonder how anyone on Council would respond to these questions:

"How would you describe 'great leadership'? Can you provide three good examples from City Council from the past five years?"

I'd also be curious about how a) RTHers would answer...as well as b) Hamiltonians-at-large.

Finally fixing area rating.

Did you read Dreschel's thoughts on this in today's piece?

And I have to say that 'Doing the right thing, not the expedient thing' while nicely turned, is a little too vague for my tastes.

What is 'the right thing'? According to whom?

I get what you're saying, I'm not in disagreement with it, but I surely wouldn't put that in a training manual for leaders. : )

Hamilton ... the only place where places to park are more important than places to work.

I believe the Board can only sell to a pre-determined list of other institutions, which includes Mac, Mohawk, the Catholic Board, etc. 444 would require them to give these other institutions first right of refusal, before the property could be put out for private sale.

I can't disagree with that outline of what is "the right thing" Ryan, but much like the engineers I work with I'm afraid I'm going to tell you that what you have there is good on paper only.

Actually achieves the underlying objective…

There is usually more than one way to skin a cat so this often becomes a debate of preference. And if the one way happens to make you or one of your political friends more money that is probably the way that will be chosen… not sure if that is right though. If I want to blow up a building I can use dynamite or demolition equipment. Both achieve the underlying objective, but if I've invested in dynamite futures ;) the "right thing" is obvious to me.

Solves the real problem, not the manufactured 'crisis'…

Very hard to distinguish between the two these days because many of us are still dependent on traditional media for our information and at best our media has lost its ability (willingness?) to differentiate between the two and at worst is complacent in manufacturing the crisis. Making the "real problem" difficult to determine.

supported by the evidence, not propped up by fear and anecdotes

Evidence can be bought and paid for, fear and anecdotes can be manufactured, this is why we have a "climate debate." We live in a world where almost everything can be questioned and debated (and that is intentional). Where corporations employ as many (or more) scientists as universities and many scientists are more loyal to money than science. There is no shortage of disagreement on almost any subject often with the purveyors of evidence right in the thick of it arguing amongst themselves.

I think you have outlined very good criteria Ryan, I just fear those three criteria are becoming harder and harder to determine. What is the real problem, what is the factual evidence, what works and what doesn't, all these things are routinely debated now. There is a movement afoot to make everything subjective to make all opinions of equal value, to erode and discredit any notion of factually and evidentially right, to make everything a debate… to hide truth.

Powerful.