Raise the Hammer Newsfeed - Articles

Stadium Compromise Still Needs Vision

2010-09-09T12:00:00Z

As a relative newcomer to this city, I've been rooting for Hamilton to succeed - not only because it's the type of city to root for, but because it is where I've recently decided to raise my family. The Pan Am Games promise to bring great things to this city, but with the most recent decision to study the Longwood and Aberdeen site, I am left only with disappointment.

I'm disappointed that the vision of a stadium sitting on the shores of the West Harbour will never be realized. I'm most disappointed, however, at how alarmingly and dispiritingly this narrative has unfolded. I'm not at all confident that Bob Young and Council are capable of reaching an agreement that will bring even a modest return on a very significant taxpayer investment.

I supported a stadium at the West Harbour because it represented a fresh start for an area that, due to its proximity to water, is one of the city's greatest assets. That formula has worked time and again in many North American cities.

Thus, no one who supported the West Harbour, especially our political leaders, needs to apologize for believing that it would help transform this city. It's just that some people lack imagination.

The East Mountain was a travesty from the very start, an antiquated notion and a blatant cash grab that produced a refreshingly robust reflex in this city. It worked for narrower interests than civic-minded rooters of a Hamilton renaissance would like, failing the smell test, in part, due to a lack of transparency.

Of course the Ticats need to be able to pay the bills - they just have an obligation to open up their books when they demand so much taxpayer money for a proposition that does nothing for the city except maintain a beloved icon.

The positive development in this saga is that it energized the community and brought city-building issues to the forefront. A strong movement advocating progressive urban initiatives represents a beacon of hope to young professionals who see revitalization of this city's core as a precondition to settlement.

Knowing full well that powerful interests invested in the status quo still lurk in this city, this movement's work is not nearly done as we seek to finally get back to dreaming about a future Hamilton that is worthy of both its proud history and its unbounded potential.

Compromise at Longwood and Aberdeen?

In Longwood and Aberdeen, we now seem to have a compromise on the table, but no one knows quite what to think because the devil remains in the details. To a community that just wants this whole saga laid to rest, the site may make sense not only because it satisfies the Ticats, and thus Hostco, but also because it does so much more for downtown than the East Mountain ever did.

The problem is that the site hasn't been subjected to logistical scrutiny and there is the pesky little fact that we've already pinned our hopes on that area being a jobs generator.

While no politician wants to be associated with the Council That Lost the Ticats, it would be more damaging, though unfortunately less newsworthy, to be the Council that loses an innovation district. Especially one that represents one of the brightest spots in this city.

Whether intended or not, in making the decision to explore this new site, Council and Bob Young are stating that locations suitable for refocusing our innovation employment activities are apparently more fungible than locations upon which we can agree to build a stadium.

That's a dangerous, almost careless, assertion considering how much time, equity and hope has been invested at MIP and how quickly it has become the stadium location du mois.

Holistic, Credible, Inspiring and Visionary Plan

I work at MIP and it is surely on pace to deliver real results for this community, in part due to its proximity to research and talent at McMaster University.

At this early stage in its development, it is certainly possible that the innovation park can be relocated closer to downtown where it might have more of an impact. West harbor definitely would have to be at the top of the list and that's not a bad view to exploit in recruiting young professionals.

However, our leaders are now blithely suggesting a land swap with McMaster and giving short shrift to the many individuals and entities that have invested tremendous capital over many years in MIP under pretenses that have been capriciously altered in a matter of weeks.

This indicates to me that they truly don't understand the complexities in making this entire deal work and that they really haven't thought this through.

Along Hwy 403, Young would have the accessibility and visibility over which he was willing to jeopardize a city's vision and divide a community. That means he now has to make a statement and make amends.

For allowing Young to exercise a veto that no minority partner should possess, City Hall has to step up too. To those of us that see opportunity in Hamilton's future, both parties have to prove that they have a holistic, credible, inspiring and visionary plan to save a fragile but burgeoning employment district, rejuvenate the West Harbour and reinvigorate our core.

Anything less would be a waste of 60 million Future Fund dollars.

While much of the community is breathing a sigh of relief that the Ticats and the City are again talking, no one should celebrate yet, because we cannot be sure that the parties truly understand the consequences of their decisions over the last number of months.

If I have no job and the city's future no longer inspires, I have no reason to live here.

This article is also published as an op-ed in today's Hamilton Spectator.

Some Counsel for Council

2010-09-08T12:00:00Z

As I write this, the stadium debate lingers like a bad smell over the city. Seven times the wind has delivered fresh air as Council reconfirmed its support for the West Harbour site. Eight times the stink returned soon after the last vote was cast.

We have come to know each wave of stink by its own title:

We won't play at the West Harbour. Ever! (Scott Mitchell, Ticats)
I hope cooler heads prevail. (Dalton McGuinty, Premier)
It's a local decision, and we will honour that decision. (Sophia Aggelonitis, Ted McMeekin, Liberal MPP's)
We're pulling the funding. (Sophia Aggelonitis, Liberal MPP)
The funding has been restored. (Sophia Aggelonitis, Liberal MPP)
The Whitehead/Jackson Flip and Flop. (Councillors Tom Jackson and Terry Whitehead)
Let's bet on the McMaster Innovation Park failing and use half its land for a stadium. (Councillors Lloyd Ferguson and Russ Powers)

Sadly, I've left out a few. Quite a few in fact.

As I write this, I have no idea where it will end - although I must admit it feels as if the flash in the Pan Am may be just that.

But this article isn't about the stadium debate, though the debate inspired it. Having watched and participated, having been overjoyed and depressed and frustrated through this appalling train wreck of a process, and having watched Councillors and other participants behave like heroes and villains, I thought it time to provide some counsel to Council.

Here's a set of simple thoughts, observations, and suggestions Councillors may wish to consider, no matter how many of the current lot get re-elected in October.

There are 15 suggestions, one for each member of Council. They're in no particular order. Although the examples I cite all come from stadium debates, the counsel is, in my opinion, relevant to any Council meeting, regardless of topic or time.

Listen to each other.

Leave the BlackBerry on the desk in front of you, or in your pocket. Probably turned off. When your colleagues speak, they're speaking on behalf of the people who elected them. Whether you think they are wise or witless, give them the courtesy of your attention.

If you're craving a can of pop from the Councillors' Lounge, wait. If you're dying to share an opinion with the Councillor next to you, save it for later.

Just because the camera doesn't catch you not paying attention is no reason to behave so selfishly and unprofessionally. If you think this kind of behaviour is tolerated in business, you've never been to a business meeting. Trust me. I've been to thousands.

Listen to guest speakers.

If you just can't bring yourself to embrace the first suggestion, at least listen to the people who have taken time out of their schedules to come and present information to the City of Hamilton. It's called professional courtesy. I mention this because it seems that too many Councillors missed the workshop on courteous meeting behaviour.

At a recent COW meeting, Councillor Whitehead left his own seat and sat beside Councillor Jackson as Chris Murray, our City Manager, introduced Robert Abboud, President of Forum Development Corporation.

The two of them talked to each other throughout Mr. Abboud's entire presentation about an opportunity to co-venture with the City on an iconic building in the West Harbour. They did not hear a single word of Mr. Abboud's presentation. Not. A. Single. Word.

Classy, Terry and Tom. Very classy indeed.

Do your homework.

Actually read and try to comprehend the documentation that has been provided to you prior to the meeting. I realize there's a lot to read, but it comes with the territory. Doing so would ensure you don't ask questions or make recommendations that are already contained in the documentation sitting in front of you.

Councillor Whitehead did this at a recent COW meeting where Councillor Ferguson, seconded by Councillor Powers, put forth a motion to consider the McMaster Innovation Park. It had to be pointed out to Councillor Whitehead by his colleagues that the text he wanted to add to the motion was already in the motion.

Perhaps he was too busy talking to Councillor Jackson to prepare for the meeting.

Take formal breaks.

Don't simply walk out whenever you feel like it. Even if the media are just begging for a comment, citizens pay for your undivided attention and participation in matters important to the entire city. Let the media wait. They will. They need you to report a story. Stop leaving when the media email you or catch your eye through the glass doors.

Not only that, but it seems to me that some Councillors leave when a Councillor they don't like, or with whom they're mad for some infantile reason, starts to speak - just to be dismissive. It's childish.

Stop thanking everybody who ever touched the file.

Feedback is nice, but why don't you do it face to face and not just on television? I'm not saying don't be gracious, but what comes across as so much pandering when the Cable 14 cameras are rolling is really quite unbearable. Why don't you tell whomever it is you think is fabulous how fabulous they are to his or her face?

When people work hard, when they meet a deadline, when they provide advice, they're doing the jobs they're paid to do. Send them a card. Drop by their office. Send an email. Send chocolates. Save the over-the-top flattery for another venue.

When something superhuman is done, by all means say so, but having every Councillor thank the same people for the same work at the same meeting is tiresome, and I'm a feedback kind of guy.

Stop the 'Through you Mr. Mayor'.

I get why it's done and where it comes from, but please. Enough. It's annoying and wastes time. If we truly behaved as if we understood and embraced Robert's Rules, I might feel differently, but these 15 suggestions suggest that Councillors don't. Not by a long shot.

Save the silly little procedural gesture. Couldn't we agree to have the first speaker say it once, and then just ask our questions directly?

Try to make the Councillor-to-Councillor deal-making a little less obvious.

Getting up and walking over to a fellow Councillor while the debate is ongoing smacks of deal-making. I don't care who it is, or why they're doing it, it's inappropriate behaviour in my opinion.

If you read the agenda and attachments prior to the meeting, you should not have to do this in front of your colleagues and any citizen who is present since you would already have done the deal making prior to the meeting.

Remember the vision, the whole vision and nothing but the vision.

I've written about the City of Hamilton's four-part strategic vision recently in H Magazine. "To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens, provide diverse economic opportunities." Please Councillors, memorize it. Internalize it. Believe it. Use it.

Doing so might focus not only your decision making, but also your comments as you debate the issues. This approach might help Councillor Merulla, for example, when he tells us once again what we shouldn't be doing, but almost never offers visionary commentary on what we should be doing.

Sam, it's good you focus on the little things, but its time you tried to help us see the bigger picture. That is, if you can see it yourself.

Always put Hamilton first and your Ward a close second.

Unfortunately, televised Council meetings translate into showtime for too many Councillors. As a result, they often talk only as a Ward Councillor, and not as a member of the senior executive team of the City of Hamilton. Dave Mitchell is guilty of this Ward-centric myopia. So too is Margaret McCarthy.

Some think beyond their Ward boundaries. Councillors Maria Pearson and Robert Pasuta come to mind as remarkable examples of people who chose to rise about the pettiness of Ward politics when they articulated their support for the West Harbour. Personally, I found their commentary to be both refreshing and inspiring. Well done. Thank you.

Stop enjoying the sound of your own voice.

If you have nothing to say, say nothing. If your colleagues have already mentioned the points you were going to make, say so and shut up!

By the way, the new technology that was installed during the renovation of City Hall was supposed to limit your mike time to five minutes. It has not. Simply pushing the button again turns your mike back on, something all of our Councillors quickly figured out.

I understand that during complex debates, you may need more than the five minutes allotted to make a complex point, but let's all try to work to the time limit. Stop wandering. Stop pandering. Stop thanking everybody who touched the file. Get to the point. The worst offenders are Whitehead, Merulla, Jackson, in that order.

Ban the word "prudent" from all Council meetings.

The worst offenders are Whitehead, Jackson, Merulla, in that order. But they're not alone. The way they wrung their hands and cried over the potential loss of the Ticats, a $17 million gross revenue company, was anything but prudent, but that didn't stop some Councillors from using the word as they defended their flip-flopping over which site would make the Ticats happy. Indeed, talk is cheap even if it isn't prudent.

When staff don't actually, or fully, answer your question, ask it again.

The act of asking is not the measure of success. It's the act of getting a useful answer that should be measured.

At the recent emergency COW meeting, Councillor McHattie asked the City's CFO Rob Rossini about total economic impact/contribution of the Ticats. Rossini told Council he couldn't remember the number and didn't have it with him in his files. Really? Why? What did he think Council would be talking about.

Even I could remember the number. It appeared in the Spectator a few weeks earlier. What did Mr. Rossini do? He turned and looked over his shoulder in to the crowd and caught the eye of someone whom I assume was the Ticats CFO and mouthed, "What's the number?". Nice touch.

Councillor McHattie never got his answer. Problem is, that was the end of it.

The number, by the way, is between $60 and $70 million, at least according to the Ticats, who, according to Councillor Pearson, have not provided Councillors with any back numbers for their positions, including the suspect, "We'll lose $7 million a year if we have to play in the West Harbour." Not to mention the, "Bob Young has lost $30 million so far since he bought the Ticats."

Councillors not only have a right to ask, they have a responsibility to ask. And to get the answers!

Stop repeating yourselves.

Once is enough. Once says you know what you're talking about. Repeating yourself says you're not prepared. It says you're rambling. It says you're making it up as you go along. Make the point and turn off your mike.

Make citizens feel welcome in their City Hall.

Sweat the details folks on behalf of the people who elected you and who pay you. At the last three meetings of COW/Council, there was a not unexpectedly large crowd of people who showed up to watch democracy in action. The weather was warm. The Chambers were crowded - overflowing, in fact. Nobody thought to provide citizens with even a glass of water.

The brainiacs removed the water fountains during the renovation and the new taps in the washrooms blend hot and cold so that you can't drink it. How about a couple of water dispensers with paper cups during such sessions?

Councillors get water. So does staff. Terry Whitehead seemingly gets an unlimited supply of cans of pop which he loudly snaps open during debates.

Also, how about not installing one of the useless kiosks Council voted to spend money on in the lobby, and instead installing a monitor in the overflow section so citizens can see democracy in action, rather than just hear it? I know we have the technology for both water and video.

The Mayor is the Mayor, and you're not.

No matter who the Mayor is, and no matter what you think of him or her, remember the Mayor is the only elected official for whom every citizen in Hamilton got a chance to vote. Only the people in your Ward voted for you. Do not try to remove the Mayor from the business they were elected to do by and on behalf of all of the citizens of Hamilton.

During a recent meeting, Terry Whitehead and Russ Powers tried to pass a motion to have the Mayor removed from the negotiating team. As if he was the problem! How about passing a motion to get Bob Young back to the table? But no, it's Fred's fault that the Ticats behaved like petulant children.

Not only that, but there are reports of a conference call, without the Mayor of course, where Councillors tried to convince other Councillors to deep six Fred. Appalling. Absolutely appalling. As if their behaviour was above reproach.

If Fred is guilty of anything, it's having the intelligence to establish and communicate, over and over, a set of well-considered city building criteria developed to ensure Hamiltonians came first, and which he applied to all potential sites.

The West Harbour site was the only site that ticked all of the boxes. The only criteria the mutinous Councillors seemed to be using was what would make Bob Young the most money so he would agree to keep playing football in Hamilton - and citizens be damned.

Get real, folks. You should be ashamed you even tried to do the dirty on the Mayor.

Obviously, some of these suggestions are just personal gripes. I'm not apologizing for that fact. But some are bigger and more significant. All are worth taking a moment to consider.

If the saying is true that it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks, then we've got our work cut out for us related to these 15 suggestions, since some of these Councillors have been sitting around a Council table longer than some voters have been alive.

Happy election everybody. Please vote on October 25. Who knows, it might make a difference.

Bob Bratina's West Harbour Support Timeline

2010-09-08T12:00:00Z

Bob Bratina, Ward 2 councillor and mayoral candidate, has taken several positions on the location of the Pan Am Games stadium - so many, in fact, that we thought it would make sense to produce a chart.

Click here to explore Bob Bratina's West Harbour Support Timeline.

Labour-Saving Day

2010-09-07T12:00:00Z

So as the sun goes down on another Labour day, it seems fitting that I would write about labour. Lots and lots of labour.

This weekend, we canned seven pints of peaches, eight jars of hot sauce, a quart of lacto-fermenting pickles, and five pints of garden (i.e. non-cucumber) pickles.

My wife baked a dozen muffins, nearly six dozen cookies (two types), made home-made granola, and a loaf of bread. We also went into the woods today and gleaned six lbs of apples from an orchard that was abandoned about 60 years ago - all for the farmhouse cider I'm going to start next weekend.

This was on top of all of the normal chores that need to get done to keep a house of four people going.

Normally we're pretty tuckered out by the end of the weekend, but by Monday night we were bone-tired.

Two very frightening realizations came to me as we were discussing the implications of this for a post-industrial society.

We are this exhausted despite the unlimited availability of devices such as a bread maker (used only for mixing the dough), a dishwasher, a washing machine, and a stand mixer.
Despite having nearly a well-stocked pantry, and several dozen bags of home-grown veggies in the freezer on top of the canning we did in the last 72 hours, we have put up barely enough food to last us about a month - maybe six weeks, tops.

Did I mention we are exhausted?

Yes, we are lightweights, but it brings me to an uncomfortable conclusion: The post-industrial economy that many of us have been talking about for some time now is not only going to be inconvenient, it's going to be downright difficult.

At the farm down the road, Russ was apparently up until 3 am the other morning, canning enough tomatoes to get him through the year. Granted, he didn't have to get up at 5:45 the following morning and get ready to hop a GO train to Toronto to go to work, but 5-10-15 years down the road, how many of us will be doing both?

How many of us will be trying to grow and preserve (or even buy-super-cheap-in-season-at-the-farmer's-market and preserve) in times of plenty, along with working 9-5s to make sure there is enough cash coming into the household to cover expenses that just can't be bartered for?

I know I'm painting a pretty bleak picture here, and frankly reading Dimitri Orlov is not helping one little bit. But you only have to turn on the TV, or open a newspaper (remember those? It's kind of like the internet, only it's on paper, and all the information is a day old) to see that a quick return to the heady days of even three years ago is appearing increasingly unlikely.

The combination of an unyielding environment/resource base and a population unwilling to compromise can lead to some pretty predictable outcomes.

Peak Electricity

This leads me to the second major topic of conversation this weekend. Peak Electricity. I have blogged before about how Ontario is moving to voluntary power rationing (they are calling it time of use rates, but potato-potahto).

It occurred to me this weekend while we were using all of our very convenient labour saving devices, that two things will make the grid more secure: People using less power, and fewer people using any power in the first place.

Time of use rates do both.

For one, with the spike in power rates, as it stands now, the highest amount I pay is 7.5c/kwh, whereas under the new regime, if I use power any time during my normal day, I'm going to be paying at least 8c/kwh, if not higher.

My bill is, quite simply, going to go up, no matter how many 'power hungry' chores I try to put off until the weekend or after 9pm. Just running my fridge, stove, and furnace (FSF) are going to cost up to 40% more than they do now during peak times.

Now imagine if I was living on the margins of society, and could only barely afford the power I'm using now. I am conserving as much as I can, but even the FSF cost money to run, money I barely have.

Those costs go up considerably, and I now have two options: Have my power cut off, or start skipping meals. The first clears up lots of excess capacity on the grid. The second necessitates the kind of weekend I've just had.

Suddenly the idea of a backyard garden, and doing some home canning becomes way more appealing. Provided that I have the skills, support, and self-confidence to give it a go in the first place...not a given by any stretch.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for many people in Ontario, the whole "canning tomatoes until 3 am and going to work for 9 the next morning" may not be forced on them after some unforeseen spike in oil prices.

It may be forced on them next summer, provided they still have the power that will be required to do the canning in the first place - all because there isn't enough generating capacity in Ontario to meet the projected needs in the next ten years or so.

Resource scarcity isn't a problem for five, ten, or fifteen years down the road. For a lot of people in Ontario, It's here now.

This article was originally published on Jason's blog.

Toronto Needs More Sidewalk Love

2010-09-05T12:00:00Z

It's Tuesday morning and I'm on my way to work. The traffic is bad today. I'm downtown, staring at the tail lights and breathing in the fumes. Gotta love commuting. Up ahead I see that my route is blocked: 'Get out of the way!'

Where did all these people come from? I wonder. Doesn't anyone stay at home? All of a sudden I see a gap. Go! Go! Go! I speed up and veer left.

"Hey watch it!"

"Sorry!"

That was close. The balding Dr Phil look-a-like sweeps past me and shoots me a glance. Good morning to you, too.

I zigzag left, right, left-and-right. This is exhausting. The asphalt feels like it's folding itself around me, I can barely breathe...

Now, what's this? I skid to a halt.

"Hey!"

"What?"

"Careful!"

I reverse a couple of inches, smack my hand on my forehead and trudge off once again.

Half a block later the lights block my way. I stare at the cars streaming across my path: Green Light Envy.

I'm sure this is a universal condition. The same sort of feeling you get when you're at the doctor and someone else's name gets called.

'It's my turn' their expression says, as they look back at you in mock sympathy.

The lights change. Go!

Holy crap...all these people. What's this bloke doing here? Wait!, What?... Smack!

"Sorry"

"What?"

"Careful!"

I rub my elbow and help the old man scoop up his umbrella. He looks a little disoriented.

"Are you OK?"

"Sure."

"OK have a good one."

"You too."

It's tough being a pedestrian in Toronto. I suppose it's a nice problem to have - all those feet on the street certainly make for a lively city - but really, have you seen the space they give us to get around? I often wonder, with all these debates about traffic flow and new bikes lanes - when did two feet get such short shrift?

The sidewalk running through the heart of my neighbourhood - Toronto's Esplanade - is 6-7 feet wide. It's like a promenade. It's a good job too. The strip is always teeming with people, on their way to the St Lawrence Market, the Distillery or one of the co-ops or town houses that run along the side.

But the Esplanade is an exception. Most of Toronto's sidewalks - as in most other cities - are barely four feet across. That's enough room for three people to walk side by side, but not enough space for two couples to pass each other unencumbered.

When I first returned to Toronto, about four and a half years ago now, I found it difficult to get around. Coming from Hamilton I just wasn't used to sidewalk congestion. What's the protocol for avoiding rapidly approaching pedestrians? I wondered. Do I dodge out of the way at the last minute...? Steer gradually to the side? Or stand tall and hold my ground?

I tried all of these approaches and one time of another and could never seem to smooth my ride.

I remember one unfortunate encounter just outside the market. An old woman pushing a shopping cart suddenly steered across my path. I jumped to the side, hoping to avoid the inevitable pain of shin-on-steel contact, just as she herself changed direction once again. She clattered right into me - or rather her cart did.

Ouch!!

As I rubbed my ankles the woman shrugged, looked me up and down and flung her cart back across my shins. "Stupid Man."

Our thin sliver sidewalks make no sense to me. Why is it OK to give cars 80% of the roadway while we pedestrians can't even walk two abreast in both directions? On a typical rush hour in Toronto a busy downtown street shifts thousands of pedestrians an hour. Yet we are all fighting for the same limited allotment of asphalt.

Have you ever tried piling out of Union Station at a quarter to nine? I used to do it every day. Huddling at the Front and Yonge crosswalk waiting for 10-20 cars to cruise across while we, 50 to 60 pedestrians crowd along the curb waiting for the little man...

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Of course other cities, especially European ones, give walkers a little more loving. Many English towns now feature pedestrianized cores, and I've yet to try out the newly designed Times Square - but it looks great. Plenty of room to jostle around.

Here in Toronto at election time there is little to no talk of pedestrian issues. Bike lanes yes. Car congestion - sure. But walkers woes? Nada.

Maybe it's because we don't complain. Maybe it's because we're too busy massaging our shins, dodging on-coming scooters, or just trying to keep our feet on the ground.

Maybe it's time we walkers got a little more of the asphalt. Hell - I think I might just stroll on up to City Hall right now and complain!

Now - where did I put my helmet...

St Paul's Anglican Church, Middleport, and Wooden Ecclesiology

2010-09-05T12:00:00Z

Wooden Anglican churches in Ontario of the second half of the 19th century are not plentiful. In the first place, rich, large and/or more ambitious congregations opted to build their churches in stone or brick rather than wood because a masonry edifice was seen to be more permanent. Secondly, wooden edifices were more susceptible to destruction by fire.

The survival of St Paul's Anglican Church in the village of Middleport, located on Highway #54 about 22km east-southeast of Brantford, is therefore quite remarkable (Figs 1-3). The History of Brant County published in 1883, records that St Paul's was 'erected during the year of 1868, on an eligible plot of ground, the gift of Robert Wade, Esq.'. The church is described as 'A neat frame building with tower and bell, its value being $1,500'. St Paul's was consecrated in 1880 by Isaac Hellmuth (1817-1901), Bishop of Huron (1871-1883).

Fig. 1. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, exterior from NE.

Fig. 2. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, exterior from SE.

Fig. 3. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, exterior from SW.

The church history informs us that St Paul's was erected 'under the direction of Reverend Adam Elliott' but the name of the architect is not recorded. Be that as it may, it is clear that the person was well informed about ecclesiological principles of Anglican Church design. In a number of articles on heritage churches in Hamilton and vicinity I have acquainted RTH readers with some of the principles of the 'science of ecclesiology', as it was labeled in early Victorian times.

Here I wish to introduce a book by the English architect James Barr, entitled Anglican Church Architecture, with some remarks upon Ecclesiastical Furniture. The book was first published in 1842 and is dedicated to the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture. A second edition followed in 1843, and a third in 1846. Happily, the latter is now available online.

Barr's book is seldom referred to in studies of 19th-century-church architecture, yet this 'little work', as Barr himself calls it, is just the sort of publication that was so important for the dissemination of 'correct' Gothic design of Anglican churches throughout the world. As a review of the second edition of the book in The Gentleman's Magazine, volume 20 (1843), p. 499 concludes:

We cannot close our account of this little volume without a strong recommendation in its favour, not only on account of its utility to the inquirer of the history and details of Gothic architecture, but also for the sound and correct church principles which it conveys.

St Paul's, Middleport, conforms for the most part to the principles of ecclesiological design, with a separate nave, lower and narrower chancel, a vestry to the north of the chancel, and a west tower surmounted by a spire (Figs 1-3). The board-and-batten construction provides vertical articulation that is lacking in clapboard siding, as on the tower of Old St Thomas Anglican Church, St Thomas, Ontario (1824) (Figs 3 and 4).

At Old St Thomas, the sham crenellation on the tower and façade wall of the nave, the low pitch of the roof, the broad transept (added in 1848), and the multi-paned windows with intersecting muntin bars in the pointed head, are all features that are 'corrected' at St Paul's. Similar contrasts are evident inside the two churches.

At St Paul's the principal rafters, braces and tie beams are truthfully exposed; there is a step up to the chancel and another to the altar, and there is open seating (Fig. 5). At Old St Thomas, there is a lath-and-plaster ceiling, box pews, galleries in the transepts, and no distinct space for the chancel, all features abhorred by the Ecclesiologists (Fig. 6). At St Paul's pointed arches are used throughout and the triple lancet windows in the east wall of the chancel, and the single lancets in the nave, are filled with stained glass.

Fig. 4. St Thomas, ON, Old St Thomas's Anglican, exterior from S.

Fig. 5. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, interior to E.

Fig. 6. St Thomas, ON, Old St Thomas's Anglican, interior from SW.

The differences between Old St Thomas and St Paul's are all accounted for with reference to Barr's book. He states that the plan of the church should comprise nave and chancel with the Holy Table elevated at the east end 'for the more impressive celebration of the Lord's Supper' (fig. 4).

Barr is less authoritarian than the strict Ecclesiologists on the size of the chancel. He observes that '[t]he relative proportions of the different parts of the sacred structure, are so various in old examples, that with our present limited knowledge of the principles of design in Ecclesiastical Architecture, it is impossible to lay down any definite rules upon the subject'.

He does point out that the chancel should not exceed thirty feet in length 'since the Priest at the altar will be too far removed from the congregation to be distinctly heard'. He calls for the high pitch of the roof and indicates that the nave roof higher should be higher than that of the chancel. He advocates the inclusion of stained glass windows and points out that:

When only common glass is used in Ecclesiastical structures, it should be in small panes, disposed diagonally, or in various geometrical figures, so as to afford a decided contrast, both to the horizontal and vertical lines of the windows; the lights when filled with diapered quarries, relieved by little pieces of colour, and surrounded by rich borders, have a very pleasing and brilliant appearance.

This is exactly what we find in the nave windows at St Paul's (Fig. 7). It should be noted that the 1883 History of the Country of Brant records 'The beautiful memorial window in the chancel was the joint gift of Robert Racey and Rev. Adam Elliott. It was erected in memory of the latter's nephew and niece. The side and north windows were the gift of Mr. Cooper of the village of Mount Pleasant' (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, nave window detail.

Fig. 8. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, chancel window detail.

On the vestry, Barr suggests that 'a small vestry of unpretending design might also be placed on the north or south side of the chancel but must never be made an important feature in the composition' (Fig. 1). He adds that 'The Vestry, or Sacristy, is built on the north or south side of the Chancel, and when kept properly subservient to the general design does not detract from the beauty of the structure to which it is annexed...' 'The Vestry is entered by a small doorway in the side wall of the Chancel' (Fig. 5).

Barr calls for a porch on the north or south side of the nave and adds '[a] western porch should not be introduced, unless the locality of the sacred edifice requires such an arrangement'. At St Paul's the side porch was deemed superfluous as the main entrance is through the tower which faces the road.

Barr recommends the use of a tower 'for containing the bells, which require to be suspended at a considerable elevation, in order that they be heard at a distance; it also serves to point out the situation of the sacred edifice, and is useful as a beacon for the guidance of travellers, being often a conspicuous object for miles around'. He adds: 'A spire "pointing in silence heavenward," is by far the most beautiful covering for the tower'.

The font is located towards the west end of the nave close to the entrance to the church, as advocated by Barr (Figs 9 and 10). It is wooden and stands on tall pedestal the proportions of which have more to do with post-Reformation font design than with medieval exemplars. Be that as it may, the scale of the font is better suited to the small dimensions of the nave of St Paul's in which space a larger, medieval-inspired design would have been too large.

Fig. 9. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, interior to W.

Fig. 10. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, font.

Fig. 10a. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, lectern.

Moreover, the use of wood for a font, while unusual, finds precedent in medieval England and Wales, and the moulding of the capital and base follow 13th-century precedent. Similarly with the lectern, the central column with nail-head ornament between the delicate corner shafts, and the sunk quatrefoils on the plinth and the front of the lectern follow Early English models (Fig. 10a).

The simple open seats with pointed arches on the bench ends conform to the strict ecclesiological principle of social equality in seating (Fig. 11). Barr states:

All the Pews should be of the same description, and those allotted to the poor ought never to be in an inferior situation, for this invidious custom is not only entirely opposed to the spirit of Christianity, but has thus been distinctly condemned by the holy Apostle St James: "If there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?"

High Church Anglican arrangements of the Ecclesiologists would have demanded a pulpit and a lectern to either side of the chancel arch. The lectern is included at St Paul's, on the left of the chancel arch, and also a reader's desk, or reading pew, on the right (Fig. 12), something outlawed by the strict Ecclesiologists but accepted, if grudgingly, by our rather more liberal James Barr.

He points out that there is 'no ancient authority' (i.e. no medieval precedent) for the reader's pew, 'but if introduced, it ought always to be of simple design instead of being made a lofty and prominent erection like a pulpit, as it is not requisite for the Clergyman when praying to be exalted above the people'.

While not specifically discussed by Barr, the articulation of the interior of the sanctuary walls of St Paul's with a wooden dado of pointed arches is in contrast to the simple wainscoting elsewhere in the church and serves to emphasize the importance of the space around the altar in accordance with ecclesiological principles (Fig. 12).

Fig. 11. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, bench ends.

Fig. 12. Middleport, St Paul's Anglican Church, chancel.

Barr makes no reference to wooden church construction. Yet the design of churches in wood according to ecclesiological principles was of great concern to Anglican church patrons in British North America from the 1840s on.

In 1843 Mr. Patterson addressed the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture (OSPSGA) and presented lithographs of wooden churches in Norway. He read in translation from Johan Christian Dahl's three-volume book on Norwegian stave churches published in Dresden in 1837 and which was listed in the library catalogue of the society in 1846. Discussion following the paper mentioned that the churches could serve as models for wooden churches in Newfoundland and the Canadas. (pp. 150-156 on the website).

While these Norwegian stave churches did not influence the design of Anglican churches in Newfoundland or elsewhere in the Maritimes, or Upper or Lower Canada, the tall proportions of Holy Trinity, Stanley Mission, Saskatchewan, built by the Anglican missionary, Reverend Robert Hunt, between 1854 and 1860, indicates knowledge of stave churches, perhaps a tracing of one of Dahl's lithographs supplied by the Oxford Architectural Society (Figs. 13 and 14).

Fig. 13. Urnes (Norway), Stave Church, after J.C. Dahl (1837).

Fig. 14. Stanley Mission, SK, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, exterior.

In the OSPSGA Proceedings for the meeting of February 28, 1844, we read that 'A letter was read by the Chairman from the Rev. G[eorge] Coster, Archdeacon of New Brunswick, acknowledging a present of the publications of the Society and expressing a warm interest in its proceedings. The Chairman took this opportunity again to call the attention of the Society to the subject of designs for wooden Churches for the Colonies'.

At the meeting of the OSPSGA of May 15, 1844, there was exhibited 'a design by Mr. Cranstoun for a wooden Church, according to the suggestion of the Bishop of Newfoundland'. At the June 17 meeting it is reported that two of Mr. Cranstoun's designs for wooden Churches, prepared 'under the directions of the Committee', were now ready. On April 16, 1845, Mr Millard addressed the OSPSGA on 'The Style of Architecture to be adopted in Colonial Churches', the text of which was published in the Proceedings of the Society.

John Medley, Bishop of Fredericton, New Brunswick, 1845-1892, addressed the Ecclesiological Society on May 9, 1848, said '[The Society] might...aid me much by small plain wooden models for wooden churches in the country. In many places it is absolutely impossible to build of stone, from the frightful expense of materials and workmen...And most of the men being carpenters in some sort, they easily get out the frames of our churches (The Ecclesiologist, VIII, 362-363).

In a seminal article entitled 'On Wooden Churches', published in The Ecclsiologist, IX (1848), 14-27, William Scott warned against the 'Log Church' of Canada which was based on 'the old heathen temples of the Canadian Indians'. He advocated the use of vertical logs as in the nave of the Anglo-Saxon church at Greenstead-juxta-Ongar (Essex). If planks were to be used then the Norwegian model of vertical planks should be used rather than added that 'there seems to be no reason of the horizontal arrangement which prevails in America'. Scott believed that the pitch of the roof should be step as in the stave churches.

In Newfoundland and Labrador a number of wooden churches were built to the design of Scottish architect William Hay (1818-1888), who arrived in Newfoundland in 1847 to act as Clerk of Works for English architect George Gilbert Scott who designed the Anglican cathedral of St John's. Hay's design of the wooden Anglican Mission Church for St Francis Harbour, Labrador, was made known to the Ecclesiological Society by means of a lithograph and was given the rare distinction of a favourable review in their journal, The Ecclesiologist (vol. 11, 1850, pp. 201-202.

On Newfoundland churches, see the excellent book by Peter Coffman, Newfoundland Gothic (Montreal: Collection Cahiers de l'institut du patrimoine de l'UQAM), available at amazonbooks.ca).In 1853 William Hay moved to Toronto where he established a successful architectural practice. Hay designed many churches of which the best preserved are All Saints, Niagara Falls (recently closed), St Andrew's Presbyterian at Guelph, St Luke's, Vienna; and Zorra (just south of Tavistock on Highway #59).

He also designed the board-and-batten Garrison Church in Toronto. The Garrison Church has not survived but its design is reflected in the extant St Thomas's Anglican Church, Brooklin (Whitby), by Hay's pupil, Henry Langley.

John Turner was supervising architect for William Hay's Grace Anglican Church, Brantford, in which ecclesiological principles are followed. Turner applied these principles assiduously in the chancel he added to St James's Anglican in Paris (1863) and in St Paul's Indian Mission Church (1866). Concomitantly, the use of board and batten at St Paul's, Middleton, may be derived from William Hay through John Turner, and it is possible that Turner himself was the architect.

Be that as it may, there is an alternate explanation. The English-trained architect, Frank Wills, used board-and-batten construction for Grace Church, Albany, New York, built in 1850, which he described and illustrated in his book, Ancient English Ecclesiastical Architecture and Its Principles Applied to the Wants of the Church at the Present Day (New York: Stanford and Swords, 1850), available online) (Fig. 15).

Wills also designed the wooden church of St Mary's, Cainsville, just east of Brantford, which did not survive past the 19th century. Other sources in the architectural press may have played a part in the creation of the design of St Paul's, Middleport. The proportions of the spire recall Tangmere (Sussex), illustrated in Raphael and J. Arthur Brandon's Parish Churches published in 1851 (Fig. 16).

Fig. 15. Albany, New York, Grace Church, Frank Wills, 1850.

Fig. 16. Tangmere Church (Sussex), from Brandon's Parish Churches (1851).

The design for a country church by Richard Upjohn (1802-1878), author of Upjohn's Rural Architecture: Designs, Working Drawings and Specifications for a Wooden Church, and Other Rural Structures, published in 1852, shows board and batten - nave and chancel and main entrance through the tower with spire in the position of a south porch like Middleport has tower-porch at the west.

For those of you who would like to visit St Paul's Anglican Church, Middleport, it is included in this year's Doors Open Brant, September 25, 10am - 4pm. Thanksgiving Service will be held at St Paul's at 2.30pm on Sunday, October 3.

Readers who fancy excursions a little further afield to see other board-and-batten Anglican churches, one other example may be introduced. St Andrew's-by-the-Lake, Turkey Point, ON (1861) has a two-cell plan with nave and chancel, like St Paul's, Middleport, along with 'correctly' proportioned lancet windows and steeply pitched roofs. St Andrew's-by-the-Lake lacks the monumental tower and spire of St Paul's but does include a south porch and belfry at the west end of the nave roof, both according to ecclesiological principles.

The Unending Stadium Debate and the Unflappable Mayor

2010-09-03T12:00:00Z

Like many Hamiltonians, I've never paid as much attention to municipal politics as I have during The Great Stadium Debate of 2010. The decision of where, or if, to build our Field of Dreams will impact everyone in this city for decades and rarely has an issue been so cantankerous, divisive, public, and secretive.

For a billion reasons, I think the West Harbour, close to downtown Hamilton, is the only site worth discussing, but some people reject that notion entirely and claim the stadium should be built on elsewhere, like the East Mountain, or the McMaster Innovation Park, or Confederation Park. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats football team, for example, insist that their very survival depends on everyone driving to a suburban stadium engulfed by parking spots.

I'd argue that type of backwards thinking is why the team and its league are in such a perilous position, but some people don't think I'm even worthy of an opinion. Ron Foxcroft, for one, was on CHML's Bill Kelly show and said West Harbour proponents and / or East Mountain opponents are "unemployed" "activists," who shouldn't have a voice. Foxy went on to admonish Bill, and all the media, for allowing a few of us to be heard. Bill seemed to agree. It was crazy, but the tip of a crazy iceberg.

The entire saga has been like watching a classic Grey Cup game: West vs. East: the lead has changed hands often; it's entirely compelling; I boo and cheer and hope and pray and hypothesize and sermonize; both teams are in it to win it, scrapping and scraping until the last second; I'm on the edge of my seat and it's fascinating.

From the get-go, there's been an abundance of information, misinformation, withholding of information, and dispersing of information regarding where to house the beast and it changes instantly, or faster. (Big props to RTH for coverage, by the way; TSN would be proud.)

In fact, all the data, figures, and statistics are overwhelming and I rely on instincts, experience, and personal observations more than studies and reports. Numbers don't lie, but people presenting them do all the time, so it's mostly propaganda and not worth listening to, in my mind.

Flutie, Gizmo, and Pinball, for example, were statistically too small to play professional football. All one had to do was watch them play once to know those facts were false. (How did cavemen and pioneers survive without consultants and rich dudes telling them what to think?)

Nobody really knows what the best location for the stadium is or how big it should be. There are educated and uneducated guesses, and there are many opinions based on facts, evidence, emotions, or self-serving interests, but no one can see into the future.

Putting the 'Anchor' in 'Anchor Tenant'

One of the funding requirements for building the new stadium is having an "anchor tenant." The Hamilton Tiger-Cats football team won that designation, by default, and have been leveraging it since Pan Am declared, "Game on, Hammertown!"

I imagined the Cats and their owner would be appreciative of tax money helping them build a new facility in a more picturesque part of Hamilton. The West Harbour location, after all, is only a few kilometres straight west from where they've played for decades. It seemed that way at first, as Cat's owner, Bob Young, declared he was willing to go wherever the city deemed most appropriate. Yea!

Seven times. SEVEN TIMES! Hamilton's city council voted in favour of a West Harbour location seven times: seven times. I'm a big West Harbour booster, as are most of my employed friends and family. Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, once declared, "It's full steam ahead for the West Harbour." Yea! Things were looking up, but this is Hamilton, home of the Tiger-Cats, and my cynical senses were tingling. I knew a fumble, turnover, or flagrant foul would derail the victory.

Right on cue, just before kick-off, Bob Young announced he was not, in fact, going to play with the city and he'd never set foot(balls) in a West Harbour Stadium. He'd rather leave town, he declared.

"What?! Boo! It's a little late for that, Bob!" I screamed, inaudibly, from cheap seats I could barely afford.

Bob and his team dug in. They had high profile friends calling us clowns, idiots, jokes, unemployed, unwashed, and unworthy. It was as if they expected City Hall and Hamilton citizens to roll over and capitulate, like little kittens before a mighty Tiger Cat.

We had a little more spunk than they expected, I expect, and, until Tuesday, The West Harbour location was still in play. Sadly, the city surrendered to The Cats and has taken WH off the list of potential stadium sites. Boo! In a contracting economy, it seems ridiculous to allow a poorly run, money-losing, subsidized football team with foreign ownership to override domestic democracy, but what do I know.

I also wondered how long professional and amateur football can survive in Hamilton / Canada, at all. Between insurance and equipment, football is prohibitively expensive and, as such, is exclusionary; only thirty-five or forty boys from a high school with hundreds of students can play. People enjoy familiarity and football is up against rugby, soccer, and basketball, which are infinitely less expensive, more inclusive, and increasing in popularity.

Mayor Fred: Hamilton's GM, Coach and Starting Quarterback

It is what it is, however, and I've accepted defeat regarding the West Harbour location, but I'm proud of how my team played. Our G.M., coach, and starting quarterback, Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, did a fine job. We live in Ward 1 and our councillor, Brian McHattie, has played impressively, too.

At first, I was a little skeptical of Fred's ability against the opponent; a veritable old boys club bloated with performance-enhancing substances like money, influence, connections, Rogaine, Grecian Formula, and Viagra. Similarly, no one has ever accused Mayor Eisenberger of flamboyancy and I wasn't sure if a quarterback as low-key as he could withstand the barrage of blitzes, stunts, junk, questionable tactics, late hits, and dirty tricks the opponents kept throwing at us.

Over time, however, I realized Fred has his own brand of somnambulant charisma. Like Aikman, Brady, Calvillo, Elway, Mannings (Eli and Peyton), Marino, Montanna, and Moon, Eisenberger is calm, but sees the game well. He's fast on his feet and armed with a precise wit and quick release.

'Unflappable Fred' stood tall in a constantly collapsing pocket. He was sacked, hurried, and knocked down often, but he always got up, huddled with his team, and returned to the line of scrimmage a little smarter and more determined. He's played hard, but fair.

Mayor Eisenberger's leadership, demeanour, and consistency have won me over. The West Harbour Stadium might be dead, but I think Fred did all he could and I'm grateful for his efforts. It was Peyton Manning, but Fred's my man, now.

The Interview

Last week, I was trying to keep up with the latest stadium developments when it occurred to me - again - to wonder: "What does Eisenberger make of all this?"

I was also curious about his perpetual tranquility. Sometimes, the temptation to tell someone exactly how I feel about their behaviour boils over and I embarrass myself with both barrels. "How does he do that?" I marveled.

On Thursday August 26, at 4:04 pm, curiosity compelled me to send Fred an email requesting an interview. Fred and his staff were prompt, polite, and professional and, the next afternoon, I was in the Mayor's office, picking his brain and taking notes. (City Hall looks great, by the way. "On time and under budget," Fred said, proudly. Good job, everyone.)

As expected, Fred looked tired, but he was friendly and engaging. One of his staff, a pleasant, young man named Eddie Lee, sat unobtrusively through the interview. Given shenanigans and death threats, I expected it. The first thing I said to Fred, after introductions, was, "What's it like being the mayor of Hamilton, right now?"

Without hesitation, Fred said, "It's a privilege." Perfect answer, I thought. It was Friday afternoon and Leonard Cohen was playing quietly in the background. I asked if it was a CD or a random radio song. Fred gave me a peculiar look, but answered. "A CD," he said. Groovy, again, Fred.

His office and desk were tidy and well organized, which is beyond my skills set. I was also impressed because there were no interruptions the entire time: no surreptitious glances at screens or a colleague; no one came in or out; there were no ringing phones or vibrating gizmos; the mayor looked me in the eye, answered all my questions, told stories, and cracked jokes.

His opinion on the stadium's best location and why he feels that way is well documented. I already knew where he stood; I was curious about how he got there and asked about his past.

Immigration and Adjustment

In 1960, when Fred was seven, he and his family came to Canada from Holland. His father had been here for a year, finding work at International Harvester and getting things ready for the brood. Saying good-bye to family and friends, Fred, his three brothers, sister, and mother, set sail for Canada. "At the time," he said, "we weren't sure if we'd see them again. It wasn't expected."

"Why did your family make the move?" I asked.

"To make a better life," Fred said. "There were more opportunities in Canada."

"Did you speak English?"

"Not a word," replied the Mayor, with a smile.

He recounted how the family moved onto Stanley St. and he went to St. Joe's, which is the school my daughters attend. "I was seven, but they plopped me into Grade 1," Fred said.

Unsure of what was going on, Fred would regularly take off for the security of home. Usually, the nuns caught him before he got there. "Some of them were really quick," he said, making a comical nun-running motion.

To put an end to Fred's nonsense, the school took his brother, who is a year older and was in Grade 2, and dropped him back to Grade 1, to mind Fred.

Disarmed by the immoral decision of the school, I lost my mind and swore in the Mayor's Office, "&^%!" I said. "That must have p!#$ed him off."

"Oh, yeah. It's been fifty years and he still brings it up," Fred replied, shaking his head. "He's forgiven me, but he hasn't forgotten." I didn't say anything, but it's not Fred who will burn in Hell for that; he was 7.

Fred has done well, obviously, and I asked about his siblings. His brothers are all well, too. Sadly, after a year in Canada, Fred's sister, who was only five, died of complications from a surgery to try and remedy her cerebral palsy.

"That must have been awful," I said.

"It was torturous for my parents," Fred said and I could tell it still bothered him, too.

Sports

Fred looks fit and I'd heard he was an athlete, so I asked which sports he played growing up. He visibly perked up and said, "All of them: hockey, baseball, football, soccer, water polo..."

Because I thrash awkwardly and inefficiently in water, I quickly become exhausted and, if I can't touch the bottom, drown, so I view all swimmers as extraordinary athletes. "Water polo!?" I exclaimed.

"Oh, yeah," he said and a dreamy look came over him. "I could kick a guy in the nuts..." and his voice trailed off as he feigned blissful reminiscences. Fred was kidding, of course, and we had a good laugh.

"I play a lot of individual sports, too," he said.

Dedication, teamwork, practice, effort, community, commitment, winning, losing, fitness, fitting in.... I think sports are more instructive than school, so I'm glad my mayor is well educated in that regard.

"How do you stay so calm," I asked.

He laughed, gave me another look, and then answered. "I was given advice when I first started in politics, 'Stay calm,'" he said, "Emotions are good, and I certainly get emotional, but you have to have a level head to see the entire picture. I always try to be the calmest guy in the room and I usually am." Cool.

Diplomacy and Courage

We talked, of course, about the stadium and Fred emphasized the importance of communication, cooperation, and collaboration with all the stakeholders, including the Tiger Cats. I asked about questionable tactics employed by West Harbour opponents and he dismissed the idea immediately. He said there were differences of opinion, but nothing underhanded or nefarious had taken place and he was confident a location suitable to everyone could be found.

Diplomacy is a prerequisite for politics and this dude has it in spades, I thought.

I asked him if his sporting background was the source of the skills and values he brought to the office. He thought, agreed, and then noted his upbringing. "There were six of us in a small house," he said. "We learned to appreciate efficiency and economize. I hate wasted space," he said and then quickly edited himself, "I hate waste."

I told him about my Dutch friend who jokes that two Dutchmen fighting over a penny can stretch it into 10 feet of copper wire. Fred laughed then raised his hands as if to surrender and said, "I know a lot of generous Dutch people." I think he realized another group calling for his head wouldn't be fun, so he repeated himself, "A lot of generous Dutch people," and we moved on.

"What do you read?" I asked.

Another queer look. "Do you mean books?" he asked.

"Obviously, you have to read mayor-stuff," I said and gestured to piles of files.

"I read biographies of world leaders. I'm a political junkie and have been for 30 - 40 years. The book that most stands out most for me is Robert F. Kennedy's Profiles In Courage," which won a Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1957. "I read it when I was 16 and it's the path I've been on since."

Interestingly, Profiles In Courage survived a massive book purge at my house and was sitting on a shelf, waiting for an occasion to be read. It begins:

"This book is about the most admirable of human virtues - courage. "Grace under pressure," Ernest Hemmingway defined it. And these are the stories of pressures experienced by eight United States Senators and the grace with which they endured them - the risks to their careers, the unpopularity of their courses, the defamations of their characters and sometimes, but sadly only sometimes, the vindication of their reputations and their principles."

Taking a Stand

The stadium fiasco has put Fred in a few crosshairs and several pundits claim his career is dead. I hope not. Once derided as being wishy-washy, Fred is now under fire for being too stubborn in the stadium standoff. At least he took a stand.

Robert Kennedy wrote the foreword to my edition of Profiles of Courage and this quote jumped off the page: "President Kennedy was fond of quoting Dante that 'the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of crisis, maintain their neutrality.'"

I live near Aberdeen and Longwood, which is the most recent proposed stadium site all parties "might" agree to. Tuesday evening, after the West Harbour was eliminated from contention, I was at a local watering hole with friends, all of whom are intelligent, sensible, and employed. They had all favoured a West Harbour location, as well, but none of them were upset by the decision. I was the only one with a tear in his beer.

The others pointed out that Longwood and Aberdeen is a far better stadium site than East Mountain. It might mean a Go Station in the hood, as well. "You could go to Toronto without a coat in January, if your wife drove you to the station," said Jim "the character" Mcheriker, who, despite appearances, is worth listening to on rare occasion.

I was bemoaning the loss of land designated for Innovation Park, as well. The world class comments on RTH keep me coming back and someone wrote that an IP is as much a concept as a place and, as James pointed out, we can always go up; build a sexy, sleek, stunning 20- story, state of the art, sky-scraping masterpiece in Innovation Park, throw out a "Welcome" mat for all innovators, and sell naming rights: win, win, win. Humans have been going up for years, it's hardly innovative.

I also think a failure to get a stadium or the loss of the Cats will mean the end of Mayor Fred and that's not a scenario I'd like to entertain, so I hope a deal is reached for the Longwood / Aberdeen area.

Watching The Hamilton Stadium Show has been entertaining and informative, but I'm sick of it and want it over. There's one silver lining, at least; I know who to vote for in Hamilton's upcoming election: Brian McHattie for Ward 1 and Fred Eisenberger for Mayor.

Steel, Cycling, and Steeltown

2010-08-31T12:00:00Z

As the effects of Peak Oil make themselves felt, they will go far beyond gas prices.

The Canadian auto industry employs around a half million people directly and indirectly, almost all of which is in Ontario. This isn't just building and selling cars - there's a massive manufacturing empire needed to mine the ore, make the steel and machine the parts that extends well beyond Ford or Toyota.

This is something we understand all too well in Hamilton. Every time the auto industry hurts, we feel it. All signs at the moment seem to suggest that the pain is only beginning.

So what do we do with two of the nation's largest steel mills? With a machining and manufacturing capacity spanning the whole north edge of the city? More and more of this is going idle all the time and sending a lot of highly trained professionals home.

Raleigh Safety Bike (Image Credit: Nottinghamshire City Council)

Marinoni Pista (Image Credit: Cycles Marinoni Inc)

In the past, steel was almost always the default material for bike-building. It's far stronger and more durable than wood, but much cheaper and far less energy-intensive than metals like Titanium and Aluminum. Steel bike frames, well cared for and not run over (too often) last decades, easily.

Steel Bikes: Cheap, Strong, Durable

Right now, on the roads of Hamilton, hundreds of cyclists on old "ten-speed" racers from the 1970s are blasting past many newer, much more expensive bikes. These bikes are the product of a "bicycle boom", largely as a result of the Oil Shocks, which took the streets of Hamilton and other cities by storm.

Because of their simple construction and high-quality steel tubing, cyclists just keep turning back to them as an alternative to modern frames. Talk to anyone in the Fixed Gear or Singlespeed crowd - these frames are perfect, and available everywhere.

Raleigh Record (Image Credit: Sheldown Brown)

Since then, he bike industry has turned to far less practical machines. Since the 1990s, largely thanks to the boom in mountain bikes (basically the bike equivalent of an SUV), bikes have been getting heavier, more complex and far less practical. These bikes turned cycling from a serious transportation option into hobby or sport, and have played a huge role in the decline of cycling.

The industry did this in two ways. Higher end bikes exploded in price, equipped with space-age technologies designed primarily for the professional racing crowd. These bikes can cost thousands of dollars, which scares off a lot of people who'd like to get into cycling.

On the other side of the coin are those bikes found at stores like Canadian Tire and Wal Mart. While they're cheap, the quality is cripplingly low. Owning one of these things is one of the best arguments against cycling out there. They're slow, heavy, and often break down within hours or days of leaving the store. They simply aren't a serious transportation option.

Supercycle Hooligan (Image Credit: Canadian Tire)

Future for Steel

If cycling is going to catch on as a major means of transportation, somebody's going to have to start building new affordable and practical bikes. That's where steel comes in.

Cutting-edge alloys are still being used to build competition-grade racing bikes which are almost as light as aluminum or carbon fiber. Good examples of this would be the Colnago Master X-Lite or the Cinelli XCR.

For those with a more modest budget, talk to Brian at Central Cycle about a Masi or Marinoni.

But more importantly, the technology to build a basic 20 pound bike is now almost ancient. If we can produce a decent quality of steel tubing, most of the rest of the serious work involved in frame-building can be done with hand tools and a TIG welder. Spokes can be made straight from steel wire. Bearings, cups, and bolts are all produced in town already.

People do this kind of thing in their garage or back yard all the time. Hamilton Freeskool had a class on it.

Manufacturing and Distribution

For a large manufacturing facility, this means the option of bringing the price of a decent price down by a lot. The entire industry is waiting for this right now. If you can build a "downhill bike" and retail it for $200, why not something more efficient?

Think of Dell, with its online ordering system combining the benefits of mass production and custom ordering. By shipping locally and directly, costs could be cut further, and savings reinvested into quality production.

Most important, not only would re-tooling a mill to put out high-quality tubing for bike frames mean renewed life for our steel operations, it would open the door to hundreds of small, custom and affordable framebuilding shops.

What's missing in today's cheap bikes is a frame worth holding onto, upgrading, or experimenting with. Something which has potential for expansion - which means standard fittings, versatile geometry, and good quality metallurgy. If mass producing this in the 1970s was possible, then why not today? For small-scale operations, this means a lot of options.

High-Skilled, Green, Small-Scale

A custom-built steel frame is nothing to scoff at. This is the kind of high-skilled, green, small-scale employment which Hamilton needs. From frame repairs and modifications to made-to-measure bikes, this is an industry that prizes individual workers and shops over larger operations, and is capable of reaching the whole range of price brackets.

It would permit a lot of immediate work in important areas like trailers, cargo bikes, tandems, recumbents, hybrid-electric bike-cars (like the Twike) and even tall-bikes. The materials to build even a carbon fiber bike frame in your garage are cheaper than those for many basic auto repairs.

This also provides countless spin-off benefits for everyone from painting shops to component manufacturing.

Whether you're measuring economic or energy efficiency, bicycles simply deliver far more performance per pound. Though they probably won't be the only transportation option in the future, there's little doubt that they'll play a far larger role than they do today. We can get in on this today, or we can let it pass us by.

Retool for the Future

Green jobs are cool and green economies are even cooler - but this is about more than that.

Five years ago, predicting the death of the automobile era was "crazy talk". That was before doom and gloom hit GM, Ford and Toyota in the last two years. Cars have dropped in value like rocks, gas prices have exploded and cycling everywhere is getting renewed attention.

But it's not enough to say "ride a bike". We can be on the cutting edge of this change, or we can be buried beneath it. Hamilton's current industrial base will not survive the end of the automobile era. If you doubt the near-apocalyptic potential of these changes, take a drive down to Detriot, and the Rust Belt towns beyond.

We can rebuild and retool for the future, or we can wait for another hundred stadiums to be built to remediate the decaying brownfields of our former employment lands. Preparing for the future means more than talk - it means building alternatives today. That can mean a volunteer-based bike co-op, or it can mean looking at going into full scale production.

Either way, it can't wait.