Comment 64215

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted May 30, 2011 at 10:27:46

It seems to me that the missing factors here are (a) continuum of generational identification with downtown core dating back centuries; and (b) premium cultural valuation placed on (and, accordingly, prioritized preservation of) architectural heritage, two variables that you tend to find across Europe in part because of the length of time its cities were in development using manual construction technology – Dublin, Galway and Carcassonne date back over 800 years, while Hamilton grew out of a settlement of American refugees just over 200 years ago, if you factor out indigenous populations (which settlers were keen to do). You can also find that to a lesser degree in French Canadian cultural preserves such as Montreal. The European view is reflected in cultures still older, of course. Ancestry is important. Cultural identity is important. Architectural legacy is This is, in part, why places like Piazza Del Campo, Piazza San Marco, Grote Markt, Place Jacques-Cartier etc don’t look like Yonge-Dundas Square or Gore Park.

One visit to the Spec’s goggle-eyed comments roll or dialing in the scruffy mental haze of the CHML signal is all it takes to find scores of Hamiltonians who’ve divorced themselves from the lower city entirely – to say nothing of the downtown core – all based on biases that date back to the 70s and 80s. I would guess that they might also be less than conversant in their city’s history, focused as they are on what’s new and novel. That habit of thought is, I would suggest, no small part of Hamilton’s urban retardation. It is as prevalent in out-of-town developers as it is in the population. And deprogramming the lot will be far more challenging than the bureaucratic tedium of invoking two-way streets.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds