Raise the Hammer

I’d also like to know why the existing Board of Ed building is on not included in this comparison table.

“That building needs a wrecker’s ball” doesn’t spring to mind when I think of the existing Board of Ed building. In fact, I consider it a permanent part of the downtown landscape. When one thinks of interesting and memorable cities, it’s usually the cities with the most history and architectural diversity that spring to mind – not the cities with the cookie cutter or concrete village stylings.

Why couldn’t the downtown Board of Ed building be renovated/retrofitted? $55 million? Maybe…but I doubt it. Most likely an inflated figure to promote a new build. How many bids/estimates were received? Why is it in such a state of dire, expensive disrepair to begin with? If our Board let that happen to that building, what’s to say that isn’t happening to all its capital, including future builds? Who is ensuring that this isn't the case?

Judith Bishop’s RTH post denotes “The business plan for this requires the sale of the Education Centre and another administrative site, and using operational savings, calculated at $1.3 million a year, to finance the remaining portion of a $31.6 million, 113 square foot building.” Really? Selling off the existing Board of Ed building will save $1.3 million PER YEAR? Holy hannah.

Why is selling, demolishing and building anew such an attractive option to the Board? I’ve always thought that when a building is demolished, it’s because it has to be, not because someone wants something new or different in its place. Are they loaded? I can think of better ways to blow money, within the public education sector.

The comparison table denotes “economic impact” and according to the related report that is “the best place to raise a child, local economic benefits." According to who/what criteria? The Board's finance department and/or economists? Input from the City? Input from local economic experts like Marvin Ryder, et al?

And where are the schools that are about to be “ closed” on the comparison table or at least considered a potential site in their report? Someone please tell me that Delta isn’t going to also be assigned a demolition permit.

And this is where my head spins...the City, usually referred to as the " taxpayers," is set to contribute $47 million to the McMaster demolition/construction. But the remainder of the money that McMaster is using for this project is primarily taxpayers' dollars, too. And the Board's anticipated, shiny new 113,000 sq.ft. building is also footed by taxpayers' dollars. So...taxpayer-wise...isn't the least expensive option to renovate the existing Board building? And lease and/or purchase other existing City of Hamilton properties? And locate the new McMaster project in a different downtown location? Hmmmmm, where could that possibly be...cough Rheem.

As for the "why does downtown get so much attention" mantra, I observe that it's a majority of people that don't understand why a healthy, economically robust downtown is essential to a city's viability. And in addition to five municipalities who are still stinging from forced amalgamation, we've now got a second generation of mountain residents who could give a crap about what happens down the mountain; they perceive that they've never had any need to leave the mountain for anything. So a large contingency of "Hamiltonians" think that the lower city should just shrivel up and go away. Does anyone know of a website or case study illustrating that very occurrence? It would be great if The Spec would do a series on that topic - maybe a "what if" series of different scenarios, based upon input from local economic experts.

Sorry so wordy. And probably redundant (but hopefully not).

And at the risk of being reeeeally superfluous...Matt, you're just awesome. "Let's add without subtracting" is brilliant.