Only in Hamilton could a cement and glass block building not even fifty years old with persistenly leaking ceilings, constantly malfunctioning elevators and inner wiring so out of date that any IT upgrade is a nightmare; only here could it be designated a historic site. And yet, a few years ago, some idiots decided Hamilton City Hall should get that honour. With other privately owned sites in much bigger threat which have not been so designated one has to wonder why anyone would want to renovate it.
Yet some time ago the decision was made to spend about $69 million to renovate the eyesore, for an alteration that might last, say, 20 years. And it still won't be adequate because the city will still have to rent out space in office towers at a nearby mall as well as at the Convention Centre. Now with about a week to decide, the new mayor, Fred Eisenberger, is trying to resurrect a plan to just tear City Hall down and build from scratch -- although somewhat scaled down from before. Cost: $115 million. The building could last at least 50 to 60 years or more. The twist is that it could be a civil centre with surplus space rented out to other public agencies such as the school boards or even to the private sector.
I think it's worth considering. In fact, I would vote to start anew. The city hall in Mississauga is an excellent example of what can be done to make it right and no doubt has played a role in the rapid growth in that city.
Besides, it's better to keep as many people as possible in house. Especially during rainy or windy days when some of the main drags in Hamilton turn into wind tunnels. It's hard enough running six city halls at once (five of them actual town or city halls before amalgamation turned them into service centres). Run five more downtown and physical plant can't keep up.
This is one case where we can't afford making a mistake by not getting it right. Just tear it down and begin anew. As long as they stay away from gold-plated door handles (as what was originally suggested for the original "new" city hall, which the then city council abandoned when they decided to go with renovations instead) it should pay for itself in time.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
2 comments:
_I wouldn't call the Mississauga City Hall a success. There's the combined positioning of the large pre-existing mall, with the main library just south of the S-W city Hall, while the newer bus depot area was situated to the farnorth middle of the mall. While earlier and newer built corporate office towers are situated to the opposite S-E end of the vast mall centre. Then there is the hard to locate, inadequately labelled, and wieldy underground parking that serves both the library and the city hall.
_Plus the Mississsauga City Hall's main floor itself is a jangle of short corridors. After finding a department a couple years ago, I then learned it was relocated elsewhere in the city.
Thanks for the insight, Classic. I've never been actually been inside Mississauga City Hall but I've driven by it quite a few times and at first glance it's quite the sight asthetically. I just wonder if it is as problematic as you say, why does Hazel McCallion keep getting elected?
My point is that the main square should be a point of reference for the rest of the city. The bunker we have right now in Hamilton is anything but. Some corporate headquarters in town are better designed.
Post a Comment