urbanicity

urbanicity

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

complimentary |

CONFESSIONS of an UNMARRIED WOMAN

take home. enjoy. discuss.

p.4

+ IN THIS ISSUE=

ANDREWVICTORIA

INNER RING RENEWAL

THE PAIKIN REPORT

FIX IT!

HIGH ANXIETY

A dynamic duo in the greatest sense of the words, AndrewVictoria is one of Hamilton's greatest exports. Or imports. Either way, these Australians are a team to watch. This month, urbanicity is proud to bring you AndrewVictoria. p.11

While plenty of attention is given to the renewal of Hamilton's downtown core, little attention is paid to the ring of old downtown suburbs that surround it. In his March feature, Terry Cooke focuses on these inner rings of Hamilton, and explains their value to true and comprehensive downtown renewal. p.3

A property developer, executive producer, sports mogul, and community advocate, Jeff Paikin stands out in the Hamilton landscape. This month, we asked Jeff a few questions about the city he loves. p.7

The one-way streets in Hamilton's downtown are wider and often faster than the QEW. Yet they are bordered by schools, shops, restaurants, and sidewalks. Isn't it time that Hamilton identifies them as a problem? If so, Reg Beaudry argues that it's time to FIX IT! p.10

Hamilton is scared of heights. Or at least of tall buildings. For some reason, even the suburbs surrounding Toronto are building more impressive skylines than we are! This month, Jason Leach takes a look at Hamilton's crippling case of high anxiety. p.9

FREE PARKING * PRIVATE LOUNGE for 60 PEOPLE * PATIO 191 James Street North }{ Hamilton, Ontario }{ L8R 2K9 }{ 905.523.7269 }{ acclamation.ca

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.2

DISTRIBUTION QUANTITY: 10,000 copies per issue 12 issues per year DATE: First Friday of each month COST: Complimentary

urbanicity [ur-buh-nis-i-tee] - noun 1. The premiere interactive forum of constructive, thoughtful, provocative, and local ideas, issues, and experiences.

In the context of Hamilton, there are an infinite number of valuable causes to throw one’s weight behind. Frequently we find ourselves picking between several battles at a time. While each issue has its own degree of importance, every issue needs some attention. This is why having a multifaceted, diverse and engaged population is essential to the ongoing growth and improvement of the city. Our heritage advocates are always ready to take the lead in the defense of our older and more venerable properties. Our poverty fighters work tirelessly to improve the circumstances of low income individuals. Our transparency hawks voraciously exercise the Freedom of Information Act in search of documents and data. Our environmentalists lead the charge for clean land, air, and water. Our transit proponents continually push for implementation of light rail. While many people may fall into several of these categories, we all have our priority causes. After all, there's a lot to get involved with. That's because there's a lot of work to do.

DISTRIBUTION LOCATIONS Downtown Hamilton International Village Ottawa Street Locke Street Westdale Village of Ancaster Town of Dundas Village of Waterdown Stoney Creek Concession Street District Selected Hamilton Mountain locations Greater Hamilton Area

I would like to propose yet another cause to support. I'm the first to admit that it isn't nearly as sexy as light rail, nor is it as important as the fight against poverty. It's one of those causes that we can all help to address by using only a minute of our spare time. It's the recognition of Hamilton, Ontario as a city in its own right.

During the last week of February, VIA Rail suffered the tragic derailment of one of their trains near the Aldershot Station. When the story broke on the news, I was taken aback when the news anchor explained that Aldershot is located near Toronto. Granted, Burlington is technically considered the westernmost part of the Greater Toronto Area, but isn't Aldershot significantly closer to Hamilton than to Toronto?

Below - from top to bottom

Furthermore, when watching CHCH television, I've been somewhat confused to hear the weather reported as, "here in Toronto", when the weather reporter is standing on the roof of the building with the skyline of Hamilton clearly behind them. Forgive my ignorance, but when did Hamilton, Ontario, and her 520,000 citizens (or 720,000 citizens CMA) become Toronto?

MARTINUS GELEYNSE martinus@urbanicity.ca

CREATOR | LAYOUT + DESIGN REG BEAUDRY reg@urbanicity.ca

CONTRIBUTORS TERRY COOKE SHANNON QUEST LYDIA LOVRIC CHRIS STACEY DWAYNE ALI DR. ANTHONY LOMBARDI LESIA MOKRYCKE JASON LEACH ELISHA STAM AD INQUIRIES

MARTINUS GELEYNSE | photograph by Daniel Banko

PUBLISHER + EDITOR

Hamilton, Ontario is not Toronto, Ontario. The cities are close, but that doesn't mean they somehow become synonymous. A city of Hamilton's size should be recognizable at least to the people of Canada in a news report. If something happens in a city even as small as Windsor, the story isn't reported as taking place approximately an hour southwest of London.

I fully appreciate that this might sound trivial, especially when issues of poverty, transparency, transit, and the environment all fight for our energy. However, I would argue that for the minute amount of time and resources required to correct this, it is worth our attention. After all, Hamilton's anonymity in the shadow of Toronto has resulted in the CBC completely ignoring us for the greater part of the last century. It has contributed to our difficulty in obtaining an NHL hockey team. And for those involved in the arts, it often means that Hamilton artists are competing with the massive pool of Toronto artists for the same limited grant money - simply because they're lumped into the same category.

When you hear Hamilton being labeled as a part of Toronto, take a second to contact the broadcaster to make the correction. When you travel, explain that you are from Hamilton, Ontario rather that from "near Toronto". Expend the little energy needed to remind people that Hamilton is a proud and autonomous city in its own right. It might sound inconsequential, but then again, if we don't stand up for our little city, we eventually might not have an autonomous city to stand up for. And personally, I'd rather stay independent both politically and by association from the city that elected Rob Ford.

MARTINUS GELEYNSE | Publisher + Editor

ads@urbanicity.ca | urbanicity.ca 905.537.5928 PRINTER Canweb Printing Inc.

FORUM |

Each month, the FORUM section will display letters to the Editor. In order to be accepted, letters must include valid contact information and the full name of the writer. Send your letters to: editor@urbanicity.ca Letters are printed as received, without editing. In the spirit of dialogue, it is urbanicity policy to offer space for a reply by the writer of the original article being addressed. The ideas, opinions, and views presented in urbanicity are not necessarily those of its Editor, Publisher, Distributors or Advertisers. We welcome discussion!

RE: “Celebrating the Beauty of the Lister” I enjoy reading Urbanicity and Graham Crawford's interesting and sometimes controversial contributions. I have sometimes questioned Graham's slant on the facts, but never the facts themselves, until now.

I read his “Celebrating the Beauty of the Lister” with interest, and also agree with his conclusion that Liuna has done a first class job of restoring this iconic building. What I object to is his quasi-revision of the facts related to my involvement in the whole process.

It's not that Graham is totally wrong, it's that he is very much incomplete in failing to present the whole story.

Some simple research would have led Graham to the real history of how the restoration occurred.

First of all, it was my effort as mayor to put the Lister renewal squarely on the public agenda which moved the yardsticks on a project that had languished in failure for decades. I didn't do this out of whim. I did it when, early in my term, I set out a legislative agenda for my office, I consulted with senior staff and Councillors on what to include in that road-map. Both groups obliged and helped compile the final document.

After much consultation to ensure that I identified what the city needed and what I thought was important, we came up with a list of ten major projects that I would tackle over the three-year term. The Lister was featured prominently on that list because it was named by almost all councillors and senior staff as THE project that was weighing most heavily on our lack of momentum downtown.

My office initiated a discussion with the Lister owners, and we asked our senior staff to work out a deal. We took the initiative to Council and it was approved almost unanimously. The sticking point in the debate was not the demolition of the building, even though the rendering, and the presentation to Council

by Tim McCabe clearly showed a replica of Lister, it was the price we had to pay in rent to get the deal done which became controversial. At that point the city would only be tenants. For me it was the best option to outright ownership which not only proved to be much more expensive, but it also 'locked' the city in perpetuity to one location rather than allowing the city to move financial resources around to renew other buildings over time. Even at that, the rent to make the deal work was fairly steep compared to what the city was paying elsewhere.

I took criticism for the high rent, but felt it was money well spent to fix a long-standing eyesore in the core.

As often happens, the latecomers to the party realized the building would not be restored but taken down and the criticisms over cost were replaced by legitimate concerns over the destruction of built heritage. I was asked to change my mind, but feared that the additional costs to renovate would be prohibitive and scuttle any momentum we had. I forged ahead with Council support to demolish and replicate. So far Graham is right.

Councillor McHattie threw a Hail Mary pass and wrote the Minister of Heritage seeking her intervention in the process. Provincial noises ensued that we might not be allowed to demolish. On the night when

Council supported demolition, I had a long conference call with the Minister, the Premier's office, some local MPP's and my staff. I was asked by the Minister to hold in abeyance the vote on demolition. I refused.

(Unbeknown to her perhaps, I had received unequivocal assurance that the province would not interfere with demolition if that was what Council wanted to do.) In spite of this knowledge on my part, I agreed with the Minister that Council would vote for demolition but would also ask for a delay in doing so for one month. I suggested, and the Minister agreed, that we would strike a blue-ribbon task force made up of the building owner, myself, a Ministerial representative and members of the heritage and architectural community to see if we could find an alternative to demolition.

We did exactly that. I even invited Councillor McHattie to sit in on that committee but he was leaving town on holidays, so Councillor Maria Pearson, also a member of the city's Heritage Committee, agreed to sit in.

We met assiduously for the month and came to the conclusion that the building would be saved. And this is where my friend Graham Crawford is almost misleadingly incomplete. I agreed to this compromise because it was never my intention to knock the building down at any cost; my whole purpose was to fix the eyesore. I also knew that if the province was going to stick its nose in our business as a city, they would have to pay to play. And that was the genesis of the contribution announced by the Premier some weeks after the municipal election. I was at the AGH as a former mayor for that announcement. It was a bittersweet, but welcome moment for me.

Credit must also be given to Fred Eisenberger for not dropping the ball on this deal, even though Liuna's cost was higher than I had negotiated. Hamilton, as Graham points out, paid handsomely for this restoration. And it happened not because I stood in its way, but because of my seminal efforts to focus public attention on getting it done and then orchestrating a way of putting the province's feet to the financial fire to help out our city so that it indeed would be done.

And now the glorious Lister shines on James restored to its former glory.

-Larry Di Ianni Former Mayor, City of Hamilton GRAHAM’S RESPONSE: Dear Larry, Thanks for contributing your own very personal perspective on the Lister Block renewal story. I'm pleased you've been given an opportunity to tell readers of urbanicity the role you played personally in saving the Lister Block.

Thanks also for taking the time to provide so much behind-the-scenes information about the machinations in which you, Council, LIUNA, Hi-Rise, and the provincial Liberals participated to save the Lister. I recommend you submit the full story to Martinus Geleynse, the Publisher of urbanicity, who

I'm sure would consider featuring it in an upcoming issue.

Unfortunately, that isn't the 700 word story I chose to write. No, the story I chose to write focused on celebrating the restored Lister Block while being sure to remind people of the fact we almost lost the building, but that it was saved, and that in the end it was restored beautifully. Our heritage threatened.

Restored. Celebrated.

What I did not attempt to write was a detailed chronology of the events linking these three distinct moments in history. I did not, as you imply revise any facts. What I did include was the fact you attended, as Mayor, a media conference at which Joe Mancinelli showed the rendering of a new, vertically stretched, replication of the Lister Block and explained the building would be demolished and replaced. Larry, I don't recall you saying at that media conference you opposed demolition and replication. If you did say so at the time, I will apologize. However, until such time as you're able to correct my statement, I'll leave my apology in the bottom drawer, at the ready.

In my short piece, I used some of my 700 words to include the fact that many citizens shared loudly their views on the prospect of demolition of the heritage building. Sadly, even though you were elected by some of these very people, you make no mention of them in your version of the Lister facts. Should I conclude you view the efforts of these non-elected, taxpaying, non-affiliated citizens merely as mosquitoes in the tent at night. Annoying as hell, but ultimately harmless? Perhaps you believe, or even know, their efforts were inconsequential in the saving of the Lister Block?

Larry, may I suggest that in your efforts to shape your mayoral legacy, that you please don't ignore the little people who were there and also that you avoid attacking those who inconveniently offer facts that don't suit the dramatic arc your auto-biography.

Looking forward to continuing the debate.

Respectfully, of course.

-Graham Crawford RE: “Doom, Gloom, and Inconvenient Truths” Ms. Yull doesn't believe in relying on expert opinion and believes we've become a culture too easily led.

And yet she then bases her whole article on the views of two fringe, non-expert figures.

The IPCC report is endorsed by the overwhelming majority (about 97%) of the scientific community. In fact, the major criticism of the report from scientists has been that it was too conservative and left out factors that may make global warming worse. (for example, sea level rises were only estimated from thermal expansion of the ocean not melting of glaciers and ice sheets.) And barely a week goes by without another disturbing report, often showing trends accelerating faster than scientist had predicted.

Here are a few specific points: 1: Many of the writers of the report, she says, are graduate students, not Ph'd's. Anyone familiar with how modern academic science works knows that most of the grunt work is done by grad students under supervision of professors.

supervision of professors.

2: Bona fide experts were not consulted. Exactly who are they? The IPCC contains a review of the work of thousands of scientists considered leaders in their field.

3: She says 28% of sources in the IPCC report were from non-peer reviewed sources. So 72% were. In any case its hard to judge this qualitatively without knowing the type or relative importance of these sources.

4: She says many jobs and much prosperity will be lost because of policies aimed at alleviating climate change. This is a dubious assertion itself. But the economic havoc that climate change could cause would far outweigh those costs. British economist Nick Stern has estimated that a do nothing policy on climate change could cost the world 20% of world GDP by 2050, whereas policies aimed at alleviating, at least, the worst effects would cost only about 1% of world GDP. Ms Yull comments on the beauty and bounty of parts of the earth she's seen. Perhaps she would have a somewhat different perspective if she'd seen the flood ravaged areas of Pakistan, Australia, the unprecedented heat wave in Russia, the droughts in Africa, to name a few the extreme weather events that have been linked to climate change. Not to mention the ongoing mass extinction that is perhaps the largest since the end of the dinosaurs.

She comments about how there has been some improvement in air quality in the last 40 years.

Perhaps that was because people rose the alarm rather than complacently accepted inaction. And that is the problem. The justification for complacency that fills her article. The general air of "don't worry, be happy." Nothing is absolutely certain, but if there was only, say, a 1 in 3 chance of the worst case scenario coming about, it would still justify all efforts to alleviate climate change.

There have been catastrophes before. As Europe emerged from the Dark Ages into the rapidly developing midieval civilization of the 14th century, the Black Plague wiped out half of the population. And it is now largely seen as a consequence of overpopulation and resource limitations of the time.

It is far safer to act according to a pro-active pessimism than grasping at straws to justify a complacency that could lead to catastrophe.

Steven A. Jeffery TOBY’S RESPONSE: In his first sentence, the letter-writer labels my suggested reading as being from "fringe" and "nonexpert" figures, a condescending tactic straight from the Al Gore playlist; one that marginalizes any opposing points of view.

I actually DO believe in relying upon expert opinion, and am presenting some of the latest of that: which is that the 'expert opinion' of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is very suspect.

My wish is that urbanicity readers with open minds would go to the books I mentioned and see for themselves.

Obviously, I am neither able nor interested in changing Mr. Jeffery's mind, as it is firmly made up.

-Toby Yull

FRONT COVER The lips and ring of Shannon Quest, photograph by Reg Beaudry FRONT PANEL AndrewVictoria | the great Urban West condo development at Aberdeen and Dundurn | Jeff Paikin, photograph by Reg Beaudry | Hamilton one-way street, photograph by Christoph Benfey | Absolute Towers in Mississauga CORRECTION In the February issue of urbanicity, we incorrectly stated that Sky Gilbert's inspiration for his latest play came from "growing up on a farm and drawing on his own rural childhood". Mr. Gilbert actually grew up in an urban environment.

We apologize for the error.

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.3

“Frustrated by restrictive singleuse zoning, bisected by expressways and one-way thoroughfares and weighed down by a legacy of shuttered industry, these places bear the same evidence of poverty and abandonment that characterizes the inner-ring suburbs of American Rust Belt cities.”

INNER RING RENEWAL | Terry Cooke

A mother walks her child along a desolate industrial street in east Hamilton | photograph by Reg Beaudry

A February 9th New York Times op-ed got me thinking about Hamilton's challenged inner-ring suburbs.

Titled "Designing a Fix for Housing", the essay by architect Jeanne Gang and transportation planner Greg Lindsay argues that the missing element in efforts to deal with the U.S. housing bubble fallout is the role of architecture and design in reinventing economically and socially viable neighborhoods.

As some American downtowns undergo muchneeded and long-overdue revitalization, older innerring suburbs have become the primary destination for new immigrants and people who cannot afford more affluent addresses. But the single-family homes that mostly make up the housing stock in those neighbourhoods host a crisis of foreclosures and destitution.

A wealth of opportunities exist to repurpose vacant industrial buildings and dead strip plazas to create more mixed, higher density housing options.

Unfortunately, suburb-oriented financing has conspired with postwar single-use zoning regulations to stymie much of this potential.

Here in the Bay City, after decades of neglect and decline, our downtown core is finally turning the corner. Artists and new businesses are moving in, investors are renovating old buildings, and the city is

“In 1992, for example, the historic Collins Hotel in Dundas nearly burned to the ground in an elaborate arson attempt, when a shady landlord poured gasoline into the basement and put multiple toasters on a timer. The Collins may have been the most infamous symbol of decline in downtown Dundas, but it was part of a wider pattern of neglect in the core of the Valley Town.”

slowly – sometimes too slowly – reversing the bad planning decisions of recent decades.

There are still way too many one-way urban thoroughfares. But on the bright side, the new Official Plan clearly recognizes the value of mixed-use development, high-quality transit and an urban-built form.

The next frontier is the ring of older suburbs that surrounds the downtown: places such as Concession Street and the traditional commercial districts of the east end like Kenilworth Ave. and Parkdale.

These neighbourhoods share several common traits: small, single-family houses with destabilized ownership; nearby industrial buildings, now mostly vacant; strip plazas; too many empty lots and too much surface parking.

Frustrated by restrictive single-use zoning, bisected by expressways and one-way thoroughfares and weighed down by a legacy of shuttered industry, these places bear the same evidence of poverty and abandonment that characterizes the inner-ring suburbs of American Rust Belt cities.

Ottawa Street is bustling, but streets like Kenilworth and Parkdale have too many makeshift facades and boarded-up storefronts, too many dilapidated strip plazas, too many empty buildings and vacant lots.

Yet these neighbourhoods have good bones. The solution is not to bulldoze them and start fresh – that almost never works – but to build on their strengths and mitigate what ails them.

We could do worse than drawing lessons from those local inner-ring suburbs that flourish today: places like downtown Dundas and Locke Street, which attract affluent residents and host lively business districts.

They are such shining examples of revitalization that it's easy to forget they were also struggling not so long ago.

In 1992, for example, the historic Collins Hotel in Dundas nearly burned to the ground in an elaborate arson attempt, when a shady landlord poured gasoline into the basement and put multiple toasters on a timer. The Collins may have been the most infamous symbol of decline in downtown Dundas, but it was part of a wider pattern of neglect in the core of the Valley Town.

The Locke Street area (Kirkendall) has always been close to my heart and part of my daily life. I grew up there and have always lived nearby. My greatgrandparents operated and lived above a fish and chip shop at Locke and Hunter Streets for over 50 years.

And Locke St. is part of Ward 1, where I served for 15 years as both a City Councillor and Regional

Chairman in my previous political life.

Most of the people who live there today have no idea that its current chic status is fairly recent. From the 1960s through the early '90s, Kirkendall was a neighbourhood that struggled. Families with children were escaping to the mountain. Locke Street was a drag strip and the few marginal businesses that survived hung on by their fingernails. It took long-term planning and concerted effort to reverse its decline.

The old H.A.A.A. walled stadium was taken down and (thanks to a federal neighbourhood improvement grant) turned into a great park with a playground, track, football field, and basketball courts.

Council stood up to the traffic department and approved stop signs on Locke at both Charlton and Herkimer. The street had always been a designated thoroughfare and the traffic engineers said it would be disastrous to interfere with speedy traffic flows.

What happened instead is that the street was tamed and became more appealing to pedestrians. Adding all-day curbside parking slowed traffic further and gave the storefronts a fighting chance. Local property owners (led for the past 40+ years by the tireless Tony Greco) worked together to decorate, renovate and attract a more balanced mix of businesses.

We can see how it turned out. Property values

around Locke Street soared as the neighbourhood became more desirable. Student populations at Earl Kitchener, St. Joseph's and Ryerson grew as families moved back in.

The real estate market is now responding with higher density projects that provide more diverse housing options and create a bigger local market for neighbourhood businesses.

Some, like Allenby Lofts, feature the adaptive reuse of old buildings (and I'd love to see action on the disgraceful conditions at 220 Dundurn Street South).

Others, like the great Urban West condo development at Aberdeen and Dundurn, represent the higher-order redevelopment of dead strip plazas. That site used to be a one-story Tim Horton's with off-street parking.

Neighbourhoods follow long cycles of growth, maturity, stagnation and decline, followed by rebirth and renewal. Over time, inner-ring suburbs tend to densify and become part of the urban fold. If we understand and support this process, we can cut short the struggle of those Hamilton places currently passing through the bottom of the cycle and speed their recovery as part of a healthier, changing community.

TERRY COOKE is President & CEO of Hamilton Community Foundation. tcooke@urbanicity.ca

“Others, like the great Urban West condo development at Aberdeen and Dundurn, represent the higher-order redevelopment of dead strip plazas. That site used to be a one-story Tim Horton's with offstreet parking.”

“When I look at shows like Leave it to Beaver, I get the impression that marriage did more to stabilize the economy than it did to make anyone in the marriage happy.”

- Shannon Quest

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.4

Shannon Quest in her downtown Hamilton home | photographs by Reg Beaudry

CONFESSIONS of Oran UNMARRIED WOMAN how I learned to deconstruct the fairytale Shannon Quest |

I think it starts when we're babies. Our parents bring us home from the hospital to our freshly painted nursery room – pink if you are, biologically speaking, female, or blue for the male baby, or perhaps a yellow room if mommy and daddy want to be surprised by their child's biological bits. Once we outgrow our cribs, we're introduced to Barbies and G.I. Joe figurines, and classic Disney characters, all of which construct our ideas of what it means to be man and woman.

The ancient Greeks believed it was Zeus who had cut us in half, making male and female halves from one androgynous human – destined to search for their other half for the rest of their existence. That myth isn't as graphic in the world of make-believe characters today, but the message remains the same: we must search for our significant other, and claim them as our own when found.

When I was a little girl, my favorite movie was, without question, Cinderella. I was not yet six and remember faking that I was ill so I could stay home from school and recite the lines between the lovable mice Gus-Gus and Jaq. Or to stare into the handsome Prince's eyes (along with Cinderella as she danced with him at the royal ball), capturing his heart until death do us all part. Or to sing along to the hopeful lyrics, “no matter how your heart is dreaming, if you keep on believing, the dream that you wish will come true.” Looking back on that fairytale, I see a different script, one that remains an edited version of reality.

Cinderella is a poor, hard-working servant who answers to her abusive stepmother. Cinderella's only friends are the mice that live in the attic with her, and her only chance for happiness is found in marrying the rich, young ruler of the far away land. For those who are gendered female, this narrative is all too familiar.

“Happiness is found in being rescued by your prince.”

The script for men is complimentary as masculinity is wrapped in ideologies of being the protector and provider. I know this from having a brother who watched Superman, and was Superman in my mind.

As we grew up, the script never changed. Nearly every Hollywood blockbuster depicts men and women fulfilling these stereotypical roles of 'man as super hero' and woman as 'finding fulfillment in the arms of a man'.

I think it's time that we, as a collective of diverse people with different ideas and experiences of love, confront this narrow script. Why? Because I'm tired of watching people beat themselves up over it, viewing themselves as failures for not effectively acting the part. Women, are you happy in your marriage? Men, are you your wife's hero? What about those who are excluded from this idea of 'true love'? Or what about those who, like myself, just don't believe in the fairytale anymore?

Where did we get the idea that we can't experience intimacy, or friendship, or commitment, or companionship, or passion, or romance without claiming property ownership over another person? Or signing a contract? Or making an eternal promise?

When I look at shows like Leave it to Beaver, I get the impression that marriage did more to stabilize the economy than it did to make anyone in the marriage

happy. Men came back from the war, kicked women out of their jobs, and set up house. Industrialization advertised to the house wife, who needed fancy new appliances to keep the home life running more efficiently, which kept the husband working steadily to supply these new gadgets for her. Yet we all know the 1950's family unit was not the image of perfection that was so often portrayed. Marriage has always served a different purpose for different times in history, whether it be economical, political, or social reasoning. For some, it was a way of securing the family's financial stability by marrying off a daughter. Or it was used to continue a family's bloodline. Or it was based on religious beliefs, and the list goes on. It seems the concept of marrying purely for love is a fairly recent development – one that I fear is in a delicate stage of development. Do love and marriage “go together like a horse and carriage”? Why haven't we stopped to ask, “If I really love someone, should I really put them through marriage with me?!”

So what then, is the answer to the marriage mirage?

Nathan Radke, a professor in the philosophy of love and sex, once told me, “Invention is the brave little termite in structure's rotten framework.” I couldn't agree more. Invention. Why don't we invent our own structures? And if those structures include the institution of marriage, why don't we dissect what exactly we mean when we say we want marriage?

Why must we rely on old ideas of marriage that are rotting frameworks in an ever-changing society?

Today's standard of living requires at least two incomes for a family to survive. How can we expect those old roles of man and woman to remain intact?

I've had quite a few debates with those who cling to tradition and have scowled at me that, “Marriages are under attack!” by people like myself (or by celebrities who make a mockery of it by changing spouses like they do their shirts). I only challenge the idea because I see more people trying to support an old structure instead of seeing a structure that supports people.

Let me be clear about what I am not saying as we invent new ways of doing marriage. I am not suggesting that we run around carelessly screwing anything that walks. I'm also not advocating for lying, or cheating, or serving our own self interests only. I'm suggesting the very opposite, and I imagine if people were really honest with the ones they love, we would see a lot less of that hurtful behavior taking place. I'm saying, regardless of the institution of marriage, people ought to come to their own agreement about what they would like from a relationship. We should make realistic commitments. We should be free to speak our mind, as one friend to another, not one who owns the other. The beautiful thing that sets us apart from the other animals in the kingdom is that we have the ability to reason. So, let's be reasonable. Let's take small steps toward better behavior with our beloved ones.

I recently ran into an acquaintance at the grocery store, and somehow, in the poultry isle, we got into a discussion on marriage. He described his idea of the 'perfect' marriage - albeit if there were no children involved. He calls it the “Sunday Afternoon Affair” and it is exactly what it sounds like. Every Sunday you meet up with your spouse and have some breakfast

together, or brunch, or well, depending on… you know, and then you go for a stroll, have a picnic, see a flick, maybe have some more fun, and then say, “See ya next Sunday!” While most spouses might appreciate more of a commitment from their significant other, I admire the invention behind such a confession.

Let's face it; we are no longer as good at convincing ourselves we're happy in marriage as we once were.

We need not look further than the local card shop, as I did last week and found a 'getting married' card that read “Congratulations on your second marriage”. It's certainly not what it was 50 years ago, but then again, how can it be in a world that changes in every other way? People may ask, “What about the kids?!” I would ask, in reply, why a family can't still be a family after a divorce? (By the way, I hate the word 'divorce'.

It's too final, and forces people to act as though their ex doesn't exist anymore, which is a tragedy to treat humans in such a way.) Why must we completely disown the person we created life with? Why can't we remain friends, who want what is best for one another? Why can't people admit that it isn't working for them, and figure out a respectful alternative?

For the record, I speak as one who comes from two parents who agreed upon an alternative to a painful marriage. My parents parted ways, but remained respectful to one another. There was no custody battle, I could freely come and go between each parent as I decided, and to this day, I am so thankful to both of my parents for this. Isn't it time we overcame those “natural” impulses of treating people as property to be managed? Marriages should be democratic, not tyrannical. After all, in a world where the future is uncertain, and security is an illusion, we do ourselves little good by pretending otherwise with those who mean the most to us.

With Valentine's Day once again a year away, I think we have an opportunity to think differently about how we do love and marriage... and cheesy commercial holidays. I've always thought of Valentine's Day as a day when we set ourselves up for stress, expectation, and disappointment. Why not spend the day with a friend, watching crappy cable TV like every other night? Or find a single person who is wallowing in selfpity and show them a little love. Start writing your own fairytale, and show Cinderella and G.I. Joe just what a real relationship can look like. The future is not fixed.

If we start thinking for ourselves, who knows what can happen – We just might live somewhat happily ever after.

SHANNON QUEST has spent time abroad in South Africa, Inner Mongolia, Egypt, Australia, and The Netherlands and enjoys learning about the practices of other cultures. A proud Hamiltonian, she attends McMaster University and is working toward a Combined Honors in Philosophy and Labour Studies. In her spare time, Shannon can be found playing obscure musical instruments like the Harmonium and Harpsicle or doting over her cat, Mugsy. She delights herself in the process of 'coinventing the fairytale' with her boyfriend. More of Shannon's thoughts and observations are sparingly updated at: practices-invent-spaces.blogspot.com.

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.5

MADISON and her DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD | Lydia Lovric

Well-meaning parents may have the best of intentions, but arming kids with cell phones in the name of safety might be the equivalent of giving chubby children cigarettes to help them lose weight.

Potential risks associated with cell phones may outweigh any perceived benefits and parents should know the full facts before putting their kids in harm's way.

A leading radiation expert is urging parents not to give cell phones to children under the age of nine and that cell phone use should be strictly limited for kids aged nine to 14.

The chairperson of England's Health Protection Agency and the National Radiation Protection Board, Sir William Stewart, says scientists are still unable to ascertain the safety of cell phones. His advice to parents: Be cautious.

"When it comes to suggesting that mobile phones should be available to three- to eight-year-olds, I can't believe for a moment that can be justified," Stewart says. "It seems to me ludicrous. If you have a nine- to 14-year-old and you feel they can benefit in terms of security, then that is a personal judgment parents have to make."

However, cel lphone use among tweens should be

When the kids and I head to the neighbourhood park, I see other parents on their smart phones.

Some of them barely even look up to make sure their child hasn't been kidnapped.

brief and reserved for essential calls, according to Stewart. Text-messaging should be used in lieu of regular calling whenever possible and the phone should be a low-emission model to help reduce possible health risks.

He has cautioned his own young grandsons against the use of cell phones.

"My advice is that they should not have them because children's skulls are not fully thickened, their nervous systems are not fully developed and the radiation penetrates further into their brains."

Studies done by the Food and Drug Administration in collaboration with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association have found that patients with brain tumours were more likely to develop the tumour on the side of the head where the cell phone was used most often.

As a thirty-something self-proclaimed geek (my idea of a fun night is playing strategy games or watching Game of Thrones), I am not opposed to new technology. I've embraced computers and the Internet. I love e-mail and online banking.

But I absolutely loathe cell phones.

Health concerns aside, I choose not to carry around a cell phone because I see no need to be that

connected. And frankly, I'm not that important.

Perhaps if I were a transplant doctor who was constantly on call, I would succumb to the pressure and get a cell phone.

But the average Canadian really doesn't need to be available every waking moment.

When the kids and I head to the neighbourhood park, I see other parents on their smart phones. Some of them barely even look up to make sure their child hasn't been kidnapped. I recall one little girl who sat sadly on a still swing, asking her father three times to give her a push. Apparently, daddy was preoccupied with his smart phone.

Too many Canadians are clearly addicted to their cell phone. Instead of giving people freedom, these devices seem to shackle users. Honestly, I question how many adults truly need a mobile phone.

Why children need cell phones is beyond me. Really young kids should never be left unsupervised in the first place. Older kids should know how to seek assistance or use a pay phone.

In Canada, there are more than 25 million wireless subscribers and that number continues to rise. In the UK, approximately 86 per cent of children (ages 7 to 16) owned a cell phone according to a 2010 survey by

National Literacy Trust. 73 per cent reported owning a book.

I've seen groups of tweens huddled together at the local park or mall, chatting away on their cell phones.

They ignore the friends that they're with so they can talk with someone else. Or they chat away on the cell phone while being chauffeured by Mom or Dad, barely saying two words to the people in the car.

It would be interesting to see a study outlining the number of times cell phones have in fact saved a child's life versus how often it actually endangers a child -- kids who cross the street without paying attention because they're on the cell phone or new drivers who think they can dial and steer at the same time.

Before you push little Madison out the front door with a cell phone for "safety," ask yourself if you've just handed her a double-edged sword.

LYDIA LOVRIC wrote a weekly opinion column for The Winnipeg Sun and was a regular contributor to The Vancouver Province. She continues to appear as a guest commentator on a variety of programs, including the BBC, Adler On Line, and CHML’S The Scott Thompson Show. She is currently enjoying life as a full-time mom to three little rug rats.

BEAUTIFUL THINGS IN DIRTY PLACES TITLE: the strip MODEL: Jenna Gogo “The strip photo was one in a series of photos I did with the idea of beautiful things in dirty places.

I set up outside the Strip on Barton St. one night in November.

I paid the convenience store across the street to use their power outlets and to stay open a few extra hours. Then I set up in the middle of the road.

The one thing I love about Hamilton is the cops. Two drove by asking what I was doing and so I told them... I thought for sure I was going to get kicked off. But no! They asked for my card and website...they couldn't wait to see the final product.

I love this city!

You can check out the rest of the series on my website www.storyink.co” -Chris Stacey Productions

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.6

VIRTUAL HAMILTON PLACES | Dwayne Ali

The ability to explore this city’s history is aided by a few online websites whose virtual presentations can serve as starting points to head out into the real world and explore on one’s own. These sometimes competing yet related sites are representative of a collective perceived need to create a positive and expanded online presence for this city.

The City of Hamilton’s ‘Hamilton Civic Museums: Virtual Tours’ website is a two-year production that has been live for over two months now. A surprisingly simple and clean interface offers users the ability to virtually enter several of the City’s civic museums.

While the majority of the City’s websites feature a disastrous mix of competing user interfaces across multiple, and often intersecting, websites, the virtual museum tour comes off as a bright spot. In fact, one of the greater drawbacks to the site is the fact that portions of its interface link back to the City’s own aging website rather than being completely selfcontained.

Featuring the voice talent of several city councillors and museum staff, the site was developed through the city's capital funding program and the Museums and Technology Fund grant through the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture. It currently features seven Hamilton civic museums, including a number of oft-

overlooked ones.

Ian Kerr-Wilson, the city’s ‘Manager of Museums and Heritage Presentation,’ notes that one of the site's primary motivations was the need to provide access to the city’s historical sites for those who may not have traditional access - whether traditional access was reduced by disability or simply other life conflicts and commitments. Users of the site can virtually enter and look around these museums while given a selfdirected guided tour.

Another local website, Historical Hamilton (HistoricalHamilton.ca) looks to organize and categorize the city’s history. It’s an ongoing project site operated by locals Paul Dolanjski and Brian Kowalewicz, both with an avid interest in the history and architecture of the city. It’s an incredibly large collection of photos and detailed map locations of some of the important historical buildings in the city.

They’re working to create an online database, encyclopedia and atlas of local history. The site stands out as a completely private venture driven purely by an interest in the city.

But herein lies one of the problems with the current online drive of the city. We have several groups, all trying to facilitate the positive online presence of this city, and dedicating hundreds of man-hours to similar

and overlapping causes. Some of those groups, including the city itself, operate largely in secret, rather than utilizing the drive and collective power of the citizens here. While the Virtual Museum site serves as a great example of the potential for online innovation in this city, it’s certainly not enough.

If Hamilton is to move past challenges faced, the changes need to occur online as well in the real world.

A modern city exists in the virtual space as much as in the real world. The city should act as a means to unify these overlapping efforts, rather than act in direct competition. Here, there is hope in ventures like Open Hamilton (http://openhamilton.ca) and its attempt, as part of the ‘open data movement,’ to use city-provided data combined with the expertise and efforts of engaged citizens to create usable applications for all citizens of the city to directly benefit.

Perhaps we’ll reach a time when the term “City” will refer not to the corporation, but rather to the actions of the collective citizens living here. As citizens, one shouldn’t have to go to great lengths to find out what the ‘City’ is doing. As citizens, you are the city.

DWAYNE ALI is the founder of Secret Hamilton, a project that seeks to introduce Hamiltonians and visitors alike to the many unknown treasures of the Hamilton.

City of Hamilton’s - Hamilton Civic Museums virtual tour page

GUITAR HAMILTON presents

HOMBRES de TANGO the BANDINI - CHIACCHIARETTA DUO

e music of

ttable

an unforge

tango ~ th evening of

passion!

SIDEBAR |

Hamilton Civic Museums: Virtual Tours | Historical Hamilton | museumshamilton.com historicalhamilton.com

Open Hamilton openhamilton.ca

Sunday, March 18 | 2012 @ 7 PM HAMILTON CONSERVATORY for the ARTS 126 James Street South | Hamilton ON TICKETS available at guitarhamilton.com | 905.528.4020

e l p m a s e m o c U N E M R NEW

OU

REDEEM THIS COUPON FOR

2 for 1

NEW YORK STYLE WINGS expires March 31, 2012

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

“There is a distinct difference between not being able to afford something and not being able to value it.”

Ritz Carlton meets Rolex

ROLEX or TIMEX? Have you decided what you are yet? | Dr. Anthony Lombardi

In the last few years, several group-buying companies have sprung up locally, and have been rapidly growing in popularity. WagJag, Groupon, and RedHot are only a few of the many companies that will market your product or service at a heavily reduced rate to people who are looking for a deal. Businesses employ these companies with the idea that if they sell their product or service for a very reduced rate, then the people may like the product so much that they will come again and pay full price next time. As I will tell you, getting your business involved with these coupon companies can tarnish your image.

Everybody likes to get a deal, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, people will usually buy coupons at a huge reduction in price simply because it is such a good deal – not because they require your service or product. They think, “I might as well for 81% off, why not? I can't go wrong” To illustrate my point I would like you to carefully read over the names on these two lists: 1. Cadillac, BMW, Corvette, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Versace, Prada, Tom Ford, Christian Louboutin, Rolex, The Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, Starbucks.

2. Ford Focus, Chevy Geo, The Suit Factory, Aldo Clothing, Moore’s, Payless, Timex, Motel 6, Holiday Inn Express, Seagram's, McDonalds, Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts.

Naturally, if you study both lists, you can see they

both provide similar products of different levels of quality within their own rite. In general, the companies and products in list #1 use better quality material, take more time to make, and have higher manufacturing standards than the companies or products in list #2.

If you received a coupon from WagJag for 72% off a stay at the Motel 6, you would say that is a good deal.

But, what if you received the same coupon for 72% off a stay at the Ritz-Carlton? Or 72% off Christian Louboutin shoes? That just wouldn't look right. You might think something was wrong with your room or you'd think the shoes must be knockoffs. When is the last time you saw a coupon advertising 50% off Ferraris? That is because Ferrari and Lamborghini cars, Versace, Prada and Tom Ford suits, Christian Louboutin shoes, Rolex watches, The Four Seasons, and Ritz Carlton hotel rooms all carry an unchanging value associated with them. Drastically reducing the cost of these products would cause them to lose their value. There is a distinct difference between not being able to afford something and not being able to value it.

I may not be able to afford to buy a new Ferrari, but I can certainly value and appreciate the fine Italian engineering, the hand-made parts, the careful assembly of the engine, and the world-class performance, which makes a Ferrari a work of art.

Some people may look at $9,000 Rolex and say “What a waste of money. I bought a watch for $11 at Wal-Mart

and it works great!” However, to say a Rolex is “a waste of money” is a comment that under-appreciates and de-values Rolex. That person obviously does not value the fact that the watch was hand-made and assembled by the best watchmakers in the world with the utmost precision and the finest of materials. It too is a work of art. Rolex does not care about those people that do not value and appreciate their work.

And neither should you.

In business and in life we must set standards for ourselves. What people want more than money, more than material goods, more than anything – is to be valued. There needs to be an equal value exchange between us and our customers, clients, employers, co-workers, friends, and significant others if these relationships are to last.

If you decide to be the best in your community, stay clear of these coupons. If you aspire to be a Ferrari you wouldn't spend your time studying how to be a Chevy Geo. If you aspire to be Versace you wouldn't take courses from Fruit of the Loom.

DR. ANTHONY LOMBARDI is a manual medicine specialist with a chiropractic license and is a private consultant to athletes in the NFL, CFL, and NHL. He has also operated his own private practice, Hamilton Back Clinic, for the last 10 years on our Hamilton Mountain. hamiltonbackclinic.com

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

THE PAIKIN REPORT |

p.7 Jeff Paikin is a true modern renaissance man. Not only is he President of New Horizon Development Group, a highly successful property development firm, but he is also a a former owner of the Hamilton Bulldogs, he has executive-produced a film, and he is heavily involved in the leadership of the B'Nai Brith Sports Celebrity Dinner. He is also active as a volunteer and campaign chair at Hillfield Strathallan College. Last week, Jeff took a few moments to do a Q & A with urbanicity

Jeff Paikin hard at work in his downtown Hamilton office | photograph by Reg Beaudry

URBANICITY: First off, why are you currently developing properties in Hamilton?

URBANICITY: Looking at the housing market in Hamilton, what is the greatest challenge you see?

URBANICITY: Looking at the housing market in Hamilton, what is the greatest opportunity you see?

PAIKIN: Hamilton is ripe and ready for an “urbanizing” in the core…people want to move closer to the heart of the City and to its many quaint neighbourhoods within the city. I read somewhere that the Durand neighbourhood possibly had the largest concentration of early 20th century mansions in Canada. There’s a nice stretch of brownstones on James St South historically intact. It’s a beautiful part of town.

PAIKIN: There isn't one “housing market” in Hamilton but a collection of different housing options for Hamiltonians and potential Hamiltonians to choose from.

The greatest challenge is maintaining the current level of affordability as land becomes more and more scarce and demand to live here continues to grow.

PAIKIN: I think Hamilton is still the best value in the GTA extended, and the opportunity lies in people from outside this area learning about what a great place this is to live, work and raise a family. With housing being more affordable, it is also a great place to own your first home or condominium as your dollar stretches farther.

URBANICITY: Where does the name of your development company come from? What is it inspired by?

PAIKIN: I have a relative who is a marketing guru who I consulted to name the company on day one. He provided a list of 10 to choose from and I immediately gravitated to New Horizon. The term “New Horizon” speaks to so many things that make our industry great. People who are buying a brand new home or condo are entering a “new horizon” in their own life. The horizon reference reminds us to always be looking forward and planning ahead. I think it also speaks to beauty as most people visualizing the horizon have a wonderful picture of sunsets in their mind…

URBANICITY: What is your dream for Hamilton? Is it attainable?

PAIKIN: My great grandfather settled in Hamilton in 1907. He came here for opportunity, security, safety and education opportunity for his family, and because there was ambition here that was realizable. My vision has Hamilton continuing to provide all of these things for people, and in having the heart of our city to continue to revitalize itself. And anything is attainable with the right vision, direction and leadership!

URBANICITY: If you could send a single sentence message to every single person in Hamilton, what would you say?

PAIKIN: Love your city. It offers so much. There is a spirit here that is unique and alive. We used to be known as a lunch bucket town because our image was a hard working steel town. We are reinventing ourselves daily and becoming so much more. We offer the best in education at all levels, have amazing health care, provide opportunities for so much, and have a philanthropic spirit to take care of each other. Cherish and nurture that as citizens and we will continue to better this amazing place to live!

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.8

SPACES of EXCHANGE | Lesia Mokrycke

In the twentieth century revolution shaped the way artists envisioned the future. Through the last hundred years art has existed around the exchange of ideas with the premise that intellectual discourse leads to artistic creation. Spaces for discourse and exchange are central to the way artists produce art. As we move forward into the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is clear that the landscape of art and what it means to be an artist is changing. With the advent of the Internet, Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook, and other forms of online exchange, it is interesting to think about what relevance movements such as the Enlightenment's Salons of Paris, Surrealist's Happenings and Andy Warhol's Factory have today.

The Internet has moved collaboration from an interpersonal experience to one that is mediated through virtual reality. Additionally, the 'academicization' of art has professionalized an industry that, prior to sixty years ago, did not exist. In the 1920's the Surrealists believed in the creation of a new time, and saw art as the vehicle for this transformation. Forty years later at East 47th Street in Midtown Manhattan, Andy Warhol's Factory became a celebrity hot spot for the American avant garde of the 1960's. Attracting a collection of famous musicians, drag queens, transvestites and artists, Warhol's Factory was famous for hosting some of the most groundbreaking parties of the decade. Not coincidentally, much of Warhol's work produced in the Factory came from footage recorded during these parties. Today, many practicing artists have Master or PhD level certifications in art or a related field, and many galleries require this level of education from artists. This is a very different situation than the world of the Surrealists and Andy Warhol's Factory. Artists of the last century did not make the bulk of their work

within the walls of a Masters program, guided by the steady flow of visiting professors. Furthermore, art was not considered a viable profession, but a means of disrupting the status quo and rebelling against rigid social ideals. There is a lot of value and potential for artistic growth in art education. But there is also a lot of value in unstructured collaboration.

In interviewing three organizations from three cities around the world, I ventured to find out what kinds of spaces artists are working with today. The three organizations interviewed include Chernobyl Arts Collective in Philadelphia, Boxcar Sound Recording in Hamilton and EphemArt in London, UK. Chernobyl Arts Collective is stationed in West Philadelphia and aims to attract a wide array of local and out-of-town people. Chernobyl puts on great events showcasing art and music in the basements of old Victorian houses in West Philly. Steph Cisso, member of Chernobyl and practicing visual artist, describes Chernobyl as a platform for creative people to exchange experiences and generate inspiration.

According to Cisso, real happiness comes from creativity, and creative action is a thing of beauty. In a world full of challenges, creating spaces for people to come together and share in artistic values will always succeed in bringing something new into the world.

Chernobyl is concerned with creating a space for people to share their voices and learn to work together to achieve artistic goals that they could not achieve alone. Through their BAM POW publication, the group encourages people outside of their circle to submit work and to get involved. The group puts out three publications each year and meets weekly to debate issues they are facing. The hands on, interpersonal aspect of their collaboration is key to pushing events forward, finding new artists to work

EphemArt | Boxcar Sound Recording, Ben Somer | EphemArt Discussion | Boxcar Sound Recording | Chernobyl Collective

with and expanding their network of talented people.

In Hamilton, Boxcar Sound Recording, located at the corner of Cumberland and Gage, has set up a recording studio with the goal of providing great professional experiences that are affordable. Like visual art, it is only in the last hundred years that people have pursued music as a career. Before figures like Robert Johnson, Johnny Cash and Ray Charles, being a recording artist, travelling and playing shows on the road didn't exist. It is only recently that a distinction between professional and amateur has emerged. With this come several challenges for young artists, especially in terms of finding production spaces that are actually affordable.

Ben Somer, independent musician and sound engineer for Boxcar Sound Recording, describes the experience of working with Boxcar as rewarding.

According to Somer, people come into the studio and put all of their aspirations and dreams in your hands. It is up to the team at Boxcar Sound Recording to bring their vision into reality. After several weeks of working closely with a band, it is easy to get invested in the work. Friendships develop and members of the group attend the band's shows, meet their friends and eventually word of mouth spreads. Naturally a community of tightly knit people develops and everyone supports one another. The people at Boxcar Sound Recording are interested in providing young artists with the experience of recording in a big-time studio, but the friendships built in the process are a rewarding by-product of the actual recording experience. The process of creating the work and the enjoyment of making art with other people is often the energy that sustains the art.

EphemArt is a loosely affiliated collective in England that organizes art events in private spaces in central

London. Oliver Brenni, a member of EphemArt and a politics student at Goldsmiths, University of London in England, sees art collectives as a democratic gesture, democratizing art for the benefit of society. EphemArt sets up art shows in ephemeral spaces with the purpose of linking art, culture, and discussion. Their efforts are focused on de-formalizing relations with art, de-institutionalizing art and re-establishing the link between creativity and the individual. The goal of their events is to attract people from a variety of backgrounds. Their social mélange includes grungy people, young people with aspirations to make the future, as well as individuals who are established and can invest in the younger generation.

For EphemArt, the intrigue is about seeing what happens when you set something up, and about what a few words and acts can accomplish. Brenni recognizes that making art is some sort of human necessity. In Brenni's words, “Art is not an objective language, we don't need to speak what others speak or feel what they feel, we just need to know there is some sense of collective humanity. Sure, there are more Eastern and more Western forms of art, but art has a knack for transcending language. Science is perhaps the only objective way of communicating; math does not feel… art only feels. It does not provide the framework. We make the framework for it.” Art collectives provide the space to constantly engage in acts of creativity. Discussion and debate form the atmosphere around up-and-coming artists, reintegrating art into a whole and integral part of life and back into the hands of young artists. For Brenni, the purpose behind EphemArt is getting people reinterested in things that matter.

In considering what potential arts collectives have in the twenty-first century, these small spaces of

exchange are vital in generating new ideas and perspectives. These three organizations are examples of how people are coming together to create opportunities for this to exist. Arts organizations matter because they offer an alternative model to the highly structured industry that is emerging in this century. Efforts such as Chernobyl Arts Collective in Philadelphia, Boxcar Sound Recording in Hamilton, and EphemArt in London are about working with people and seeing what happens when groups of creative people come together with a shared purpose.

Although museums are vital for the culture of a city, truly fresh and original ideas are often born outside the walls of an institution. Inspiration happens where people are engaged with life and with one another. It starts with people organizing themselves first, amongst one another, and not waiting for an outside influence to lend a helping hand. For all of the networking capacity that the Internet has brought us, there is still a desire and necessity for people to connect inter-personally. The arts provide this platform. In the words of Chernobyl in Philadelphia, “Artistic creation is a vessel for the human spirit and all of it's potential.” The making of the art is the link, both in terms of fostering creativity, and in valuing contact with one another as a means of reaching a shared humanity.

LESIA MOKRYCKE received her BFA from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 2011 and a Certificate in Painting from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 2009. Lesia currently works as an Artist and has permanent public art pieces installed in the United States and Canada.

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.9

“We are losing a TONNE of investment by having a pile of unnecessary hurdles to high quality, urban development projects. Even boring little Burlington is outpacing us and allowing buildings taller near the 407 than we allow downtown on King Street�

- Jason Leach

2

3

4 1 Absolute Towers in Mississauga | patrickshu.wordpress.com 2+3 Toronto project rendering, image from SCA development proposal | urbantoronto.ca 4 Too tall for downtown Hamilton? Rendering of a residential condo at the southeast corner of King Street West and Queen Street | Chamberlain Architect Services Ltd.

1

HIGH ANXIETY Height Restrictions in Hamilton are Insane | Jason Leach

Hamilton's West Harbour compromise plan will result in potentially 600 new residential units on the entire site. Meanwhile, in the suburban north end of Toronto, 1,660 units are coming to a smallish parcel of land currently housing a strip mall. Note that the Toronto project backs onto family homes with pools and is too far north to be on the subway line. In other words, way out of the urban core. We had the Options for Homes condo at the corner of King and Queen Streets held up at the OMB because some folks wanted six stories instead of twelve - At King and Queen, right downtown in front of a future LRT station. Our height restrictions are just insane. We need to see ourselves as a real city again. Mississauga is now building a bigger skyline than we are, which means more density and eventually street life and business success. – Jason Leach

By Robert D (anonymous) Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:27:41

By slodrive (registered) Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:48:42

By ScreamingViking (registered) Posted February 22, 2012 at 23:19:27

By Asymmetrics (anonymous) Posted February 23, 2012 at 01:13:23

By Ryan (registered) Posted February 24, 2012 at 06:28:38

Height restrictions were one of the items (along with parking requirements) that developers themselves cited as a barrier to building in downtown Hamilton during the LRT B-line development consultation process.

Good call...and totally agree. I'm failing to find any rationale for height restrictions in a downtown core.

Hamilton's challenge is far smaller. Here we have a downtown that has grown (and stagnated) more or less organically - it's the historic core of the city, was the centre of commerce for many decades, and while it has been in decline and seen some slow progress forward, many of the same factors that supported it as the heart of the city still exist.

Private investment, in the form of a variety of many small actions on the part of business owners on King and James, has been steadily growing with city support (and without it as well).

Hamilton's key challenge in terms of a sustainable urban environment is courting new private sector residential development downtown, ideally developments geared to families as well as singletons, the demographic norm for downtown. The last three major private sector residential projects downtown were probably The Annex, The Core Lofts and the Pigott Building. I think the to-market dates on those were 2005, 2004 and 1996. Downtown Hamilton has a population under 7,000, and that number has changed little in the last 20 years. Even if downtown's small businesses closed at 6 daily (and most do), that would be a barrier to vitality. I'm not sure I agree that downtown's stagnation is a small problem. If that were the case, RTH would've never evolved past Roy Green cameos.

Intensification done wrong can end up functioning as vertical sprawl: streets are not pedestrian-friendly or walkable and you still need a car to get anywhere.

I think I know why they were proposed, with the thinking being that by limiting height would result in two six story buildings instead of an empty lot next to a twenty story tower that is half empty (yeah, that clearly didn't work out as they planned).

In any event, whatever the rationale was, we need to revisit these height restrictions and determine what the rationale is for them now, whether or not they're achieving that objective, and proceed accordingly.

However, I'd caution to use Mississauga as a glowing example. Yes, the height flexibility is good, and the cityscape may look good from afar, but putting up tall towers with acres in between hardly develops a more walkable community. Their urban planning still seems content with a massive population devoid of a downtown - and the identity of a firmly entrenched bedroom community.

Mississauga's challenge has been to create a "downtown" where nothing existed before.

They've had to come from a much more distant point of origin. And most of their private investment has involved large actions by developers, creating rather homogeneous blocks no matter how pretty they've been designed...I fully believe the most sustainable development is development that grows of its own energy - the city's role should be to help guide it to its fruition, not designate what it should be.

This blog post and its comments were originally published on RTH (raisethehammer.org) on February 22, 2012.

Call us....

Wesdale ~ 905.522.3300 Ancaster ~ 905.648.6800 Locke Street ~ 905.529.3300 www.judymarsales.com

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.10

When you look at the one-way streets in Hamilton (particularly King and Main) you have to ask yourself, "who benefits from this?" Certainly not the people who live, love and pay taxes in these areas. After all, no family wants to walk their child to school beside roaring trucks and speeding cars. Certainly not the people who are trying to shop, dine, or attend big city events. Certainly not the folks heading for a day of exercise at Bayfront Park but are prohibited from returning home by the same route. Certainly not your aunt Thelma and Uncle Vern who have used up more gas, more time, and created more air pollution simply because they missed their left-hand turn when coming to see you. Certainly not urban dwellers who love to sit on a patio and watch the world go by (Ask yourself how many patios there are on Main Street). Certainly not the shop owners who have watched their businesses slowly die since day one of the one-way implementation. Certainly not the folks who live exclusively on the mountain and refuse to come downtown anyhow. Certainly not the people from the workforce of 1960 who embraced such a change in order to get to and from all the factory jobs in Ward 3 that have all but disappeared now.

And certainly not the people who have been maimed, or killed (sliced in half no doubt), by speeding motorists, a reality created by the synchronized light system on both King and Main streets.

So who benefits? Who benefits from this insane, outdated approach to urban living? People who simply want to get from point A to point B, without a care or desire in the world to stop in the city. Just like you would want on a highway. Just like you experience on Burlington Street and the Linc. Yes, Virginia, you can drive through the city of Hamilton without going on Main.

And so all of this…all of this frustration, loss of revenue, loss of life, and loss of vibrant urban living, just so people can drive through the city that much faster.

And so as the entire mountain, east Hamilton, and west Hamilton get to live and love on their two-way streets, we, in the downtown, get to watch them go home.

As Terry Cooke put it, “Let's stop pussy footing around and change all streets to two-way”. Or, as Saturday Night Live's Oscar Rogers would so eloquently put it, “...identify the problem and FIX IT!” - RB

Main St. E. in Hamilton, ON | photographs by Christoph Benfry | www.cbenfey.com | bottom - SNL’s Oscar Rogers’ FIX IT skit

“FIX IT!”

Elisha Stam |

I love to read. As an adolescent, I read the entire young adult section at my tiny municipal library. This fervor has not lessened with age. Why do I like to read so much?

There are easy answers to this question. Maybe I'm bored (or boring!) or, reading takes me to places I would never otherwise go. What is it about holding a book? I could watch a movie and get the same entertainment and artistic introspection.

I read because I want connection.

A book tells me what someone is thinking. Another person's spirit connects with me and expands my mind. If the book is gratifying, it can give words and comprehension to feelings I didn't even know I was dealing with. Thoughts sit in the back of my mind waiting for words to pull them out. It's a similar feeling to when you learn a new word for the first time; afterward, the word will pop up everywhere.

I don't know what the meaning of life is, but I have some small notions. When I read, these ideas seem bigger and clearer. Books help me see more of the world; I can hear another person's thoughts and then I understand life more acutely.

TOUCH (and why I read) I've been hovering over the significance of religion in society, considering its necessities and implications.

As luck would have it, last month I picked up a book called Touch by Alexi Zentner (Knopf Canada, 2011).

The book, set in the gold rush town Sawgamet, in interior BC, explores the connection between three generations of a family. Starting with the first settlers in the 19th Century, Zentner's Touch explores the way belief and faith change the memories we use to weave our stories together.

Sawgamet is a world of ghosts and ancient monsters living in the woods and deep crevices of the rivers and lakes. Interior British Columbia in the 1800s was a world untouched and ancient. To make sense of this harsh world, legends and folklore abounded. As more settlers came, they pushed the woods away with each cut tree. As the town grew, the forests become less dark and frightening. The wild became less wild, the cold less intense, starvation a rarer threat. Thus, the stories people use to fight these fears, less important.

As I age, certain fears I had are less encompassing.

As a result, the beliefs I built my existence on are refining. I am left to wonder what holds me to this world

I live in. What sort of person am I when the things I've built my life around settle down and become as seethrough as the apparitions in the deep Sawgamet woods?

I don't know the answer to this. But I'm glad that someone else is wondering these things too. Even if I don't find answers to questions of my purpose, at the very least I've read some good literature.

In the spirit of connections between authors and their readers, I'm very excited for this year's Hamilton GritLit Festival, a weekend event with readings and workshops starting on Wednesday, March 28th, 2012.

Alexi Zentner will be a guest reader on Friday evening (March 30th, 2012). The literary-minded in the city can find more information about GritLit Festival on their website at www.gritlit.ca.

ELISHA STAM is a stay at home progeny wrangler, impulsive writer, and ravenous reader. She lives downtown Hamilton. You can read more of her reviews at elishastam.wordpress.com.

HAMILTON ONTARIO | CANADA | Published Monthly | MARCH 2012 | urbanicity.ca

p.11

Andrew Rudd and Victoria Boland are both Australian, but didn't meet until they crossed paths in Hong Kong by chance. Today, they live in Hamilton. Their unique sound and exceptional talent make them one of the most riveting acts in Hamilton. Their ambition and drive give them an unlimited future. urbanicity managed to pin them down long enough to ask a few questions about who exactly AndrewVictoria really is. andrewvictoria.com

ANDREWVICTORIA ANDREW ON VICTORIA

VICTORIA ON ANDREW

ON THEIR MUSIC

ON HAMILTON

ON THE FUTURE

Victoria is one of the most truthful, emotive, passionate and soulful singers you will come across. I think few singers like Victoria exist these days. It used to be “hit record, do a few takes and keep the best take”. But due to technology, these days anyone can be a singer. Well Victoria is not just “any” singer and countless people that have been lucky enough to hear her sing live will attest to that. Victoria also has the gift of writing not only great melodies but superb lyrics too!

Andrew is ridiculously intelligent – the guy is not only hands-on intelligent and insanely musically gifted, but knows facts and figures that leave you dumbfounded.

He's pretty much always right no matter how much I hate to admit it! He's constantly learning and reading and I think that reflects greatly in his musical brilliance and know-how. He just has this gift to see through and see forward, which is so important in music. He's a perfectionist and can be quite stubborn in his ways, but I've learned that he always ends up with the right result time and again.

If you took “Buckingham-Nicks” (Lindsey Buckingham & Stevie Nicks before Fleetwood Mac) and “Roxette”, we would be their love child. We're organic but not 'rootsy'... pop-rock blues, without the B.B. King. Our influences are broad – Stevie Ray Vaughn to Peter Gabriel to ABBA for Andrew, Joan Osbourne to Patsy Cline to Tina Turner for Victoria. Our songs usually come about late night when the world is quiet. Andrew will pluck a few strings and if my ear perks up, I instinctively start singing a melody. Or, I write lyrics and melody and Andrew builds the song around it.

There are always positives and negatives, that's the balance of life. While Hamilton has a thriving music scene that is great for the city, we've been offered more work and received more recognition and accolades outside of Hamilton. That said, there are a select few in Hamilton who have really gotten behind us: Image Studios/Gallery 205 has been SENSATIONAL in their support, as have Mark and Kathy Brewer of ImageFM.ca, and Hamilton's Canadian Idol, Brian Melo. We are quite fortunate for the opportunities we've been presented with from working with these people. We also had a great experience entering the Hamilton24 songwriting challenge last year, which was great for exposure and networking.

We've been enjoying working closely with Brian Melo since December 2011, which has brought about not only some great performance opportunities but also some really magical songwriting collaborations. The three of us opened for CHICAGO on January 30th, and we're performing a special version of 'Eye of the Tiger' on February 23rd for Sylvester Stallone. There are more live shoots planned with ImageFM.ca, and we will hopefully be working with Dave Beatty and the new QED Media that will be opening soon at Gallery 205. And of course, songwriting and recording/releasing a new CD sometime very soon!

In the meantime, request our tunes on 101.5 Indie FM and let Hamilton know you'd love to hear more of AndrewVictoria!

Behind the scenes of the Full Bawdy Comedy show at This Ain’t Hollywood on James St. N. | photographs by Reg Beaudry