HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues

View Poll Results: .............
Yes 2 18.18%
No 9 81.82%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 2:53 PM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,235
Should Hamilton deamalgamate?

Simple. Should Hamilton split up?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 5:53 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 928
Yes, but we should share some services (for example, police) like it was back in Hamilton-Wentworth days.

I think Binbrook is better at looking out for Binbrook than Hamilton is. I think Hamilton is better at looking out for Hamilton than Binbrook/Ancaster/Flamborough/Westdale/Dundas/Waterdown is. The amalgamation never should've happened in the first place.

EDIT - That being said, Hamilton and Stoney Creek are pretty much intertwined. I wouldn't be opposed to Stoney Creek being part of the same city.
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 7:18 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa-Gatineau
Posts: 10,500
I think at this point it might create more problems than it's worth to untangle everything. I can't even speculate how much de-amalgamation would cost, but I can guarantee that everyone, urban and rural, would end up paying for it.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
None
Coming someday: new stuff from Rochester, NY; Hamilton; Toronto; Goderich, ON; Wheatley, ON; and Cobourg, ON.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 7:34 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,830
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be focussing on how to make the new city work better rather than going through the destructive process of unravelling the amalgamation a decade down the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 10:03 PM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,235
Its not working.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 10:43 PM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
No. The division in this city is nigh-impossibly stupid, but even with deamalgamation all the surrounding areas would still share in the benefits of a city, from employment to culture to retail to food and more, without paying for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 11:01 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by emge View Post
No. The division in this city is nigh-impossibly stupid, but even with deamalgamation all the surrounding areas would still share in the benefits of a city, from employment to culture to retail to food and more, without paying for them.
If they're enjoying Hamilton's culture, retail, food, and more, won't they be paying for them? Are you also against tourism?
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 1:58 AM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
I suppose I didn't say that very well My point was more that people easily see all the things the amalgamated city 'costs' them, while failing to realize that a lot of the benefits they enjoy come from the city as well.

I know people feel that the inner city is a parasite, taking their money and providing nothing in return. But it goes both ways. The city provides a lot that's not available in the outlying areas.

The city provides a lot of employment. Employment is really the big one for me. Tons and tons of people work in the "old city" and live in Waterdown, Ancaster, etc.... 10,000+ hospital employees (including over a thousand doctors [The number is 1,1xx - I don't recall the last two digits but it was on HHS's 2009 Donor Report's back page]), for one. For those who live in outlying areas, if they didn't have the benefit of employment in the "old city," their life would get difficult. The university's another one, as are government jobs, not to mention all the businesses.

By living in an outlying areas of Hamilton and working in the city, it's easy to want to pay taxes towards "their" lower-cost smaller town that doesn't have all the infrastructure of a real city to maintain, while enjoying its benefits. The fact that the lower city has a lot of ugliness concentrated there that allows people to easily despise it is really destructive here, as is the fact that other wards are quite averse to having any of the city's burden spread out more fairly.

There's other benefits besides jobs though - it's the same with the use of the city's hospitals (though at a municipal taxation level that doesn't matter as much). Same with the roads going to and from their work, shopping at Limeridge, etc. We're not talking about a few inter-city commuters here, we're talking about a huge majority of the population of those driving to work downtown who are coming from outlying areas. If there's a huge number of people from other areas of the city using them to get to/from the "old city" every day, it's fair for them to be taxed towards the infrastructure of the entire city, especially since a ton of the burden on our roads comes from commuters going through the city to and from work from outlying areas.

Sure, it goes both ways - the outlying areas provide growing areas for food, culture of their own, and more.

Not to mention what a giant step backwards we'd have for public transit and intracity initiatives if deamalgamation happened. It's so ridiculous for this city to be divided.

Poverty and division. If it's not one, it's the other in this city. And usually it's both.

Last edited by emge; Sep 23, 2010 at 2:08 AM. Reason: adding more accurate number of doctors who work at HHS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 3:28 AM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,830
Very well put, emge. I'm in complete agreement with you on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 2:28 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 16,863
If we're to de-amalgamate it's likely Dundas, Ancaster, and Stoney Creek will stay with Hamilton. Flamborough could de-amalgamate but it's unlikely they would remain as a county, they would either have to amalgamate with Halton, K/W or spit Flamborough in pieces (Waterdown to Halton and rest to K/W).

So it's useless really.

What would be more realistic is if we could reform the municipal system to allow more authority, the country has changed since the horse and buggy era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 3:09 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 945
I'm with Emge on this one. Also, regional government was a waste when we had it and corresponded with Hamilton's decline (although I don't think it directly caused it, I don't think it helped either).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 3:44 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 928
Lot of good point there, emge. I'm certainly reconsidering my vote.

I grew up in Glanbrook, and the amalgamation was very frustrating to the people out there. Taxes went up and services went down. I know the same happened in Ancaster, and I assume the same happened in the other amalgamated towns. There's a lot of frustration in those areas, and I can see how deamalgamation would be an attractive proposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
What would be more realistic is if we could reform the municipal system to allow more authority, the country has changed since the horse and buggy era.
What authorities would you like to see granted?
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 1:03 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,235
Steeltown I would think Ancaster Stoney Creek and Dundas would be the first to want out of Hamilton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 1:34 AM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
pwner
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,416
Question: What does it mean when the suburbs claim "services went down..." after amal.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I really want to know what that means. Less snowplowing, less grass cutting, fewer EMS, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 2:15 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,669
Montreal saw some deamalgamation. Although the suburbs that did choose to leave still are part of a metropolitan aglomeration council which pools money for regional services like transit. And some of that pooling sends suburban tax dollars to the City of Montreal as they are the hub of the region and have to supply services that are used by many suburbanites, etc.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 2:57 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
Question: What does it mean when the suburbs claim "services went down..." after amal.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I really want to know what that means. Less snowplowing, less grass cutting, fewer EMS, what?
Those folks out there just mean they now have to pay for bums in downtown and not taxes to ancaster for there nice little parks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 5:05 AM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,308
Better than de-amalgamation would be to redraw the wards so that they no longer lie along the pre-amalgamation boundaries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 3:36 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
Question: What does it mean when the suburbs claim "services went down..." after amal.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I really want to know what that means. Less snowplowing, less grass cutting, fewer EMS, what?
Snowplowing is a big one; it went from the day of/day after service to about a week after. Glanbrook had a balanced budget (possibly a budget surplus). The arena was apparently better funded, but I honestly don't know anything about that.
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.