Most influential Hamiltonians...ever!

[Dr Awesomesauce]

If you had to choose Hamilton's, let's say, five most important figures of all time, who would they be? Feel free to go back to pre-George Hamilton days if you're so inclined. Just to be clear, I'm not looking for lists including Martin Short and Eugene Levy, though I am a fan of their work. I'd like to know who you think has shaped this city, in one way or another, over its history: politicians, business leaders, athletes, white, black, indigenous, men, women, etc. Aside from mentioning George Hamilton, I'm not going to start you off - I want to hear what you think without me influencing your ideas. Go for it.

[ihateittoo]

Rick Campanelli takes all 5 spots.

[Frankenrogers]

Thomas Baker McQuesteen. Oddly enough my wife is doing some reading about him (former owner of Whitehern) and she told me that he is now her favourite Hamiltonian. He started RBG, established some of the highways leading into Hamilton and was generally a community building visionary. I'm interested enough to read a book that she was given about him.

[Jon Dalton]

Pigott family - founder of the company was Joseph Pigott(?) Built a lot of the great buildings and infrastructure that continue to define our city including obviously the pigott building, city hall, the burlington skyway bridge and, for better or worse, Jackson Square.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

for better or worse, Jackson Square.

I believe Pigott Construction subsidiary First Wentworth Development Company won first crack at helming the Civic Square development, but eventually passed the torch to Yale Properties, which developed Jackson Square.

Under Joseph M. Pigott, Pigott Construction also gave the city much of its architectural iconography: Cathedral of Christ the King, Westdale Secondary, the Armoury, the Main & James Bank of Montreal and the original buildings for McMaster.

The Skyway also owes a debt to Joseph Tanenbaum.

[matt602]

Don't forget the Lister Block. Pigott had a hand in that one too.

If we're going down the architectural vein, James Balfour should probably get a mention for Treble Hall. I *think* he was also the original City Hall but I may be confused.

Not sure if Balfour was actually FROM Hamilton though... think he was from Europe...

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^James Balfour was in fact born in Hamilton. Not only was he a great and prolific architect but his father, Peter, was a well-known master carpenter in the city.

James Balfour left his legacy all over Hamilton. Off the top of my head, we can attribute to him the following buildings:

- Treble Hall
- Old City Hall
- Ravenscliffe (that massive pile in the Durand)
- The Tuckett Mansion (Scottish Rite)
- 250 James South (that beautiful Second Empire home at Herkimer)
- the old Bell building on Hughson (now occupied by LIUNA)

and so many others.

He is definitely one of Hamilton's greatest born and bred architects. Good call.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

T.B. McQuesten is another great choice. Of course, most will be familiar with the family estate at Jackson and MacNab, Whitehearn.

Again, off the top of my head (because I can't be f*cked right now), T.B. was the grandson of Calvin, a wealthy industrialist (and doctor I think) who made his fortune in the foundry business. Thomas' father, Isaac, is best known for being a drunk and amongst other things, a bad businessman. He died, as I recall, rather abruptly from a drug overdose (perhaps intentionally); he did owe various lenders lots and lots of dough, after all. The family managed somehow without him, however, holding on to that beautiful home until, I think, the 1950s when it was donated to the city.

Anyway, Thomas was a lawyer and politician (shocking combination, I know). Perhaps his greatest legacy to the city was bringing McMaster to town in the late-20s. I think he's responsible for the long-gone Sunken Gardens on the same site, too. He's also responsible for the High Level Bridge, The Rock Garden, Gage Park, Chedoke Golf Course and likely lots more - feel free to fill in the blanks. He also left his mark on Niagara but I'm gonna stick with what he accomplished in the Hamilton area.

He was also a 'confirmed bachelor.' There's likely a lot more to that story, I'm sure.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Getting into history and some prominent Hamilton names a little more, here's a great excerpt from the book 'A history of the city of Hamilton' attributed to John Ryckman about the area then known as the Head-of-the-Lake:

"The city in 1803 was all forest. The shores of the bay were difficult to reach or see because they were hidden by a thick, almost impenetrable mass of trees and undergrowth...Bears ate pigs, so settlers warred on bears. Wolves gobbled sheep and geese, so they hunted and trapped wolves. They also held organized raids on rattlesnakes on the mountainside. There was plenty of game. Many a time have I seen (sic) a deer jump the fence into my back yard, and there were millions of pigeons which we clubbed as they flew low." http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301...ks/hamhist.htm

My, how things have changed!

You'll be familiar with the name Ryckman from Upper James and Rymal fame. How would he feel if he could see it now with the McDonalds and the other sh*te? The countryside it is no longer. Anyway, the Ryckman family is a prominent family from the days before Hamilton was, well, Hamilton.

[ScreamingViking]

James Durand. Sold 257 acres to George Hamilton and used his influence in the House of Assembly to establish Hamilton as the district capital.

[ScreamingViking]

I'd like to add one who is notable (in my opinion) for his apparent lack of influence.

Bob Morrow.

A nice guy by most accounts, who presided over the city for the better part of two decades. But his terms as mayor coincided with one of the most stagnant periods in Hamilton's history.

Economics surely played a role in that. But I think that during this time our politicians went from being progressive and having a vision to simply being administrative and tending to the daily needs, and his leadership was a part of that.

One can criticize some of the decisions made in the 1960s and 70s, but stuff happened. From 1980 to 2000 little did.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

He was likely a breath of fresh air following the tenure of Jack MacDonald but yes, he was in office a little too long. And as I recall, he didn't just eek out election wins with 30-40% of the popular vote, he destroyed the competition. Though if I'm not mistaken, his sole opponent one year was the-one-and-only Michael Baldasaro. So there you go - not much pressure to 'do' things when there's no threat of being unseated. Pathetic.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

He was likely a breath of fresh air following the tenure of Jack MacDonald but yes, he was in office a little too long. And as I recall, he didn't just eek out election wins with 30-40% of the popular vote, he destroyed the competition. Though if I'm not mistaken, his sole opponent one year was the-one-and-only Michael Baldasaro. So there you go - not much pressure to 'do' things when there's no threat of being unseated. Pathetic.

There's probably an interesting sociological study in all this. Hamilton was battered by a major recession and faced massive losses among its manufacturing giants. Did that filter into the political realm? Did the citizens understandably start focusing on their own futures instead of those of the city they called home? Did that affect the politicians that were elected, and the issues that were important?

I was quite young when Morrow was first elected, but basically he had NO realistic challengers in every election until amalgamation (and I can't remember - did he even run against Wade?)

Regardless, I have to wonder if things would have been more stirred up by someone with more oomph. Morrow was probably the "safe" choice amid all the other changes that were happening in the local economy, but it seems like that choice was the default for far too long.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I dunno. I can't answer that - it was a weird time in Hamilton's history. But I think old Bob, Morrow that is, would be a better fit as mayor today than the Bob we currently have.

1997 election results:
Morrow -> 75.11%
Snowdon -> 6.41%
Heaton -> 5.98%
McHattie -> 5.46%

2000:
Wade -> 42.27%
Morrow -> 34.4%
Eisenberger -> 10.15%
Munro -> 9.46%

Morrow almost pulled off the 2000 election, too. He had a good run, especially when you consider he started as an alderman in the late 60s.

source

[ScreamingViking]

Thanks - I didn't realize how close it was (nor that McHattie had run in 1997)

Sadly, the "Mayor Bob" bar has been set pretty low this term

[Dr Awesomesauce]

As you can imagine, Wade got pretty much every suburban vote, while Morrow took the majority of the vote from the old city. Eisenberger and Munro, both strong candidates, took key votes from Morrow in that election, so it most definitely could have gone his way yet again.

It's interesting to think back about those days. With amalgamation came a good deal of optimism (or perhaps naivete) from citizens of the old city thinking somehow that their financial issues might be mitigated through this unholy union. The feeling at the time was that the first mayor of the new city would have to come from the burbs in order to appease the masses. There was also some guilt from 'old Hamiltonians' as the perception was that this would be good for Hamilton but bad for everybody else. Turns out it's been sh*t for just about everyone.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

It's interesting to think back about those days. With amalgamation came a good deal of optimism (or perhaps naivete) from citizens of the old city thinking somehow that their financial issues might be mitigated through this unholy union. The feeling at the time was that the first mayor of the new city would have to come from the burbs in order to appease the masses. There was also some guilt from 'old Hamiltonians' as the perception was that this would be good for Hamilton but bad for everybody else. Turns out it's been sh*t for just about everyone.

I don't think a lot of people realized how much was handled by the old Region of Hamilton-Wentworth vs. what was handled by each of the municipalities. We'd still be dealing with a lot of region-wide issues today, though at the "higher" level of government.

I also don't think the "benefits" of this arrangement were properly analyzed. Duplication? Yes there were costs there, but because many things were already handled at the regional level, there was not duplication in all things. As a result, the cost savings of one bigger bureaucracy vs. having 6 + 1 were massively over-estimated. And the costs of losing local autonomy, in the things that were not a regional responsibility, were probably under-estimated.

We probably can't go back to the old system, but it sure would be nice if there was leadership that could unify the now 12+ year-old amalgamated city. He or she would be worthy of adding to this thread.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Wouldn't that be something!