The Battlefield Park Master Plan, Part One: Changes

I've read it through several times now. (And yes, I've learned a lot.) And somewhere in there I went into the Stoney Creek News website and did some searching for published content. I didn't come up with much, just this article and this Letter to the Editor.

Once you take away the elements to the Monument side, and the King Street frontage plans, what you're left with are some relocations of structures (such as the barn) and...

...the construction of a 20,000 sq/ft interpretive center and a footbridge across Battlefield Creek.

I'll admit that when I first heard about the plans, especially about the interpretive centre portion, I was wondering whether Those Who Were Considering All This might be reaching a bit. That maybe their sights were a little too high. You know, as in not so much trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but in being maybe a tad pretentious. Besides; why would you want to inflict nasty development on land that had served so simple a purpose for so very long?

Having read the Plan, I think I can see better not only what they want to do, but moreover, why I flinched at the notion of such a drastic makeover.

Please bear with me as I attempt to apply some context to Battlefield Park from a personal perspective, and forgive me if I'm unable to entirely nail down facts.

My relationship with Battlefield Park has almost entirely been with what they refer to in the Plan as 'the west side'. That's not to say 'the east side' had no meaning. I remember playing football on the grass in front of Gage House, and tobogganing there, too. And the steps of the Monument will always hold special meaning to me, due to a personal interlude back when I was a late teen. And of course, the tower itself is foundational, as much as the cross at the Devil's Punch Bowl is; they're both physical reminders of Stoney Creek, proud mnemonics, if you will.

To me 'the west side' has always meant 'nature'. I'm sure my family picnicked there when I was a kid. I know I was there as a teenager with friends; there's a photo out there somewhere of me playing guitar at one of these get-togethers. And certainly since I've been back in Stoney Creek, since 2005 or so, what I've connected with are the open spaces, the creekside trail, the wonderful Nature-ness of the ravine.

So for me, the 'park' aspect of Battlefield Park has always meant the most. That's my bias. It should be no surprise then, that my gut reaction to taking away some of the west side's lawn to create an interpretive centre (and accompanying parking lot) wasn't a good one. But then I read the Plan, learned some things, and found myself coming around.

From what I can tell (and again, apologies for either being dense or not having done the required research), the Women's Wentworth Historical Society's original effort was Gage House, the Monument, the front lawn...and presumably the land behind it to the south, east of Battlefield Creek, west of Battlefield Drive. That's it. Back in the early 60s...1963?...the Niagara Parks Commission took over and (again, presumably) combined 'the west side' with what the Women's Wentworth Historical Society had created, so the area stretched from King almost to the TH&B railway tracks, Centennial to Battlefield Drive. And for most people old enough to 'remember', this 'latter part of the 20th century' development is what they base their references on. The reenactment has been presented for less than three decades, so this reference is even more recent.

So what we had by the mid-sixties forward, was a national historic site...combined with parkland. Parkland that was used for picnics, and because it had a bandstand, concerts.

Take a look at the above map. It's from the August 2002 Parks Canada Commemorative Integrity Statement for The Battle of Stoney Creek National Historic Site of Canada. For me, two things of interest pop out. The first is the 'Designated Place' bit; it stretches all the way down through Merlo's Clear-cut to the TH&B railway tracks. But the more telling bit is the 'Approximate location of the Battle'. Which as far as 'the west side' goes, seems somewhere in the vicinity of the washroom/concession/picnic shelter/pavillion. That's as far south as they had determined any remnants of 'battle' to be.

This means that while the entire area for a good, wide radius could reasonably be deemed to have been where some elements of engagement took place, from their perspective, everything south of the building that currently sits there...meaning, of course, where the reenactment occurs...is not in fact, 'historic ground'. Not in the same way that 'the east side', Stoney Creek Cemetery and Smith's Knoll are concerned. (And playing Devil's Advocate here, if all the green space in question -the broad strip from the parking lot all the way to the railway tracks- is as hallowed a section of ground as all of the above...why are we allowing picnics to be held? Why are dogs allowed to romp through there, why are joggers and hikers permitted to do what they do?)

At the core of the Plan seems to be this: a sincere effort to shift the Battlefield Museum and Park towards a more reverential, a more stately, a more 'serious' profile. To update things, to be sure. But more than this, to leave the former perception of 'the west side' behind.

Proof? Sure; here are some extracts from the Plan:

Proposed work on the west side of the site primarily relies on construction of the interpretative building, the relocation and restoration of the barn, the provision of a new maintenance building to accommodate park staff activities and new parking and a trail layout with a new pedestrian bridge. The above works shall be undertaken in phases as Capital Budgets allow.

Other improvements on the west side include construction of a berm along Centennial Parkway. This berm will assist in noise mitigation and when planted will provide a visual background to the historic site. As well, the berm will provide viewing opportunities for reenactment activities which will continue to be accommodated south of the proposed parking lot. A new gateway feature and public art installation are proposed for the King Street West frontage.

Further, many uses of the park are not compatible with the sites values as a National Historic Site and will be discouraged in the future. These activities include tobogganing and large group picnics. Some facilities that support these obsolete uses will be converted to support museum uses or removed.

The large site of approximately 31 acres has many layers of history and community uses. With the upcoming Bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812 – 14, it is timely to plan how to balance these uses and values in a comprehensive plan for the future.

There are many heritage features and figures associated with the site that have the potential to broaden its appeal to new visitors by adding to its interpretation and educational value. The current strategy for a national heritage site is to aim for a MVE, “memorable visitor experience,” in addition to protecting and conserving its heritage resources.

That's it in a nutshell: to aim for a 'memorable visitor experience'. Meaning, just as concisely, that seeing 'the west side' as a gathering place for picnicking and activities of the sort, will be a thing of the past.

How do I feel about this?

Actually, I'm fine with it. After having gone through the material, I can see that there's merit in the whole 'In for a penny, in for a pound' approach. And let's face it; this isn't a 'Stoney Creek issue' anymore. It's a 'Hamilton issue', and this means that how Battlefield relates to all the other area historic sites must be taken into consideration, not the least of which are the 'Scourge' and 'Hamilton' shipwrecks. So it makes sense to take a fresh approach to 'the west side', bringing it into the 'historical acknowledgement' game in a way that's partnered more favourably with its eastern fraternal twin.

The Plan's emphasis on 'the west side' comes down to making the most of the site, of everything that the area has come to mean to Stoney Creek, the fact that it defines so much of how we see ourselves. I have no problem with development there, with an interpretive building and everything that goes along with it, even the parking, even the footbridge...even the necessary degree of loss of southern lawn. However...

However, I am not in agreement with forging ahead with such well-considered plans and not acquiring the piece of land at the southern extremity to Battlefield Park, what I have stridently (and acerbically) referred to as 'Merlo's Clear-cut'.

So to me, if we're going to do what the Plan proposes -regardless of what the interpretive building ends up looking like, its size, its location- then I believe that the 'loss' of the reenactment area should be, and must be compensated by the extension of Battlefield Park (seeing as it's noted in the Commemorative Integrity Statement as comprising the 'Designated Place') to the TH&B railway tracks.

Considering all the other earnest observations and suggestions the Plan makes, I'm still astounded that so major an element of 'integrity' was missed.