In this week's Stoney Creek News, we have probably the most stunning -and stunned- piece of dissemination of soft-journalism fluffery I've come across in God-knows-how-long. It can be found here, but allow me to break it down to a few salient, albeit mushy points. But before I do that, I really need to feature the headline, because it's actually worth framing:
'Stoney Creek downtown bright and beautiful, say officials'
And now, here are those promised salient points:
-"I’ve kept mindful of the city and what it needs,” said the City of Hamilton’s Manager of Downtown Renewal, Ron Marini.
-Over a seven-year period, cash has gone towards new overhead heritage signs, rebuilding the Battlefield bridge on the west side, $400,000 for the Nash Jackson House upgrades, another $800,000 to purchase and demolish homes along King Street as part of a grander vision to renovate Battlefield Park, $100,000 for information kiosks, and another half a million for a proposed Battlefield gateway project. There are also plans –still in the preliminary stages –to create at a cost of about $400,000 gateway entrances at the east and west ends of King Street.
-Marini said plans are also nearly finalized for the construction of a new urban downtown park near the current fountain and statue, which may include a clock funded by a community organization. "The next big thing will be renovating Battlefield Park, and building the new community centre.”
-Yes, possibly a clock.
Fascinating.
So when we're talking about things being 'bright and beautiful', at least from the perspective of the City's Manager of Downtown Renewal (and Stoney Creek councillor Brad Clark, I'm obliged to mention), we're not talking about substantive elements, we're talking window-dressing.
We're not talking about business drivers, parts of a 'downtown' that generate consumer traffic, aspects that are actual draws, bringing people into the area, getting them there shopping, running errands whether they're locals, nearbys, or out-of-towners...no, we're talking about stuff that improves appearance, thereby, I'm guessing, making up for the fact that there's really nothing happening there.
And at this point, I'm reminded of that old expression 'You can't shine a turd.'
Look; I salute efforts to 'gussy-up' our central Stoney Creek area. Every downtown, every 'main street', every village core should look great, be welcoming, provide an impression that gets people interested in being there, and hopefully staying there long enough to invest some money in the local economy. So it's not like I don't agree that the projects that have been undertaken, or are planned to be undertaken are well-conceived, or conceptualized properly, that they're necessary investments. From what's been presented in the News, it seems they're all valid in their individual ways.
But I'm looking at Mr. Marini's title: Manager of Downtown Renewal.
Now, perhaps his purview is just the superficial. Gardens, a park, Battlefield Park-centric improvements. A fresh coat of paint, making sure all boards are hammered flat, benches are safe to sit on, garbage receptacles are in place. Maybe according to his mandate, the things that have been presented in the News article form the foundation on which the resurrection of urban centres are constructed. Maybe. But I somehow doubt it.
Because to me, that title connotes the very task of creating momentum. Endeavouring to marshall those factors that are part-and-parcel of a thriving, vibrant 'downtown', even if it primarily means finding ways to encourage the right players to gather, to commiserate, to maybe find commonality of purpose, and then perhaps help them foster a better way forward. To focus on what businesses are required for a genuine renewal, for Downtown Stoney Creek to actually be renewed, to be resurrected, to be re-invented.
You know; the subject matter I fully explored in my ten-part series right here on 'My Stoney Creek'. (The first portion can be found here, and the crux of the series, 'What is a Downtown?', here.)
OK; maybe I'm not being fair in singling out Mr. Marini. Because Mr. Clark too, seems to feel that things are proceeding apace: "...the city has plans to improve Stoney Creek’s Business Improvement Area, including creating a new urban park, and remodeling Battlefield Park."
Wowza. Be still my quivering wallet.
But then Mr. Marini steps back up to the mic, opining as to how “We are really keeping the pedal to the metal."
Really?
Seriously?
I don't want to belabour the point-
Actually, I do.
I am compelled to belabour the point. Because if we're talking about Downtown Stoney Creek, if we're talking about the heart of the authentic Stoney Creek, if we're talking about the hub that's inextricably connected to the foundation of our community, Battlefield Museum and everything it encompasses, then surely someone has a responsibility to stand up and declare that something's just not right, here.
"Something's just not right, here!"
Currently, aside from the Village Restaurant, we have no downtown draw. Combined with this, we have five premier pieces of property either sitting vacant, or undeveloped. To make matters worse, I haven't heard one whiff of possibility drifting about town, not one whispered hint of ingenuity makes its way through the streets, not even the suggestion of an inference of a rumour of vision, or dreamery or sense of the staggering amount of potential this town possesses. Rather, it's pretty easy to get the impression that the main 'players' in this town are more interested in a) treading water, b) buttressing their legacies, and c) making the financial stability of prospective tenants for their properties so predominating a factor that it's not so much a surreal indulgence of one's powers of imagining to envision a downtown that's made up entirely of doctors and lawyers and architects and insurance agents, now is it?
Is that the Downtown Stoney Creek that Mr. Marini is seeking as a goal? Does Councillor Clark see what I've suggested as a noble end result? Would the Stoney Creek BIA offer up hosannahs were this profile of our downtown achieved?
Moreover, would Stoney Creek residents even notice?
Putting all of that aside, I'm curious: in three years' time, when we're hosting the bicentennial of The Battle of Stoney Creek, and nothing substantive has changed in Downtown Stoney Creek, we hopefully have all of our properties filled and our hanging baskets are well-watered and the enhoused plants are summarily dead-headed, our benches are in working order and all of our signage is looking downright spiffy...
...just what is it that we're all hoping that our thousands of visitors will be spending money on to put revenue into the local economy, other that their admission fees to the re-enactment, their souvenirs...and perhaps an ice cream or two purchased at the Dairy?
Therefore, inspired by this front-page News article, I hereby challenge not only Mr. Marini and Mr. Clark, I challenge Mr. Strecker (Ed, that is, not 'Bill') and the rest of the BIA, I challenge everyone who has a business in Downtown Stoney Creek, everyone who currently shops there and everyone who would shop there if only there was a handful of reasons for them to actually shop there...and I'm once again going to include the Stoney Creek News in this list of potential collaborators, because hey; they're the community's voice, after all...to give some serious thought as to what I've proposed in so many instances on this blog, challenge them one-and-all to begin putting some effort into actually re-imagining Downtown Stoney Creek, instead of assuming the time-honoured posture of 'Sounds Good to Me', and settling for purty window-dressing, the status-quo, the same-old, same-old.
Because with that approach, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, 'There ain't never gonna be no there, there.'
I’ve finally figured out what bothers me most about the article. On pg. 2 the caption reads ‘City has plans to improve Stoney Creek’s Business Improvement Area’.
ReplyDeleteBut with flowers as the main concern, the focus is on Culture and Recreation, the resurrection of gardens outside the BIA. However, to tie in the BIA, plans are in motion to create yet another sitting area to handle the overflow from the fountain sitting area. The result? All those wiry shoppers will have ample space to congregate and recuperate. Great! That’s the shot in the arm needed here. That's a real 'improvement', right?
Let's ignore the clearly flawed, limited retail mix. Let's ignore the condition of the sidewalks and road, especially the road near the entrance of Jones St. Bet the bands enjoyed that stretch of road during the Flag Day Parade. (I wonder if they’ll come back for the Santa Claus Parade.)
The indication of much of the monies spent to date and in future seem to relate more so to the efforts of volunteer organizations and Heritage Green Community Trust. Therefore, we should be thankful Battlefield Park and Smith’s Knoll are located within the required three kilometre radius of the landfill to qualify for the grant monies. Otherwise, would these improvements come out of the tax base or be area rated? Or would no improvements be made be made at all? It’s anyone’s guess. Mr. Marini? Mr. Clark?
Regardless, although Battlefield Park and Smith’s Knoll are important parts of Stoney Creek, and the events that transpired there hold importance beyond the borders of Stoney Creek, I don’t see that end of King St. as being within the Downtown core. When I think of downtown, I think of the BIA. Short of the promise of a new parkette, which may or may not include a clock through the benevolence of one group or another, what investment has the City made as per its mandate to the BIA? Yes, overhead signage. But what else?
The City talks of gateways. So, what is the benefit of $400,000 gateways? How will this project encourage business owners to locate within the SC BIA? I would think that instead of gateways, parking availability would lend to encouraging retail within a business area. Those who own buildings in the downtown do so for the purpose of generating revenue. I’m sure they understand that a better retail mix would lend to the BIA becoming more vibrant as opposed to just remaining a sustainable area. However, we seem to be limited when it comes to available parking as a result of City planning or lack thereof. Therefore, discouraging the retail needed to bolster the area. This in turn leaves the building owners limited in their options. Service providers who don’t require walk-in clientele then make the best tenants under the current circumstances. Luckily, the City, through its mandate to improvement and promote economic development in (the SC BIA) has plans to rectify or compensate lack of parking by installing street meters. That’s the ‘pedal to the metal’ plan, sitting area and street meters. The City is moving forward with a bullet, right through the heart of Olde Stoney Creek.
My Stoney Creek, I hope the groups that you’ve mentioned, the City of Hamilton, BIA and local media, take you up on your challenge before it’s too late and we lose, rather than revitalize our downtown core.
Yours truly,
A. Nony Mous
Thanks for your comment, Ms/Miss/Mrs/Mr Mous. Much appreciated. I agree with just about everything you've suggested. Except...
ReplyDeleteI do have to respond to the 'street meters' bit. Because I believe this is a red herring, a fool's pursuit, all of this and more. My impression is that many still want to use this as a rallying point, the 'downtown' versus The City.
I believe this is hogwash.
I believe that no matter that there are underlying, internecine battles wanting to be fought that are typified by this issue, the energies spent rallying and railing against it are pointless being expended in this way.
If you have a vibrant downtown, if there are primary retail draws, if there's a healthy mix, then the notion of metered parking is moot. (Not that it's not moot anyway. The notion of someone balking at paying a buck or two to park is- Well, let's just say that I don't have much time for THAT discussion. These people need to a) wake up, b) grow up, and c) move onto something more substantial in terms of what they're focusing on. Seriously.) So rather than wasting ANY MORE TIME on this issue, I'd much prefer The Players to actually address what needs to be addressed, and maybe, if it's necessary, deal with the metered parking issue down the road. After all that can be done by non-CIty entities to improve Downtown Stoney Creek has in fact been done. Which as of now, it hasn't. By a long-shot.