From Hamilton's Past: Our Champion Mayors

Recently, Adrian Duyzer over at Raise the Hammer asked 'Where is Our Champion?'

I believe it was written (mainly) in reaction to Mayor Bratina's less-than-enthusiastic response to the current brouhaha over the possibility of LRT coming to Hamilton. 


Even by today's standards, that's a generation and a half. And for those urbanists out there, even this association is problematic...which I'll get to in a second. 

I got to thinking about just how detached many of us have gotten from even the whisper of the suggestion of the idea of leadership, of  true 'visionary leadership' coming from our mayor. And so I wanted to provide some context by relating two giants from a previous time, to frame these monumental figures in the city's history so that we can better appreciate that once upon a time, inspired leadership wasn't just a pipedream. 

However, I didn't want for it to be a retelling of their accomplishments. Each was a firebrand unto themselves, and deserve to be properly delved into, their stories properly told. (I may just end up doing this myself.) But for now...

Lloyd D. Jackson and Victor K. Copps. Our two greatest 'Mayoral Champions' of the 20th century. The two mayors who changed Hamilton more than any other, and in doing so, are often vilified by those who address the past with a perfunctory examination, fixating on what they perceive was lost in the first attempt to 'revitalize' Downtown Hamilton in modern times as well as on the namesake constructions that resulted, two of the core's perilously easy targets for such ilk: Jackson Square and Copps Coliseum. 

These two men oversaw Hamilton and its future for more than a quarter-century, Jackson from '50-'62, and Copps from '63-'76. (Interestingly, neither were the most-enduring: Bob Morrow, Mayor from 1982-2000 served the longest. But considering it was on his watch during which our current state of affairs unfolded, let's leave him out of the discussion, shall we?)

More than twenty-five years of combined stewardship. 

It's hard to imagine someone attaining such longevity today; our last five mayors were voted in during hardly more than just one solitary decade.

But I suspect that it's much, much harder for the average reader to appreciate just what it was these two true 'Champions' of Hamilton presided over. Especially the newby critics weaned on Jane Jacobs, who seem more interested in trawling through SkyscraperPage photo albums bemoaning 'what we lost' than really taking the time to do any research or develop any context. I guess demonizing's just too tempting. (As I posited here.)

(I do want to note that I'm making my declarations in full knowledge of what's relayed in Margaret T. Rockwell's 'The Facelift and the Wrecking Ball'. I'm very aware that some of the decisions made when 'Civic Square' was being planned were, in hindsight, 'questionable'. And that given the vantage point of fifty years' worth of passage, it might be possible to retroactively re-jig what was put in motion to create a better timeline. But these luxury-exercises are moot...as well as performing a huge disservice to the intentions of the time and the subsequent efforts expended.)

Mayor Jackson took office shortly after WWII had ended. The Cold War had already begun. The Korean War was about to begin. He had personally seen two world wars and the Great Depression, and Mayor Copps, while born much later, had lived through the Depression and WWII. Jackson took the helm of a city whose engines were revving from the war effort, a city requiring both stability and direction in an uncertain world. Copps took office as the 60s were taking flight, when putting a man on the moon was the impossible goal that everyone was breathless about, when each day brought something new and improved, yet more incredible changes, yet more fantastic possibilities being realized, a brand-spanking-new, sparkling tomorrow arriving each and every minute. The quarter-century+ they were mayors was a time of adjustment and change...and they each executed their responsibilities with their own style. Regardless of how contrasting these styles were, they had one thing in common: they managed with conviction and vision, and the people of Hamilton had faith in them...proven by the fact that they kept re-electing them. 

The consistent theme during their tenures?

'Leaving the Past Behind'. 

Or: 'Forging an Amazing Future'. 

It most certainly wasn't 'Let's stick with the past: it's safer and more familiar.' Hence the explanation of why so many jewels disappeared on their watch. 

So during this era, Hamilton's downtown changed enormously. No doubt, we lost some treasures. True gems were knocked down. (As were blocks and blocks of 'seedy' buildings; I shudder to think of the land bounded by King, Bay, York and James containing these same residences and businesses today. But of course the advent of 'shopping malls' and the resulting sea change in shopping habits would eventually have mandated some degree of adaptation, so again, this discussion is utter indulgence.) Yet this wasn't something peculiar to Hamilton; it was happening all the world over, and I'm sure there are worse stories than the ones some of us could regale each other with.

But it's important to remember the tenor of the times. As easy as it is to lambaste those who were responsible for such actions, those who oversaw such shifts, to forget what the tone of society was, what the general view was regarding 'progress', is pure folly. Because today, when each week brings new product releases, when we've become blasé about innovation and invention mostly because we expect them, we expect them constantly and we expect them now, we don't really think in terms of 'the future'. Unless it's with dread. But back then, leaving the past behind (as opposed to today, when 'going retro' is de rigeur) was the goal. Searching out and redefining the future was far more pressing a pursuit than preserving the past or protecting our heritage. 

In a world where 'the cult of personality' reigns supreme, it may seem bizarre that we're in need a champion in Hamilton. It's perhaps even more ironic that the champion we need should be seen in our mayor, given that our current one seems to want nothing to do with the notion. (And yet he won by relying on name-recognition and longstanding public perception while presenting a platformless-platform. Funny, that. Not.) 

But we do need a champion of our own. 

And that champion should be found in our Mayor.


We also need champions in our Councillors. 

Moreover, we need champions in our communities. 

By raising the level of our behaviour, we raise our aspirations at the same time that we raise our expectations. 

This is, obviously, how cities become great.