So what exactly is it that I'm suggesting?

To my way of thinking, there are five 'major players' in the 'game' known as Downtown Stoney Creek. (I would say six, but this sixth is only one because of its presence alone, not because of anything it could do to impact the reinvention of Downtown Stoney Creek...save for selling and relocating. I'm referring of course, to The Royal Canadian Legion.) These five major players effectively control, or about to control, or may possibly control most of what constitutes the downtown; they are the primary landowners.

In a way, this is a good thing. Having just a handful of them. It means that there are less variables than if each of the three dozen or so properties on King from Lake to Elm were owned by separate entities.

But it's a bad thing, because of the pitfalls associated with long-term inertia, staidness, and the draining effects of treading water.

In a nutshell, Downtown Stoney Creek is in a development stasis. (That it seems to have been for a very long time is a topic worthy of discussion.) From my perspective, the last major 'development' was the transition where the IGA section of town became the Tim Hortons (et al).

Wow.

Anyway, from my vantage point, what's required is a) fresh blood, b) new ideas, and c) the result of the combination of these two.

But in my teeny-tiny existence of a life, I've learned a few things.

1) Without change, nothing changes.

2) Every situation has a ceiling on its potential...unless some new influence is introduced.

3) In order to properly and successfully address a problem, the problem first has to be acknowledged. Then an understanding has to be fostered about how everything arrived at this point, how this 'problem' came to be. Finally, the correct solution has to be applied.

Now, I'm very aware of the fact that the development of a downtown is primarily the result of forces at play in our free-market, capitalist democracy. So while levels of government can promote certain movement, even nudge along factors towards a particular goal, when it comes down to it, things happen because someone has decided to endeavour to accomplish something they feel is worthy of the effort. It's a risk-based economy out there, like it or not.

I'm sure that the 'major players' I've mentioned could explain why it is -at least from their perspective- that we've ended up with a pretty nondescript downtown. Why there's little vibrancy, why the basics of any functional, excursion-enticing main street, city center, village hub are absent. Because of what I've proposed in #3 above, maybe it's time to ask this question...albeit phrased a mite better...of those who are in the best position to actually effect a change, to promote, to nudge things along to a better place...if in fact they can recognize the merits of doing so in relation to their own motivations and priorities.

So I guess that's my next task: to ask that question...and spur all the resulting discussion.

Some followup

Yesterday I was observing as to how the 'mix' is off on the stretch of Downtown Stoney Creek on the south side of King from Lake to Mountain Avenue. And while nobody involved should be pilloried, it's a great explanation as to why we don't have thriving commerce in our village core, why parades are problematic, why the notion of a festival is about as absurd an idea as one could possibly come up with.

Well, I have another illustration for you.

Understanding that I'm being entirely arbitrary here...including listing the Elm Street Plaza as one retail entity, and not defining a 'service' as being 'retail'...

...if you examine the businesses (including vacant lots and unleased properties) in Downtown Stoney Creek, from McDougal's/Canada Trust and King & Elm to Young's Convenience at King & Lake, and you categorize them as 'retail' and 'non-retail', here's the tally of the former against the total:

17/38

Seventeen of thirty-eight locations are retail.

Twenty-one of thirty-eight aren't.

Not only that, only one of those 'retail' businesses is actually what can reasonably referred to as a 'primary draw'. (The Village Restaurant)

OK; so what should the numbers be?

Obviously, a healthy mix of retail and services is ideal. I'd say that retail should probably constitute three-quarters, or 75% of available locations.

So in Downtown Stoney Creek, what we should see is roughly:

28/38

(I'd be inclined to prefer this to be thirty.)

Moreover, there needs to be at least a half-dozen that are primary draws.

As I strolled through the downtown yesterday, realizing a nice game of street hockey could be played with hardly any calls for 'CAR!', I couldn't help but wonder if things will ever change.

I had another strange dream...

The dream wasn't 'weird' or anything. Just 'strange' in the sense that I'm continuing to dream about the topics I blog about here.

In this dream, the currently vacant lot where I had been proposing part of the answer to Downtown Stoney Creek's parking problem might lay...becomes a condo development. Which makes sense in many ways. (In much the same way that I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the same thing takes place when Mr. Kepecs finally talks to us...and by 'us', I don't mean My Stoney Creek, I mean the collective Stoney Creek 'us'...and reveals that this is kindasorta what's going in where all the manufacturing facilities soon 'used to be' at the Dairy site.)

But in this dream, it wasn't the condo development that was the issue.

It was the contrast.

Think of it: a tasteful condo development goes in, housing Ihaven'taclueastohowmany people. For the sake of argument, let's suppose...a hundred.

OK.

So we have a hundred new downtown residents.

A hundred new 'locals'.

And aside from popping into Tim's for a coffee or a heading to the Village for sit-down meal or satisfying their medical needs or getting a mani or a pedi...

...they're going to have to...by default...shop elsewhere for just about all their needs.

Think about that for a second.

Usually, when you're adding to an urban area's capacity, if there's any amount of organic truth present, there's either extant supporting infrastructure, or the new development is bound to spur such aspects of thriving urban supporting infrastructure.

To wit: in Dundas, before the massive retirement complexes went up, there was already a supermarket, strips malls and a well-established downtown within walking distance. So bringing in the number of new residents that these developments did, naturally infused what was there, and that the supporting infrastructure will only get more pronounced is a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw, doncha think?

Or, in a city centre where there are all kinds of opportunities for growth, for inspired entrepreneurs to make the most of an infusion of new, local residents, wouldn't the notion of businesses moving in to capitalize on this shift be another safe conclusion to draw?

In terms of how this relates to Downtown Stoney Creek:

-In the former set of circumstances, the downtown has not been poised to make an easy market of this infusion of new locals. The supporting infrastructure is simply non-existent.

-In the latter set of circumstances, knowing that there is a longstanding dearth of any sense of vision, of ingenuity, of initiative downtown...I don't believe anything will change. Bluntly: despite the influx of the most desirable category of consumers...'locals'...things will remain as they have been for a long time, with no risks being taken, with the status quo being modified only as much as 'not staying in one place' being a rough definition of 'moving' permits.

Which is all such a damned shame.

Now, I realize that it's entirely possible for what I've proposed in my ten-part series about Downtown Stoney Creek to occur slowly, over time, rather than in the waving-of-a-wand, 'Presto, Chango!' way that I've proposed.

But in order to get on board with that possibility, I'd have to have something in front of me that lends it credence. And I don't.

I've already examined the downtown merchants trends going back forty-five years. (This is all laid out here.) And in combination with looking at what I see now, as I walk the downtown almost daily, and the scuttlebutt I've been hearing, I'm left assuming that 'No, innovation and change ain't movin' into town anytime soon.'

Which of course, makes me sad.

But hey; maybe I'll have another dream, and this one'll be 'strange' for all the right reasons.

Or I'll just keep developing this project.

So; you wanna talk about our 'parking problem'...? Part Three

It's remarkable to watch how a downtown, a main street, a city center, a village core can grow, adapt, respond to consumer influences, react to retail demands. What previously may have been seen as 'impossible', suddenly seems not only possible, but surpasses even the highest of aspirations. Vibrancy, ingenuity, vitality and inspiration...all of these can be present, and more. Further, over time, there are knock-on effects. The surrounding community, having been affected by the area's organic growth, becomes energized itself. A different mood suffuses its residents. A sense of belonging is entrenched. Before you know it, opportunities for celebrating -festivals, parades, events- become elements in an ever-looping urban 'circle of Life'.

Conversely, it's depressing to watch a situation where -from a regular resident's perspective- no influences have been exerted, no initiative applied, and no imagination generated. The result is stagnation. Worse, bitching and complaining, whining and blame-gaming become aspects of passive inculcation: people expect less, get it, expect even less...but never really understanding their lot and how they arrived at its state, the dissatisfaction rises up in truly sad ways.

I don't like what Downtown Stoney Creek is. It may be some things for some residents, but I can't even begin to consider the possibility that the 5,000 or so people who live within the contiguous borders of 'authentic' Stoney Creek (Centennial to Gray, Queenston to the Escarpment) would be unified in saying 'What we have is exactly what we want!'

I believe Stoney Creek residents deserve better.

I believe Downtown Stoney Creek deserves to provide better.

And I believe we haven't even scratched the surface of how truly wonderful Downtown Stoney Creek could be.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Which has to change first, the downtown, or the downtown parking?

I can't answer the first question, my brain's not big enough. The second one?

"They both have to change at the same time." (But the downtown has to be a hitch-step ahead. LOL)

Recently, I came up with an aggressive proposal that would effectively double the amount of public parking in Downtown Stoney Creek. (One hundred and sixty additional spaces.) Granted, it was an audacious plan. It requires some drastic measures, some lofty co-operation, and a common goal. But it dovetails nicely with the suggestions I posted on this blog, in my ten-part series addressing the downtown. (The final suggestions can be found here.)

I understand completely that I'm thinking outside the box...never mind talking out my fundamental orifice. But here's one of my core beliefs (it's nothing I haven't said before):

'Nothing changes if something isn't changed.'

I like to believe that things have ended up the way they have not because someone, or a group of someones actually believed somewhere along the way that this is how things should be. That it was an enviable goal back then, and it's just as much an enviable achievement now, in the present. That prospect, that all this was part of a plan, turns my stomach.

For the record, this has nothing to do with seeing Stoney Creek as having some kind of insecurity thing going on in the face of our neighbour to the west, Hamilton. It's more about seeing this enormous potential that's never really been recognized and longing for others to see it too, and maybe finding a way to get a dialogue going, finding a way to make something of this potential.

Which is why I'll continue to yammer on, continue to make suggestions that few hear and even fewer are willing to consider, continue to try to be that grain of sand inside the oyster...and I'm sure you know the rest of that analogy.

So; you wanna talk about our 'parking problem'...? Part Two

I say that the 'parking problem' is tied in with the question of Downtown Stoney Creek's revitalization because it's my belief that the general 'Meh' status of the area has meant that the distinct lack of energies -vitality- has prevented solutions to be sought.

The old saw says: 'They're not making any more land.' So as much as people might slam the City of Hamilton for seemingly wanting to destroy our struggling downtown by instituting paid parking, there's simply not going to be any answers forthcoming from any level of government; last time I checked, no administration has been charged by an omnipotent power to create something out of nothing. So if there is a 'parking problem', then Downtown Stoney Creek will have to use what's at its disposal in order to address it.

(And here I need to make clear that I'm not saying the BIA should be leading this effort. Or the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce. But I do know that it can't be government. This leaves whatever movers-and-shakers there are in the downtown who essentially 'control' what might or might not happen...and I'll venture that there are currently five such parties. What I'm proposing probably doesn't have a chance in Hell of ever being initiated, no matter how deeply we go into my suggestions, originally found here.)

The fact is that there exists land that could be utilized for public parking. Some of it is within the BIA definition of 'downtown' (meaning between Elm and Lake), and some of it marginally outside these parameters. As I've dealt with the former in my series 'What is a 'Downtown'?' as noted above, this time through, I'd like to concentrate on the latter.

Less than a block to the west of the BIA's Lake Avenue boundary, there's a vacant lot. Bookending it, an apartment building on the one side, and on the other, an optometrist's office and a professional planning office, if memory serves. (I remember the houses that used to be there; anyone with photos, please contact me.)

Now, I'm not sure exactly how far this piece of property extends. But there are the remnants of what I seem to remember as an old Hydro facility bordering onto 2nd Street North as well as an informal parking area behind an apartment building on Brandow Court. Here's the aerial map:

View Larger Map

I've estimated the potential capacity for all three elements here at roughly seventy-five. Which for argument's sake is about half of Downtown Stoney Creek's current municipal parking.

How much of a big deal should locating a municipal lot less than a block from the periphery of 'downtown'? None at all.

If there were sufficient retail draws in Downtown Stoney Creek.

Which there aren't.

And so, never mind how it could come to pass that these properties could be utilized for the betterment of Downtown Stoney Creek, the truth is that people would poo-poo the notion because it's 'too far to walk'.

Which it is.

If you have nowhere worthwhile to head to.

Here's an album of photos providing some up-close perspectives on the land I'm suggesting:

Downtown Stoney Creek Parking Problem, Suggested Solution #1

So; you wanna talk about our 'parking problem'...? Part One

Cuz if you do, then we also have to talk about our 'downtown' problem.

In that we really don't have one. A 'downtown', that is.

Yeah, I know; 'Ouch'. But don't worry; it won't leave a scar. (Hardly, anyway.)

Once again, I'm going to begin this discussion with a disclaimer. It's not any different from previous ones, but I can't rely on everyone reading every single post, now can I?

I have no allegiance to any particular person, group, alliance, conglomeration regarding Downtown Stoney Creek. I yammer on about it because it deserves to be yammered on about, it deserves to be waaaaaaay more than it is...which at the present time...ain't much. So if I offend, I don't do so intentionally, and if it happens as a result of what I say or how I say it, chalk it up to wanting to see my hometown with a core it has every right to have. (Right now, it's about 15% of this. And I'm being generous.)

Over the past nine months or so, there's been an enormous amount of attention paid to the 'paid parking brouhaha' in Downtown Stoney Creek. I won't belabour the point here, though I have addressed to a certain extent elsewhere, here, and here. What was fascinating to me was the fact that the overwhelming brunt of the angst wasn't driven by concerns over the possible implications for retail (although this was an element), it was driven mostly by concerns about the potential impact on a social organization (the Royal Canadian Legion) and two volunteer charities. In fact, regarding businesses and the such, what I picked up on most was the effect on employees.

I'm still shaking my head, figuratively gawking.

This whole imbroglio raised some intriguing questions about a) how Downtown Stoney Creek ended up with -seemingly- a dearth of parking, and b) how this would impact the future of business in the downtown.

My quick answers are a) a lack of foresight, perspective and a fair dollop of 'Mayberry, RFD'-itis, and b) it probably wouldn't, so long as the profile of the downtown remained as it was...which is one of 'There's no there, there.'

Apparently, some place great faith in this logic:

"We have bad parking problems, therefore businesses refuse to locate here."

The truth is more like:

"The entirely dynamic of the downtown is so awfully constructed that it pretty much negates the 'bad parking' issue."

I actually scratch my head at people who insist on believing that Downtown Stoney Creek is the way that it is because of a lack of parking.

Talk about flattering themselves.

Anyway, though I do have some things to say about the parking issue and Downtown Stoney Creek, as well as further addressing the question of revitalizing the area (because as I said, they're inextricably connected) I first wanted to give a pretty solid example of why we're stuck in limbo regarding said 'revitalization' and the mindset -passively set or not- that would have to change in order for this to happen.

This is the south-west corner of King and Mountain Avenue South. A pharmacy (just down the street from a medical complex with a Shoppers Drug Mart, while down the other street from yet another Shoppers), a doctor's office, a Young Drivers of Canada office, an architect's office...

...a lawyer's office, a Registered Massage Therapist office...

...a parkette...

...and a Royal Canadian Legion.

This comprises, in effect, the better part of a quarter of Downtown Stoney Creek.

Let me review: a pharmacy, four professional offices, a parkette and a social organization.

There's a general rule that the larger your 'downtown', or 'main street', village core or city center, the more room you have to screw up.

Conversely, the smaller the area, the less room you have for error.

Anyone care to venture the real impact of having so much prime streetfront property tied up in non-retail (don't bother going there with the 'the pharmacy is retail!' argument) enterprises?

(I need to point out again that I'm not attacking any particular businesses, any particular endeavours. I'm merely attempting to shine some light on where we actually are, and hopefully stimulate some discussion...even if it proves to be discomfitting to some.)

Out and about.

Area Trek, v6.0