Hamilton’s ID preserved in architectural harmony
We’ve lost some building treasures but we have many still standing that are special
“I used to walk down Locke St and see $500 cars — now, I walk down Locke St and see $2,000 strollers.”
This was Tom Wilson’s most memorable statement about his hometown of Hamilton during Blackie and the Rodeo Kings’ festival-closing set at Supercrawl this year. It was unclear to me, being at the tail end of a lively, arts-crazed weekend, whether this was meant as compliment or criticism, but it spoke to the known and noticeable investment in Hamilton’s cultural renaissance.
I didn’t live in Hamilton before it began its Brooklyn-esque transformation, but I did grow up in the GTA, aware of Hamilton perceptions. It was industrial, and it was gritty. Industrialism no longer defines this city’s business landscape, but this doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten our roots, and a preference for preserving identity can be noted in our architecture.
In my teens, I went through a phase wherein I was obsessed with esthetic qualities that reminded me of the dark adult comic-turned-TV-cartoon, Spawn. Intrigued by the macabre, the alternative, and the unpolished, I have always desired the grit of city life. My partner and I like to affectionately refer to Hamilton as Gotham City, and to our home as Wayne Manor, but not in reference to crime in Hamilton. The esthetic appeal, and especially the architecture, reminds us of the urban grandeur portrayed in these dark vigilante comics.
Hamilton’s architecture is a feature that I don’t hear much buzz about from an artistic standpoint, but I am certainly not alone in finding this city structurally attractive. I am also not the only one who has drawn a Gotham City parallel. Consider the Pigott Building in the Central neighbourhood. Historical Hamilton, a local hobbyist website dedicated to Hamilton’s architectural heritage, notes that this Art Deco and Gothic hybrid skyscraper formerly featured revolving searchlights, “In true ‘Gotham’-style.”
In my humble artist’s opinion, Hamilton’s built-in beauty is what I would call “design porn.” Much like the popular food porn of the internet, Hamilton’s esthetics are positively mouth-watering, and the integrity of that quality seems that it’s being upheld during restorations and renovations.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was Hamilton. There are several design eras represented here, meaning plenty of beige, boring-as-dirt utility buildings, but unlike the ruthless modernization seen in other areas of the GTHA — examples that come to mind include the Royal Ontario Museum’s Michael Lee-Chin Crystal addition — Hamilton’s beautification seems to be more mindful of maintaining identity, rather than flexing ego-driven design muscle.
The recently unveiled façade of 11 King St E., just east of Jackson Square, is a prime example. Just the other day, while strolling in search of a lunch spot, I exclaimed, “See, look at that gorgeous old building façade — Hamilton’s architecture is amazing!”
My partner looked at me quizzically and said, “That’s brand new. They just finished it.” I can’t recall the last time I was fooled into thinking a newly designed building was an old gem. I was impressed by the effort put into maintaining a late-nineteenth-century appearance that is in keeping with the surrounding structures.
According to an article by Nick Patch in The Toronto Star this past June, as part of a series revisiting Toronto’s “architectural showpieces,” the jarringly out of place Michael Lee-Chin Crystal is “still polarizing after all these years.” I was attending the University of Toronto when the Crystal was unveiled a decade ago, and was one of those who felt betrayed by the esthetic abomination. To my mind, the redesign made a statement that ego-driven novelty was more important to decision-makers than was maintaining the identity of a landmark building and therefore fostering Toronto’s sense of self. Certainly, some people continue to appreciate the avant-garde move. Just as many despise it, and they do, among several reasons, because it is a garish art piece, out of harmony with the rest of the building and the surrounding area, built for the sake of itself.
Not every piece of history can and will be saved, and contention in recent years surrounding the fate of some historic Gore Park buildings certainly illustrates this reality. However, to my knowledge, there are no major redesign plans for Hamilton that would disrupt the city’s harmony. Even the new Pier 8 plans are in keeping with a strong Hamilton identity, and are relevant to the area in which they’re being constructed — called “Hammer City,” the design celebrates the history of Hamilton’s industrialism, and the importance of the waterfront, rather than seeking to gloss over and rebrand.
While we may now see strollers that cost more money than some cars, Hamilton seems also to be making it clear that revitalization does not necessitate shiny, standalone showpieces, which would compromise the integrity of the city’s overall esthetics and devalue Hamilton’s identity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with experimental design, and some residents of Hamilton may vie for the spectacle of avantgarde architecture, but every erected novelty tears down a bit of community faith.