Michael Cumming

Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario

By michael | Published: 18 February 2010

Introduction

Buildings from many periods in the Colborne St Demolition Zone, Brantford, ON

Two days ago, on a whim, I took my first visit to downtown Brantford, Ontario. I wanted to walk around, take some photographs and get a feel for the place. South-western Ontario tends to reward such impromptu exploration.

I drove to the densest part of old downtown Brantford, the place where the buildings are closest together and the streets the narrowest. This I usually find to be the most interesting and historic part of any town. There in Brantford, I found to my horror that a large chuck of the historic core was under threat of imminent demolition! Workers were preparing to dismantle one of the most interesting and historic street scapes in town. The hammer-swinging may have already begun.

After doing a few Google searches once I got home, the full reality of the situation dawned on me: I happened to stumble upon what might be one the most flagrant instances of urban vandalism in the province. I confidently categorize it as vandalism because it doesn’t appear, from what I have read, to make any sense whatsoever. They are taking down something of great value and replacing it with nothing at all.

This is not the demolition of a single building that has fallen into disrepair, or an urban redevelopment proposal that lacks architectural style. No, this is far worse. This is the wanton destruction of an entire downtown street scape, parts of which date from Victorian times. The site appears to be dripping in urban and historical significance. It literally anchors one corner of the historical district of Brantford. Its buildings, street scape and composition speak deeply of a social history that stretches back to the founding of the city of Brantford.

It is a puzzling situation to see something of such great apparent value about to be eliminated.

What is there

The block to be demolished is located in the central historical core of Brantford, along the south side of Colborne St. It is a long block that includes, apparently, 41 separate buildings, some of which date from the mid to late 19th century. Colborne St lies on top of a small bluff rising above the meandering Grand River.

Buildings on the south side of Colborne St are built with sub-structures that go down several stories. Elaborate steel and masonry structures prevent the buildings from tumbling down the bluff. These buildings are a bit run-down at this point but are definitely picturesque. The age of the buildings vary and the overall design of the block was incremental and unplanned. This is what gives it its charm.

Building on stilts, to be demolished, Colborne St, Brantford, ON

It reminds me of several hill or ridge towns I have seen in Europe or North America where a neat row of attached buildings presents a unified elevation up above on the street, but tumbles down a slope on the other side. This usually creates interesting town scapes that old-style landscape painters might find attractive.

Old Victorian industrial buildings, to be demolished, Water St, Brantford, ON

Below Colborne St are streets called Water and Wharfe. Streets with such names tend to be at the central historical core of cities — typically located along original shorelines. This suggests that not so long ago, along these streets in Brantford, there were warehouses and small port operations connected to the nearby Grand River.

Brantford itself is a small city, currently not especially prosperous, known for its associations with Alexander Graham Bell’s invention of the telephone and as the hometown of hockey’s ‘The Great One’ – Wayne Gretzky. It is also close to major settlements of First Nations peoples at the nearby Six Nations reserve and has an attractive location on the bio-diverse Grand River.

Brantford has a small downtown. There are some beautiful buildings in the downtown core. From an architectural and urban design perspective there is much of interest in Brantford, including, fine churches, law courts, civic buildings and a modernist City Hall. Brantford has a central square in the form of an Union Jack around which some of its most prominent buildings are grouped. Outside of Brantford’s historic core is a variety of low density suburban housing and big-box retailing typical for this part of Ontario.

Brantford, despite recent pain due to de-industrialization in the manufacturing sector, is clearly a city with some agreeable cultural, historical and natural assets. These could be spun into something quite attractive. Clearly, demolishing a prominent street scape in the heart of downtown works against such a goal.

My take on this situation

I think demolition of this street scape is a terrible idea. It should have been preserved for the following reasons:

As a mixed-use place to live and work

One of the best ways of creating vitality in downtown cores is to create mixed-use developments that enable people of various incomes to work and live in close proximity. The block being destroyed is an historic and extremely charming example of this type of development. On Colborne St it enabled people to live over pet shops, diners and clothing stores. This is exactly why people sometimes travel to the ‘Old World’ — to see charming scenes of ordinary people living over places like pet shops! Clearly, Brantford is working according to a different model of perceived value.

Art Deco commerical building, to be demolished, Brantford, ON

The condemned block once housed people, was a place to work and was likely an interesting place to shop. All these people associated with the area will now have to live, work and shop elsewhere. The city of Brantford is in effect telling these people to get lost. This ‘communication strategy’ seems harsh, anti-democratic and completely counter-productive to the economic and cultural development of a distressed community. It makes no sense.

Overall attractiveness and urban integrity

The block provides Brantford with urban integrity and texture. The block blends in perfectly with surrounding buildings and anchors the downtown both visually and architecturally on the edge of a bluff. The individual buildings are attractive. The street scape in which they are housed is also attractive. The buildings are currently run-down but this only indicates a lack of investment in their upkeep rather than any inherent lack of value in the buildings themselves.

This condemned block — due both to the quality of its individual buildings as well that of its overall assembly — is probably near the top in terms of overall civic quality and interest for threatened urban street scapes in Ontario. Brantford definitely cannot afford to lose an architectural and historical assembly of such quality.

As a conduit for history

Mixed-use Victorian housing and commercial block, to be demolished, Brantford, ON

It takes a certain insensitivity to tear down buildings that have withstood the trials and tribulations of the last century and a half. Each age produces its own sets of buildings. These buildings will not come back. Once they are gone they are gone.

This is not to say that all old buildings should be saved. But it does mean that ones of noteworthy quality at the centre of the historical core of cities should be given special consideration and protection.

This is also not to say that cities can’t build modern buildings. Preservation of historic buildings does not put modern architects out of work. The combination of the qualities of old buildings with modern design is often a winning combination.

However, demolishing old buildings in some absurd, nihilistic notion of ‘modernity’ makes no sense.

What were they thinking? Some theories

The question is for me was not whether it is a good idea to get rid of this street scape — it is one of those situations where the inappropriateness of the demolition is not in question even for a nanosecond. I can conceive of no world in which the demolition of these buildings would make any sense.

The question then becomes ‘What were they thinking?’

The decision to demolish the south side of Colborne St was not made in a vacuum. It was made by upstanding citizens of Brantford, likely with support from parts of their community. Here are some theories of what might have factored in their decision-making process:

Elimination of decay and devaluation of the old

Old, historic buildings — especially ones that that are attached to one another in an urban block that falls down a little bluff, are expensive and troublesome to maintain. As well, some people simply don’t seem to like old buildings. They associate them with bad conditions, bad lifestyles, bad choices and all around moral decrepitude.

Clearly, in Brantford, old attached buildings as on Colborne St are associated with the underclass — those who are seen not to have the sense or the resources to live in a more mainstream suburban setting.

Elimination of venues for marginalized businesses and residents

When you demolish an old, sketchy part of town, you usually displace marginalized businesses (e.g. tattoo parlours, head shops, crack dens) and marginalized residents (e.g. prostitutes, drug addicts and those on welfare). Getting rid of a venue for such things lets people imagine that they don’t exist.

Whenever an urban block is threatened with demolition there is also a natural process of marginalization. Who wants to put money into a part of the city that people in power want to eliminate? The threat of elimination is the opposite of a vote of confidence. City Hall thinks so little of residents’ homes and lives that they are willing to go to the expense of sweeping them away for a simple, but seriously deranged idea — an idea based on the concept of ‘eliminationism.’ This eliminationism applies equally to the architectural and social context of Colborne St. Eliminate ‘bad’ buildings and the ‘bad’ people will also magically disappear. It is a fearsomely destructive idea.

Collapse of multiple owners into simpler entities

When you have a street scape with 41 individual buildings, you may have 41 separate owners. If all the properties are bought or expropriated then 41 owners can magically collapse into one easier-to-administer entity. Making it single ownership makes it more similar to the suburban areas of Brantford where the lots are large and the ownership patterns uncomplicated.

The Colborne St block is the opposite of the suburbs: it consists of a messy warren of interlocking spaces and relationships. Getting rid of this simplifies things for some people but at the cost of overall vitality for the city.

Getting rid of this block of old buildings is like clear-cutting an old-growth forest. In both cases you replace diversity with a less stable and less valuable mono-culture. This destruction makes no sense and goes against all we now know about how to develop and revitalize cities.

Provision for higher-returning developments

Sometimes old buildings are demolished to be replaced by higher net-revenue developments. This explains why parts of Toronto have high-rises vs. lower-density row buildings, which were once common throughout its core. But the goal in Brantford does not appear to be a search for higher-returning, higher-density development. There doesn‘t appear to be any preferred future use for the site, except as the site of a bizarre culture war. Previously, the site had assured income. No firm plans have been presented to replace this income. Something was traded for nothing.

Conclusion

Usually when I travel around small town Ontario I am impressed by the quality of architecture and the overall charm of settlement. This was even the case in Brantford for me before I saw the ominous blue demolition fences surrounding an area of prime architectural significance.

The decision by the City of Brantford to demolish a good chunk of their historical core is indeed unusual. The buildings to be demolished are quite interesting and their site appears to be absolutely central to the history of the city. Like many such crimes against heritage and common sense it was not committed by outside forces intent on the destruction of Brantford, but appears to be a curiously home-grown affair.

This decision to demolish buildings along Colborne St takes a marginalized city and further marginalizes it. It is such a complete reversal of things I value that I remain stunned and saddened.

Posted in Cities | 5 Comments

Peak Oil Days at 120 Breadalbane!

By michael | Published: 28 January 2010

Our soon-to-be-junked Norseman oil-fired boiler

We are in the unusual position of having a nearly-full oil tank and only a few days to consume the oil in it. We have responded–not too responsibly–by cranking up the thermostat! But given the circumstances we don’t feel too guilty about turning our house, briefly, into a mini Alberta-tar-sands-style carbon emitter.

Next Tuesday, our low efficiency fuel-oil boiler will be replaced by a high efficiency natural-gas boiler. This boiler will also heat our domestic hot water. They will drain the oil tank, cut it up into pieces, dismantle the old boiler and take it all away, never to be seen again. Hooray! We anticipate that our total energy bill will be substantially reduced with this changeover.

I tried to find alternatives to moving from one really obnoxious hydro-carbon to one only slightly less obnoxious, but couldn’t find anything too appealing. Geothermal and solar were too expensive, hardwood pellets were not commonly available in our area. I didn’t want to lug firewood around (which I did when I was a kid but didn’t much enjoy).

Our old boiler had multiple deficiencies, including stinking up the place with its noxious fuel odours, eating through impressive amounts of cash during the cold winter months, and not having the capacity or efficiency to heat floors much higher than the basement.

It also had the annoying habit of popping off its damper flap regularly so it would become even stinkier and more menacing. At those times, when the flames of the old boiler were visible and the roar of combustion echoed through the room, our basement became like the boiler room of a mid 19th century battleship. It was a bit of Victoriana we could do without.

We saved money with this inefficient heating system by setting the programmable thermostat to low temperatures–to 17c (63f) during the night and 20c (68f) during the day. If we didn’t do this our fuel bill would be excessive during the winter. When the thermostat is set to these temperatures our second floor could be quite chilly, sometimes getting to 12c (54f) at night. Yikes! We soon got a bit tired of these uncomfortable, indoor winter temperatures.

Our main motivation for improving the heating system was that we wanted to be warm upstairs during the winter months. Reduction of our carbon footprint and fuel bills were also important considerations, but ultimately they became secondary to simple domestic comfort.

To us nothing spells poverty more than being freezing cold inside during the winter. I’m not saying we want to be excessively warm, just warm enough that we could conceivably do some work in a room without being under a duvet. Is that too much to ask?

Going to yet another non-carbon-neutral heating source was hard at first to accept. We intend to do penance for this by adding other green energy sources in future. These will likely include solar–our south-facing roof is ideal for this; hardwood pellets–they will eventually become common in our area, and normal firewood–there are lots of hardwood trees in this part of the world and efficient wood stoves are readily available. Heating with wood seems more sensible if it isn’t your primary heating source.

These, of course, would require additional investment in our creaky old house, but the payback in reduced carbon emissions and utility bills should make them worthwhile.

Posted in Green | Leave a comment

Dogs on Roof, Hamilton

By michael | Published: 27 January 2010

Dogs on Roof, Hamilton, ON

This is one of my favourite photos of Hamilton. I forget exactly where it was taken but I believe it was near Wentworth and Burlington Streets. It was taken on 19 July 2008.

It shows two dogs who are getting some fresh air and exercise on the roof of a front porch to a modest town-house, in a poor neighbourhood of Hamilton.

They apparently got onto the roof through a small sliding window directly above the porch roof.

This photo raises some interesting questions:

Did the dogs go out the window on their own or were they encouraged to so by someone?

One possible scenario: the dogs were sent out there because they needed ‘to get out’ and the window was the most convenient exit. Is this what happened?

Are the dogs in any danger of falling?

Do the dogs enjoy being on the roof?

Do the dogs urinate and defecate on the roof?

What do the dogs think of someone taking their picture?

Is having dogs on the roof a common occurrence or did I just happen by the only time it occurred?

Are there people in the room behind and what are they doing?

Is this a display of some kind of civic or personal dysfunction or is there something else going on?

Posted in Cities, Hamilton | Leave a comment

The subtle rewards of violin practice

By michael | Published: 26 January 2010

Liam and Ben grooving before their Holiday Concert

Ben and Liam grooving before their Holiday Concert

Two events over the holidays had significant positive effects on our twin boys. One was a holiday concert performance in which the boys played in the beginner violin section. The other was an impromptu violin recital the boys gave to our extended family on Christmas Eve.

Liam and Ben during their mini-recital on Christmas Eve

Both events were great successes and earned them an enormous number of brownie points–especially with my mother-in-law. The boys could appreciate their new, slightly-elevated status after these performances and liked what they saw. Since then, it has become much easier to get them to practice violin.

They both started beginner violin in the Fall when they joined the admirable West Hamilton Strings programme. This is a mass experiment in teaching hundreds of ordinary school kids in the public school system to play stringed instruments. Hats off to their talented and committed teacher Jennifer Spleit.

With these music lessons they had no idea what they had agreed to do before it too late. They didn’t know that the turnstiles into violin lessons work only in one direction (for the first year at least). Their situation reminded me of ads for the Roach Motel: ‘Kids can check in, but they can’t check out!’

The first few orchestra practices were absolute misery for all concerned. Their revulsion at the demands of violin was total. Their conception that this little wooden instrument would take years and years of dedicated practice before they could begin to master it was completely lacking. For them, it was all too absurd to even consider.

They used the most forceful language to express their displeasure, including:

‘We signed up for violin only because we thought it would please you and we thought you would get mad if we didn’t.’

‘We hate the violin, we hate practising it, and there is no way we will ever do this again unless you force us to.’

Fortunately, now the situation is much easier to take. I have managed to retire the usual suspects–those authoritarian reasons that parents trot out when they want to get their kids to do something their kids see no reason to do whatsoever, including:

‘We paid the money for these lessons and we don’t have money to waste on lessons you don’t attend.’

‘Once you make a commitment for something like music lessons, you have to at least complete the first year or else we may not sign you up for anything ever again.’

‘We really don’t like quitters around here.’

Or, their favourite–the full-frontal Drill Sergeant

‘You will practice your violin and you will do it NOW!’

This authoritarian approach works remarkably poorly with our boys. Being twins growing up in a permissive family, they often gang up on their parents and freely express their derision of our parental authority. They are completely willing to live in a world where adult demands are a hazy concept that really need not concern them:

‘We don’t need you because we have each other!’

We frequently attempt to shift the balance of power over in our direction but this can be painfully ineffectual when done in the typical control-and-command manner.

The most effective approach is to plant the virus in their heads that their interests actually coincide with their parents’ interests. This type of magical thinking goes something like this:

‘If you practice the violin then everyone wins!’ [which in the great scheme of things is actually true]

‘How many kids can read music at your age? You guys are so lucky!’

‘I heard some violins at a concert last night and I was amazed how well the musicians played! You guys would have really enjoyed it.’

You really can’t force a child to have a genuine interest in a musical instrument. You have to lead them to that goal indirectly.

In the long run you have to think up reasons why they might like to pursue this activity on their own volition. For example: because it is fun; because you can perform to admiring crowds; because it sounds really cool to hear dozen of other kids play violin at the same time; because some really cool people play violin [e.g. Ashley MacIsaac, Stephane Grappelli, and Itzhak Perlman]; because the violin is the sweetest-sounding little instrument in the world and it’s been around relatively unchanged for hundred of years.

Now, especially after their performance successes, it is mostly smooth sailing for all of us. The boys practice right after school without complaint. There are no more metaphysical discussions about the legitimacy of authority in parent-child relationships, or the meaning of discipline in a decentralized, post-modern world. Leading graduate seminars with ten year olds is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Now it is more about playing notes with the correct pitch, playing the score as it’s written, and trying to create the sweetest tone with the bow.

Posted in Child-rearing, Hamilton | Leave a comment

The Militarization of Play

By michael | Published: 25 January 2010

Ben manning his rapid-fire Nerf assault gun

Ben manning his rapid-fire Nerf assault rifle

Most boys love weapons. Cross-bows, battle axes, harpoons, guns: they can’t get enough of them. The latest implements of war to be installed in our house are a full complement of Nerf guns. These are built like colourful assault weapons, with laser scopes, auto-loading mechanisms and support tripods. They shoot day-glo coloured Nerf bullets — not just one a time but in a steady stream of foam-rubber mayhem.

The boys love them and find them vastly entertaining. They delight in staging long-lasting wars with both their male and female friends. Adults tend to avoid such battles in case they show something truly alarming or distasteful about the development of their children.

We didn’t buy these Nerf guns for them (they were Christmas gifts from relatives) but we don’t lose much sleep over the implications of them being in our house. Nor are we too concerned about the possibility they will inflict severe psychic damage on our boys. Boys will be boys. We predict these boys are as likely to be attracted to a career in video production or on the stage of musical theatre as on the battlefield.

As when training dogs, the technique that seems to work best in the boys’ education is to praise the behaviour we wish to encourage and ignore that which we hope to discourage. Therefore, we tend to ignore this latest Nerf gun invasion. If we don’t talk too much about it, it might just go away — like every other toy that has crossed their path.

What is amusing is to consider where this development in toy design — giving boys exactly what they really want in their most-Rambo-esque fantasies — might lead. Combining the infinite resources of the military-industrial complex with the innovative minds in toy design is ripe with possibility.

We predict: Pretend IEDs by Fisher Price — ‘trip the plate and you’ll have an explosion of fun!’ Guided attack drones by Lego Mindstorms — ‘your little sister will never even hear it coming!’ or Fun-time Phosphorus Bombs by Play-Doh — ‘you’ll bust a gut when you see the agony on your playmates’ faces!’

Posted in Peace | Leave a comment

Pressure cookers and their role in greenhouse gas reduction

By michael | Published: 16 December 2009

Fagor pressure cooker set

People might think that trading in their gas-guzzler for a Prius would be a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is a simpler and less expensive way of achieving similar reductions: eating less meat and using a pressure cooker to cook legumes.

Everyone knows that driving cars is bad for the environment, as is making oil out of tar sands and generating electricity using coal. Eating beef and other livestock is bad for greenhouse gas emissions because domesticated livestock eat a lot, belch a lot and create huge clouds of methane from their manure. They also degrade the land on which they graze and pollute water systems. Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, a UN report warns. Clearly, livestock are furry versions of the obnoxious SUV. It is time that people replace their meat with something more ecologically and nutritionally responsible.

One alternative to eating large quantities of meat is to eat legumes, a food category that includes beans, peas and lentils. It is what most of the world eats and what we in the West ate before we got on the bandwagon of eating unsustainable quantities of meat protein. Legumes are classic ingredients in any Diet for a Small Planet. Legumes can be bought in any middle-eastern food store for next to nothing and they are so colourful and beautiful you will want to keep them around just for decoration.

The problem with legumes is that they take a long time to cook — they usually require overnight soaking and then must be boiled on the stove, sometimes forever. This is inconvenient for many cooks, plus they can smell up your house. Solution: use a pressure cooker to cook them.

Modern pressure cookers are completely safe, relatively inexpensive and take only a short time to learn how to use. The advantages of a pressure cooker are many:

They reduce cooking time
They reduce energy used during cooking
They increase the convenience of cooking dried, hard-to-cook foods such as legumes
They ease dramatically the preparation of stocks and broths — essential ingredients in any good kitchen

I had to look all around the region to find where to buy them. I discovered that Macy’s in Buffalo — of all places — was the best and cheapest place for me to buy one. It may sound ridiculous but it was actually worthwhile for me to travel an hour each way and cross an international border to buy a pressure cooker set from Macy’s. Since then, I have discovered a basic eco-truth of which Al Gore or David Suzuki would be proud: every cook (even those with no interest in vegetarianism or legume-eating) should have a modern pressure cooker.

At first people ridiculed my theory of pressure cooking, sensing that it was yet another attempt to solve through gadgetry the burdens of helping to cook food for our family. That is until they witnessed the unholy speed in which I could convert an unimpressive pot of dried ingredients into a tasty pot of steaming stew or stock.

Note that pressure cookers are not slow-cookers. Pressure cookers use less energy while slow-cookers use more.

For those with the fear the their pressure cooker will blow up in their face you can be assured that modern pressure cookers appear to be foolproof (unless you are intent on creating an explosion). They have clever interlock mechanisms that prevent opening the pot when it is under pressure. The brand I bought was a Fagor, which is a Spanish company that I can highly recommend. They don’t make the most expensive cookers but also not the cheapest.

I would recommend stainless steel cookers over aluminium. Buying a new, modern one is preferable to resurrecting an older one.

Pressure cookers are not something you will use every meal, but I find I use it several times a week. I have been startled just how useful and basic a kitchen utensil it is.

Posted in Green | Leave a comment

Afghanistan: escalate at your own risk

By michael | Published: 15 December 2009

After lengthy deliberation, using the best minds at his disposal, Obama makes the predictable yet curious decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Can anyone spell Vietnam, or Suez?

Quagmires are usually created by modes of thinking that ignore basic aspects of geo-political or common-sense reality. This appears to be the case with the Western-led war in Afghanistan.

Why do I think it is a bad idea to escalate this war?

War is violent and dehumanizing by its nature and escalating a war tends to increase suffering, destruction and injustice
War waged on the premise that it helps those it is directed against is nonsensical
The war lacks public support in all countries in which it is being promoted
The war is unlikely to be won by Western forces
Governments friendly to occupying forces (such as Karzai’s) tend to lack basic legitimacy within their own populations
The war is unaffordable for the USA — a country that is quickly running out of cash and credit
It is unrealistic that a Western-friendly government – with any chance of longevity – will be formed in Afghanistan
The war could easily escalate into a wider regional conflict involving the much more populous country of Pakistan
The war lacks legitimacy — it is not a just war and never has been one

We have had seven years of punditry concerning the situation in Afghanistan. This commentary encouraged Western troops to invade an obscure, mountainous and poverty-stricken country in central Asia. Let’s review how we got there.

After 9/11, most people were shocked that such an attack could happen to the most powerful country in the world.

It became clear that given the state of American politics at the time that in response some act of butt-kicking would likely be performed by the US military. There was some concern about preventing future attacks, but simple vengeance was an important motivator right from the start. If you provoke the boss, expect some payback. The myth of redemptive violence, which so animates American popular and military culture, was in full swing.

The rhetoric at the time was that the USA had the right to ‘act out’ in some way that would involve its matchless armed forces. This was done without excessive concern about the legality or social propriety of its actions. This type of behaviour coincides with one definition of ‘acting out’:

acting out: a (usually irritating) impulsive and uncontrollable outburst by a problem child or a neurotic adult [thefreedictionary.com].

The USA has a powerful military, but often fails to consider how its military actions are viewed within the society of nations. This tends to encourage it to pursue armed conflicts that appear contrary to its own best interests — even commercial or diplomatic interests. This is one aspect of US exceptionalism that many in the rest of world find disturbing: its military power appears unconnected to any sensible rationale other than the projection of its own power.

Being currently the sole super-power, the USA is frequently given a free pass to do whatever it pleases when its military is concerned. Despite being enormously expensive, the US military is seen as a guarantor of American freedoms and prosperity. However, it increasingly appears to be source of weakness for the USA in that its use tends to obscure new geo-political realities not wholly based on military power, such as the rise of China and other BRIC nations. Not all problems are ones that can be solved with military force.

As well, the US military is fiendishly expensive.

One law even more iron-clad than the efficacy of military force in inflicting pain is that if you run out of money and credit, your position in the world can diminish quickly and substantially. You do not need to spend much time reading Victorian novels to understand the indignities that lack of cash can bring.

The USA, despite being a productive and creative society, does not have unlimited cash and credit. Eventually, debts come home to roost. The US military certainly attempts to serve the interests of Western capitalism but this assumes there is sufficient cash earned elsewhere to maintain this military. If the USA spends too much money in ’saving’ failed states, it may just become one itself.

As it turns out the invasion of Iraq was based completely on lies, while the invasion of Afghanistan continues to be represented as a ‘just war.’ This is what gives Obama some cover when he decides to escalate the Afghan war. All wars though, even the most egregious, are portrayed as just wars. It is only much later that historians untangle the lies that may have lead to that impression.

If someone attacks you, you sometimes have the right to attack back if your attack prevents some greater evil from taking place. But the inconvenient truth about the Afghan war is that the Taliban didn’t attack the USA. Al-Qaeda did.

The Taliban — a particularly odious and fundamentalist regime, which most of the world considers a loathsome carbuncle on the face of the world politic — had the temerity to lend support and provide sanctuary to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s guilt was one of association rather than commission.

Clearly, Al-Qaeda and Taliban are separate entities. Al-Qaeda is a trans-national Islamic militant organization committed to the use of terrorism to forward its political goals, while the Taliban is a fundamentalist movement with a power base almost entirely within the Pashtun tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban appears to lack trans-national ambitions of exporting terrorism or of influencing politics outside its core region. Al-Qaeda on the other hand is expert in doing just that.

Al-Qaeda continues to be a threat to the West, while the Taliban continues to be a threat to Western interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan as long as the West occupies Afghanistan. Clearly, you don’t want to mess with the Taliban, but then you probably don’t have to unless you make the mistake of invading their homeland based on justifications not quite found in international law.

Al-Qaeda conspirators spent time conspiring in various places including San Diego, Hamburg, and at flight schools in Florida. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn’t the USA attack those places instead? Because it would have been seen as ridiculous to do so. It is usually not seen as practical or moral to attack a whole country if a tiny minority within that country has behaved badly.

Gangs, cults and militant forces exist in most countries of the world, which if given the right opportunities could inflict serious damage to polite society. This is not just in failed states such as Somalia or the Congo, but also in places such as Idaho and southern Ontario. I bet if you travelled 100 kilometers down the road from Hamilton a group of radical bikers with a penchant for meth, murder and mayhem could be found. Fortunately, Canada is in no danger of being invaded by foreign forces to alleviate this security threat.

Why then were the Taliban conflated so seamlessly with Al-Qaeda in the popular Western imagination? One reason may have been is that they represent the perfect ‘Other.’ The Western public knew little about their cultural or social belief systems and tended to believe the worst. The prevailing rhetoric in the West was that the Taliban’s beliefs are inimical to all Western notions of decency or civilization. This may or may not be true, but it does not constitute adequate grounds for invasion.

A basic lack of legitimacy is what makes the Afghan war so difficult to pursue and what makes it such a hard sell to American allies: it just doesn’t make much sense. A fight against Al-Qaeda has morphed into a fight against an anti-modern but essentially nationalistic enemy in the Taliban. This is why parallels to the Vietnam war seem more and more appropriate. The Taliban has replaced the Vietcong. Apparently, not everyone within the American establishment learned the same lessons about the quagmire that was Vietnam.

In Afghanistan the smart money is staying clear of that war as best they can. If you hope to ingratiate yourself with the USA, which includes such countries as Canada, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia then you might find some motivation for enthusiastically supporting this war. All others seem to have much less commitment to the idea that the West will eventually succeed there. They don’t call Afghanistan the ‘Graveyard of Empires’ for nothing.

Posted in Peace | Leave a comment

Pittsburgh and its Golden Triangle

By michael | Published: 2 December 2009

Parking Garage on 6th Street, Pittsburgh

Our family spent the US Thanksgiving weekend in Pittsburgh. We booked a hotel on priceline.com (highly recommended) and managed to get a very reasonable deal. Luckily, the hotel–the Renaissance Pittsburgh–turned out to be stunning as well as affordable. It was by far the best hotel we have every stayed in–or ever expect to stay in. The boys were ecstatic when they saw the sumptuousness of the lobby and the fluffiness of the pillows on our king-size bed. This hotel had been recently restored and had an impressive glass dome in its lobby and marble balconies worthy of the palace of Versailles. We couldn’t afford to eat any food in its restaurants or, as it turned out, to use its telephones even for local calls but overall the value was impressive. We suspect that something must be deeply wrong with the new world order when people like us can stay so comfortably in such a fine American hotel for so little money.

Our hotel was in an ideal, downtown location along the Allegheny River waterfront called the ‘Golden Triangle.’ It was the first time we had ever stayed in downtown Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has an unusual urban configuration in that its central business district–the Golden Triangle–is relatively isolated from the rest of the city. The Triangle is where the two rivers meet to form the mighty Ohio. As we told the boys, this is where in the old days people drifted lazily down the river–Huck Finn style–all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Even though Pittsburgh is a northern city, this access to the Mississippi River basin does add some romance to the city’s narrative. At one time, Pittsburgh was the ‘Gateway to the Continent.’ It held a similar role to that of Buffalo–as a trans-shipment hub for a nation bent on Manifest Destiny.

What is striking about Pittsburgh, which you tend to forget when you’ve been away from it, is its stunning topography. Pittsburgh is extremely hilly outside of its downtown core. You soon get into the rhythm of driving through valleys, around hills, along ridges and on top of cliffs. Houses in some neighbourhoods are perched precariously on hillsides, which gives them aspects similar to the Amalfi Coast in Italy or those Greek monasteries built on cliffs. At first this topography is disorienting, then you get used to it. When I look at online maps of Pittsburgh I forget how the neighbourhoods I knew are interrelated, but when I am driving around in them, I can remember where routes lead based on muscle memory.

Pittsburgh has the policy of fixing up its downtown core to make it the most attractive part of the city. This policy seems to have worked out well. Fortunately, there were many splendid, historic buildings in the core to fix up. Pittsburgh has re-branded part of its downtown as the ‘Cultural District.’ There, they have renovated several old movie and vaudeville houses to become venues for live theater and music. The Cultural District holds Pittsburgh’s major cultural attractions such as Heinz Hall–home of the Pittsburgh Symphony, the Benedum Center, Byham Theater and the O’Reilly Theater. These venues happened to be a block from our hotel.

Heinz Hall Staircase

In downtown Pittsburgh there are many instances of interesting civic sculpture and the quality of new and renovated architecture is generally very high. In addition to restored buildings, there are also other civic improvements such as sculpture parks, river walkways, and new state-of-the-art sports stadiums along the Allegheny river. Overall, Pittsburgh has done a very good job of fixing up their downtown and I would say that the quality of design and execution is superior to most things you see in Toronto or Hamilton. Pittsburgh can be a very classy place, which is something that many outsiders might not realize.

In Pittsburgh’s Golden Triangle, the remnants from previous eras when Pittsburgh was incredibly prosperous, are everywhere to be seen. Some buildings have splendid cast bronze sculpture, or intricately carved stonework in the Gothic style. Others are clad in cream-coloured terracotta–an extraordinarily elegant and long-lasting building material. These buildings were obviously built to communicate a level of cultural sophistication on the part of their builders. They are as impressive as buildings you might find in New York, Boston or Vienna.

They were built by names such as Carnegie, Frick, Mellon, and Heinz. These are the people who in old cartoons dress in top hats, wear cashmere overcoats and smoke fat cigars. They made incredible amounts of money when Pittsburgh was the centre of steel production for a rapidly-expanding continent. At the time they may have been ‘new money’ but now they seem as old as the Medici. They built some splendid buildings for their city and therefore gave back to the city in a physically-enduring way. This is somewhat of a different practice than what is done by today’s obscenely wealthy, for which these forms of architectural philanthropy are less common. As an architect I enjoy visiting such buildings despite misgivings about the economics and labour relations of Gilded Age capitalism.

If you live in Pittsburgh and don’t work downtown then you probably will not spend much time downtown, even if you have interest in the urban attractions that the downtown has to offer. The suburbs of Pittsburgh spread for miles and this is where most people live. In general, these suburbs are similar to those in any other American city and have little in common with the hard-core urbanity of the Golden Triangle. The people who tend to frequent the downtown seem to be well-off people who work in corporate offices and drive Audi’s, poorer black people who also work downtown and who take the bus, and those who attend cultural and sporting events such as football games, plays, and concerts. This gives the tourist a slightly skewed demographic impression of the city.

Pittsburgh’s downtown is busy during the work week but it tends to empty of people when the work week ends. Very few people appear to live in the Golden Triangle itself. It lacks the high density pedestrian traffic or residential amenities you might find in Toronto or New York. There is some evidence of higher-end residential development for those who work in corporate towers and wish to live adjacent to their work, but this is a tiny portion of the population. The Golden Triangle seems to lack some basic services for residents. For instance, it does not appear to have many (or any) grocery stores.

6th Street, Pittsburgh

Despite the overall attractiveness of the Golden Triangle, it is unclear whether it will ever become a compelling place to live. One reason is that Pittsburgh has many residential neighbourhoods that are attractive, inexpensive and full of residential-type services such as shops, schools and synagogues. Pittsburgh prides itself on the warmth and sociability of its neighbourhoods. The Golden Triangle may be stunning from an architectural perspective but seems to lack this home-town warmth and practicality. Since the border between adjacent neighbourhoods and the downtown is so distinct in Pittsburgh, to live downtown people have to be hard-core urban homesteaders to make that jump. In fact, we know no one who lives or has ever lived in the Golden Triangle. This is why staying there briefly, in a fancy hotel, was such a novelty for us. It is an experience that many Pittsburghers have also never had.

Pittsburgh is now a largely post-industrial city with little evidence of heavy industry in its city core. It is unclear what the city makes it money doing these days beyond the usual sources such as universities, hospitals and financial services and whether Pittsburgh is still running on old money or whether new fortunes are being made.

Despite the fact that its downtown is very attractive and they have managed to convert the Smoky City’s downtown into a show place that rivals midtown Manhattan, Pittsburgh is not always an optimistic city. It has the typical rust-bucket maladies of declining population, pockets of extreme poverty, racial segregation and flat employment growth. I sense that the attractiveness of the Golden Triangle may not be indicative of the health of the rest of the city.

Travelling to the USA from Canada is interesting because it is so different from what we are used to. This feeling of difference occurs the minute we cross the USA-Canada border. On one side of this border is one set of rules and expectations and on the other is another. America gives the impression of promises of great wealth and comfort for those who succeed, but also great pain and degradation for those who fail. The wealthier seem wealthier but the poor seem poorer than in Canada. Not being too clear about which of these two categories we fit into, makes us hesitate to move back to Pittsburgh.

One does get the impression that in parts of the USA during this current recession some of the working population is in absolute crisis–more so than in Canada. The USA has never been known for having much of a safety net and this recession seems to be more severe than previous ones. There is greater fear this time that not only is the American economy in rough shape, but also that the position and status that the USA has enjoyed up until now is in some jeopardy.

Pittsburgh derives part of its power simply from being situated in the USA. Pittsburgh has direct access to American markets and to American economies of scale. The USA does have a population and an economy that dwarfs that of Canada. As we often thought when we lived in Pittsburgh, the USA may not be better than Canada but it sure seems bigger.

Posted in Cities, Pittsburgh | Leave a comment

Torturing Afghan Detainees R Us

By michael | Published: 20 November 2009

In the ‘whatever is begun in anger ends in shame’ department, Canada risks descending into pariah status with the latest revelations of complicity in torture in Afghanistan.

For all those who had trepidation about the moral implications of Canadian participation in the Afghan war became more nervous with yesterday’s headline in newspapers:

“All detainees were tortured, all warnings were ignored”

Wow. This testimony was given by Canadian diplomat and whistle-blower Richard Colvin, to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa. Colvin had served in a diplomatic capacity in Afghanistan for 17 months. This is the first time a government official has made such far-ranging allegations of complicity in torture by the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government.

There has been suspicion for some time that some Afghani detainees may have been tortured after they were transferred from Canadian to Afghan Army custody. Colvin’s testimony suggests that the transfer of detainees — to probable or certain torture — was a widespread Canadian practice. If true, it would greatly discredit Canada’s conduct in Afghanistan and reduce its legitimacy as an occupying force.

The Canadians Forces apparently detain larger numbers of people in their military operations than do their allies. A large proportion of these detainees may be innocent of any crime.

Clearly, complicity in torture is a war crime. Armies of occupation such as Canada’s must follow rules as defined in part by the Geneva Conventions. If Canadian Forces were complicit in the torture of detainees, were aware of their involvement and still allowed the torture to occur, they are guilty of war crimes.

The Conservative government has experienced little political cost from previous torture allegations — or indeed from the entire Afghanistan war — from either the Canadian public or the opposition parties. The issue, oddly, gets little traction in Canadian politics. Previously, the Conservative government has managed to sweep all allegations of complicity in torture under the rug. It is unclear whether, with these new allegations by Colvin, they will be able to continue to do this.

What these allegations mean for Canada is that they reflect poorly on the political leadership of Canada, on the Canadian Armed Forces and on Canada as a whole. They conflict completely with the commonly-provided narratives about the roles Canadians play in Afghanistan.

Canadian politicians see these allegations as a domestic political issue and have failed to acknowledge their international implications — such as severe risks to Canada’s reputation.

This head-long rush to possible pariah status is an odd, self-defeating behavior on Canada’s part. It has similarities to the Canadian government’s recent policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which many view as obstructionist, disingenuous and fundamentally lacking in leadership.

One of the main reasons that the Canadian government has given about why Canada invaded Afghanistan in the first place was to raise the human rights conditions for its residents. At first this did not appear to be difficult to achieve given that the previous Taliban regime had an abysmal human rights record and was itself a pariah regime within the international community.

It now appears that the Karzai government in Afghanistan is breathtakingly-corrupt and has little interest in improving the human rights conditions of Afghans.

The NATO occupying forces in combination with the Karzai government may have achieved what would seem to be impossible — to create a regime worse for the average Afghan than was the previous Taliban regime.

Posted in Canada, Peace | Leave a comment

Charles and Camilla visit Hamilton!

By michael | Published: 16 November 2009

Charles and Camilla at Dundurn Castle, Hamilton

Hamilton proved not to be a hotbed of republican sentiment last week on November 9, 2009 when Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, visited Dundurn Castle.

Dundurn Castle (completed 1835) was built as the stately home of Sir Allan MacNab, an influential and wealthy settler of Hamilton who just so happens to be the great-great-great grandfather of Camilla. Dundurn Castle is now a well-loved civic museum in west Hamilton. It is one of the most attractive 19th century buildings in Canada and as a museum gives an excellent idea of the upstairs-downstairs life in an early Canadian estate.

Dundurn Castle is located a few blocks from where I live, which made it for me the most convenient royal visit ever. I simply had to stroll over to its grounds and wait for the royal excitement to build. And build it did. Hamiltonians, as it turned out, were very excited to see Charles and Camilla.

We don’t get many royal visits here in Hamilton so we didn’t know quite what to expect. Would we be dazzled by the celebrity status of the visiting royals [yes!], would the royals make us feel unworthy and unloved and treat us like residents of a simple steel town [no!], would we tire of the artificiality of an heir to a foreign crown visiting a former colony [not at all!]. We lapped it all up. There was nary a voice of dissent; no discouraging words were heard. Overall, it appeared to be a very successful visit.

I think the fact that Dundurn Castle has a direct family connection to Camilla had a positive effect on the mood of the visit. I think it would be impossible to predict this result prior to their visit. Through skill, some shared history and good luck, Charles and Camilla struck gold this time. They encountered something for which all royals must occasionally yearn: an adoring crowd of loyal subjects.

I am by no means a monarchist but I must confess I too enjoyed the royal visit. I enjoyed the fact that it brought publicity and recognition to the charms of Dundurn Castle and Hamilton. Charles and Camilla appeared to be a stable middle-aged couple who are happy in their own skin. They are not glamour-pusses in the manner of Diana but they appeared to be quite skilled at small-talk with the locals, of asking pertinent questions and of understanding to perfection their mind-numbingly ceremonial role.

In anticipation of the royal visit to Canada there were several newspaper articles detailing how Canadians were quite apathetic about the monarchy, didn’t think much of Charles, or had no idea that Canada was configured as a constitutional monarchy. But based on my experience during the royal visit, I don’t think Charles should worry about his family’s future prospects in Canada. Canadians are clearly in no hurry to get rid of their monarchy. There is a greater chance that Canada will vote to become a Vegan Republic or a Bolshevik Protectorate than that it will cease to be a parliamentary democracy with a British monarch as Head of State. The concept of the ‘Crown’ is deeply embedded in the Canadian system of government and psyche; it would be hard to imagine Canada without it, regardless of what its citizens might think about any one particular heir or monarch.

The whole concept of a ‘constitutional monarchy’ seems to be a little counter-intuitive. You would think that monarchies would tend to be deeply conservative places, but there are so many exceptions to this rule (e.g. the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) that it doesn’t appear to hold water. Republics are not necessarily more progressive and can sometimes veer in odd directions, as our neighbour to the south demonstrates. There is some evidence that Canada’s position as a stable, sometimes progressive democracy is not only in spite of its monarchist history but also because of it. Or maybe this is just the Kool-Aid talking.

Prince Charles meeting the crowd at Dundurn Castle

Charles is the scion of a wealthy, multi-national corporation who has spent most of his life waiting to become a king. It appears though that he spends his money in interesting ways. In architectural circles he is notorious for his interventionist and anti-modernist stance, but overall as an heir apparent, he seems harmless enough–perhaps even progressive in some ways. He is a patron of many causes, some of which could directly benefit Canada, such as heritage architecture, urban sustainability, environmentalism, support for disadvantaged youth, organic farming and alternative medicine. Interestingly, the current Conservative government in Ottawa has absolutely no interest in such causes. Clearly, their brand of conservatism is quite different from Charles’s.

Posted in Hamilton | Leave a comment