Comments on: Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario

By: Michael S

Michael S — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:20:28 +0000

The thing about the downtown core, is that most of those buildings that were torn down were slowly purchased by one man. He bought them planning to let them run down, then when they were an eye sore, the city would swoop in and buy them at a profit, and he’d make a killing.

What happened was the city couldn’t afford to do anything for the longest time as we went through much financial hardship in the form of lost jobs in the city. Brantford went form a prosperous middle class/upper middle clas city to a city of service based low income jobs.

The city couldn’t afford to buy them from the owner the way he wanted. Eventually I belive the city took over the buildings, but after 20+ years of neglect, the repair costs would have been way too high.

The city is in the process of turning the downtown core into a area of higher education. We’ve seen massive rebuilding, renovation, and a lot of overall improvement.

I miss the old buildings, but they were holding the area back.

What we should learn from this, is that the laws concerning upkeep of buildings needs to be reinforced and updated, so in the future, no properties get missmanaged like this again.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 03 May 2011 23:28:04 +0000

I am sure many of these old buildings were poorly maintained and unattractive. But I don’t think is reason enough to destroy them. After all, once they’re gone they’ll never be replaced with anything similar.

I would also have to disagree with the idea that the new view is more attractive than the old.

Heritage buildings and the tourists they bring can be a great source of income for places all over Canada and the world. What is required is that civic leaders have some imagination.

By: Sabrina

Sabrina — Tue, 03 May 2011 23:11:18 +0000

Having lived in Brantford my entire life and travelled through the downtown area hundreds of times, I find that the demolition of these buildings was both a relief and a shame.
The downtown in our city was once very beautiful and still is one of my favourite parts to visit – the shops and old houses still in the nearby streets are absokutely gorgeous and show workmanship and individualism practically nonexistant in the newer subdivisions. During the early 1900′s, the area served as the heart of the city, with a bustling industrial sector, many factories and a railroad. The houses were such prime real estate that they were squished together to look more like a city in Europe than Canada’s usually more widely spaced houses.
Now, the railroad go into another portion of the town. The houses are dirty and falling into disrepair; some of the most beautiful houses, homes to the wealthy, with beautiful Victorian and French Chateau architecture have become dirty and have fallen into disrepair. They, especially the houses in the area to be demolished, looked so grimy that when the Post-Apocalyptic neighbourhood scenes were shot there, the director actually cleaned up the streets a bit before shooting. The donwntown and those buildings in particular were almost a sign of how far we have fallen – Brantford now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the area – and were not pleasant to look at anymore besides.
Additionally, the city has been trying to revitalise the downtown area by putting in the new Harmony Square and other attractions for a younger crowd in the hopes of attracting a campus of Wilfrid Laurier University. We currently have an outpost of sorts of the school downtown, but they hope to attract a permanent Campus.
One of the main buildings housing students surrounds Harmony Square on 2 sides. On the other side and across the street areolder townhouses that were much better maintained. On this side were the dingier, less attractive townhouses, many with “For Lease” signs in the window. The view looked like a comedic contrast – the new Harmony Square and the old, sad buildings behind. Most of the buildings were not even making money – the core has a bad rep, and in a sprawling city like Brantford, living in the core has little to no advantages. Many of the businesses are also driven away by this bad rep.
The new view, post-deconstruction, is much more attractive. The hill provides a sweeping view of the open sky from Harmony Square and on the hill itself the Grand is visible. City workers have been planting trees along the sidewalk and placing gorgeous wrought-iron benches. This is much improved over the graffiti’d storefronts, many having not changed in the slightest from the seventies or fifties, having been blocked off in those years.
I think that overall it was the only option available to us. Brantford does not have the public support necessary to revitalise the downtown area as proposed; it’s ugly now and thats all people can see it as. However, if the city shows what a little work could do to make it better, than perhaps interest will revive in the core – I can honestly say that this was the first time the public took interest in these buildings since “Silent Hill” was shot here.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:34:34 +0000

Good grief! This sound like what is (and has been) going on in albeit a much larger city, Montreal. A downtown theatre built in the 20′s (The Seville) was allowed to rot until the city finally told the owner/developer he could demolish it. And demolish it he did, despite earlier agreements to at least preserve its facade. The art-deco structure was reduced to rubble with city hall approval. Decades of mis-management allowed this to happen, much the same way it’s happening elsewhere. Since the Seville was levelled, several other old structures have met the same fate. A couple of Victorian mansions may soon see the wreckers ball, and even Old Montreal is not being left alone.

By: Kris

Kris — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:50:30 +0000

The majority of those buildings were owned by a single person, who has been adding to his inventory for the past couple decades. The time for many of the suggestions you have was years ago and because of neglect by the owner and by city leaders, this stretch of rot is beyond saving. There was a big deal that was supposed to “go down” between the current owner and a property developer but it died, just as many before this have. The people of Brantford are out of patience and ready for a bold move such as this, otherwise they would have been looking at more decades of a rotton core.

It is easy to criticize when you do not live here.

I too am sad to see these buildings going as there was much potential for revitalization over the years which was squandered and mismanaged by city leaders. But instead of pining away and living with such a stained street, at least the city leaders have finally decided to get off the pot.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:16:28 +0000

Lack of upkeep is no proof of value. They may have been neglected for any number of reasons. In this case it seems like City Hall was leading the charge.

You write “nothing lasts forever and it’s time for a change.” Old buildings definitely do not last forever when they are purposely marginalized and long-term residents are forced out for no good reason. Are historical cores of old Ontario towns something you can change, ‘freshen-up’ easily – like you’re putting on a new pair of slacks?

When a city doesn’t protect what appears to this outsider to be its ‘crown jewels’ (despite how rat-infested they appear to be) it suggests a city pursuing a self-destructive, ill-informed path. This makes the place far less attractive for many kinds of investors. It greatly diminishes Brantford’s overall ‘brand.’

By: Julia

Julia — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:20:39 +0000

I completely disagree. Why would we keep these buildings, when they are just rapidly decaying and rat infested? I understand the histroical signifcance, but if we wanted to perserve the buildings that badly, why were they not ‘kept up’ (for lack of a better term) throughout the years. It is unfortunate that we are losing SOME historical presence throughout the downtown, however, nothing lasts forever and it’s time for a change. Additionally, not all historical builds are lost. Both Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy and Mokhawk College have embarced the historical buildings by fixing them and using them for lectures, community use and the like. So, to say that we are completely destorying the downtowns hisotrical ‘feel’ is unrealistic.

Additionally, Brantford has the opportunity to become prosperous, just as it once was. Since the arrival of the Univeristy and College downtown, the population is growing thus allowing current businesses to prosper and new businesses to emerge.

Given the changes throughout downtown, I believe that over the next decade Downtown Brantford will become a hotspot for community events, shows (at the Sanderson Center), better nightlife, etc. that will allow for the population retention as well as prospering businesses. Thus, it is my hope that this will result in a healthy economy for the city of Brantford as a whole.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 05:18:26 +0000

I’m actually from Brantford, lived there for a long time and go back every year to visit family. Some of the older downtown buildings have been replaced and a big part of that decision was because of the university satellite campus that took up residence downtown. a lot of the old buildings are still there and still doing the same things they always have been. There are some sad stories about cool places downtown that aren’t there anymore, Ludwigs (men’s clothing store that lived downtown for more than 40 years moved to the north end) Heinbucks (basically a junk shop, four floors of just…stuff, extreme fire trap but very interesting never the less) there is still a tattoo parlor downtown, I got my first tat there. it’s called Kreative Khaos and has been an unstanding Brantford landmark for as long as I can remember. Brantford’s steady urban decline began long before now though, it actually started when Massey Ferguson closed it’s door effectively making hundreds of people unemployed. The changed to downtown are vital even though it does mean losing really cool buildings…and I am speaking as someone who did live downtown in a turn of the century house split into apartments. I also have many friends who lived in apartments over condemmed stores.
Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say about something that’s close to my heart. Brantford is a neat town and unfortunately it’s history and beauty are only going to continue being destroyed in the name of progress. As a fellow UE it makes me sad so see buildings that I explored back in highschool when I was first getting into this cease to be.

By: michael

michael — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:23:48 +0000

If people could only separate the current uses of buildings from their architectural potential, then cities would be much better off [not to suggest, however, that the building uses before eviction were all that marginal or suspect].

In Brantford, there appears to be this bizarre notion that no decent person could possibly consider living downtown. This social devaluation appears to make architectural elimination of the downtown much easier. If people feel that all the good people ‘like us’ live out in the burbs, why not get rid of downtown?

By: Lloyd Alter

Lloyd Alter — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:04:48 +0000

you nailed a key point: “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.”

it is the oldest development trick in the book; turn a building into a noxious use and then use that as an excuse for demolition.