Comments for Michael Cumming

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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.

Comment on Art Barker: Standing-Seam Roofer by Evan Bradow

Evan Bradow — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:25:11 +0000

I enjoyed reading your article. There is one thing that needs corrected. Asphalt shingles are recycled in most states. I think it’s important to educate the public so that more people will require the contractor to recycle when they roof their house. I do agree with your opinion about standing seam metal roofing.

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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.’

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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.

Comment on My Life as a ‘Doors Open’ Tourist by Susan Koppersmith

Susan Koppersmith — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:49:05 +0000

I look forward to more writing about the Doors Open sites!

Your comment, Michael, about visiting all the churches in a certain location is interesting. I can remember living in England and doing just that with the local churches. Each one had its own particular aspect that was unusual: one church had a grove of lime trees leading to the main door, another had a huge thousand-year-old yew growing beside it. Another church seemed to have a large floor space when I wandered around inside. Yet when I circled the building from the outside, the church seemed somehow much smaller.

Looking forward to more posts about Hamilton!

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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.

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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?

Comment on Pittsburgh and its Golden Triangle by michael

michael — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:13:22 +0000

Thanks! We love visiting Pittsburgh and try to get there as often as we can.

Comment on Pittsburgh and its Golden Triangle by Marcus Remodeling

Marcus Remodeling — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:03:42 +0000

Im happy you found out town fun, hope ya come back again sometime, Yinz hear! Pittsburgh General Contractors

Comment on Urban destruction in the heart of Brantford, Ontario 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.