Hamilton is to some better known for smog, steel, and labour.
Not so much for architecture.
I admit, I don't know a lot about architecture, or Hamilton's specifically, but the issue has come up amongst local urban development activists about the continued problem of old buildings being torn down, and replaced, rather than recycled and reused.
Old buildings like those to the right here come from an era when labour was cheap, materials were expensive. Because of this combination, much more time was spent on the small detail of stone and brick buildings.
Today's big-box-store building-spree spends little detail on concrete -- why spend time on a good concrete building when the labour will cost you so much? I wonder if perhaps there is some middle ground on this for future construction -- perhaps as we work to decrease the embodied energy a building consumes on construction by using more local materials, more of the money that was used on transportation will go towards labour for better looking buildings. (Because, somehow, I don't think any of the existing big-box Wal-marts will ever be considered heritage buildings!)
One fact I do know about Hamilton: worldwide it is amongst the top cities for the number of tall brick buildings. The nearby escarpment makes transportation costs very low, so its not unusual to see a ten-story brick building -- something you won't see in many cities.
Knowing this, I pay more attention now to the buildings I see, to further appreciate the work that someone was paid poorly to do.
And to appreciate that not everything man-made is necessarily bad for our environments.
