Town & Country Prospects Part 7: A No Tier Waterloo
Original Kitchener, Waterloo Country, Ontario, Canada June 19, 2023
Some Critical Distinctions
“We can do this,” I declare in my last post, expressing full confidence in the political and civic leadership we have here. That includes the six regional councillors from Kitchener and Waterloo who declared their support for a one-tier order; the South Waterloo voices who began talking about a separatist solution, as well as the Big City / Major Player / Toronto-Waterloo Innovation Corridor set. They’re not wrong, just not right enough – too narrow, out of focus, premature in their conclusions. A reconciled approach is one that is designed to achieve all ambitions and address all concerns, without sacrificing anything important. It is victory without any losers.
To that end, I’ve been trying to draw some distinctions, starting with an emphasis on the difference between amalgamation, which dissolves existing entities into a new whole, and annexation, which is simple aggrandizement by a central concentration of power over peripheral areas. Cambridge 1973 was an attempt at amalgamation, while Toronto 1999 and the single-tier orders set up in Hamilton, Kingston and Ottawa during the Ford years are all examples of annexations.
I’ll say it one more time: Greater Waterloo is, and always will be, a multi-centred urban configuration, and therefore a crude, 1970s-style amalgamation is simply not feasible here, and neither is annexation from a single dominant centre. All the King’s horses and all the King’s men cannot magically transform two, three, four or five into one.
From there, I turn to contrasting, on the one hand, annexations, mergers and agglomerations, which are all processes that engorge and digest in order to expand, with voluntary formations of purposeful unions, through which parts are able to come together to form a new whole without abandoning a separate existence. It is possible to achieve a coherent unity in ways that can actually enhance rather than obliterate distinctions. Better together, yes, not by force, en masse, as in a blender or a melting pot, but willingly, happily, and in concert. We can’t come together, be together, put our heads together or pull together if we no longer exist as distinct entities. We can’t sing in harmony if we’re restricted to just one voice, one tune, one refrain, and one monotonous rhythm.
The options become deciding whether to:
Leave things as they are.
Come together, join forces and develop procedures for a peaceful, productive and sustainable coexistence.
Part ways and devolve into two or three separate orders.
Stop talking and submit to whatever partitions, devolutions and/or agglomerations provincial authorities decide are best for us.
The current provincial leadership does not inspire confidence. It’s not quite a dictatorship we’re living under, since both the provincial and the municipal governments are led by people we elected to represent us. A generous view would be seeing their authoritarian bent as something like being an overprotective parent. The province as “creator” lording it over us creatures here below (the notion has always struck me as close to blasphemous) sets various limits for our own good and/or for the greater good, in the same way minors require parental supervision or permission. Since cities and towns are in no way a juvenile form of body politic, this has evolved into a very unhealthy relationship.
While it’s true that, under the Canadian constitution as generally understood, ultimately the choice is not ours to make, there’s nothing to stop us from imagining possibilities. My contribution to the cause of municipal reform is to encourage people who care about what happens to Galt, Preston, Hesepler, Ayr, New Hamburg, Wellesley, Elmira, Kitchener and Waterloo to start thinking about what a no tier Waterloo region could look like.
No Tier Means Grounded
Let’s start with agreeing that whatever happens, we’re better together. Part of the purpose of supporting a whole as well as the parts is to shield minorities from majority dominance. How do we protect rural interests and sensibilities from the overwhelmingly urban majority? Citizens of Cambridge are justified in fearing an even more dominant North Waterloo than we’re accustomed to should the province decide in favour of the One Big City: One Voice approach. As the relationship between the three former town centres in Cambridge itself shows, in an amalgamated city there can only be one downtown, so Galt would have to be relegated to village or “ye olde towne” status.
The most likely scenario, though, is the suburban majority lording it over both rural and core areas. A North-South | East-West Waterloo alliance determined to keep big, urban Kitchener in its place would be unstoppable. That’s part of why a composite approach is preferable over a homogenizing unification. Instead of denying or erasing differences, the new order as I imagine it will recognize distinctions, celebrate diversity in all forms, and facilitate belonging and engagement.
The driving force in this new order will be a committed citizenship. The commitment includes being part of an ongoing, “all things considered” deliberation process that draws on collective experience, knowledge and wisdom. Those who choose to participate will be serving the common good, not taking charge. Such engagement is not an obligation, nor is it a path toward any kind of power, influence or privilege. If you prefer to be a resident rather than a citizen, and choose to mind your own business and follow pursuits that have nothing to do with the political order, that’s quite acceptable.
“No tier” means order, authority and management as service, in contrast to holding the upper hand from an echelon of power. The Conservation Authority that the communities of Grand River watershed put into place in the 1930s is a good example of authority voluntarily established for a useful purpose, in this case to control flooding. It exists to serve our communities, not to lord it over us. The same goes for city engineers, planners, police chiefs, mayors – regular or strong – and even tax collectors. They’re in their positions to serve us. Sometimes that means asserting the authority they’ve been assigned, but always on our behalf, like a conductor leading a choir, or a policeman directing traffic. Even authorities as broad as the governments of Ontario and of Canada are there to serve their constituent elements, on common ground, not from on high and from even higher.
No tier means, simply, living, working, learning and associating with feet on the ground, face to face, shoulder to shoulder. There’s a place for leaders, including democratic representatives, public servants, a constabulary and our armed forces. But they stand beside us, not above us. There is a role for experts in place making and community building, but their role is to facilitate, not take charge. Places and communities aren’t built or made, but lived into existence, and consequently cannot be imposed, ready-made, with all the amenities in place, like a human equivalent of a gerbil cage.
It is important to make the widest possible allowance for parochial, associational and individual initiative. Living in proximity with others requires being considerate. You can’t always do whatever you want. But for every additional rule or restriction introduced in the new municipal order I’m imagining, there will be ten things you’ll be permitted to do that are presently forbidden or out of reach. Among all the joys, pleasures, benefits, amenities and opportunities that come with living in a town or city, the right to quiet enjoyment of your space will remain paramount.
Dream Along With Me
For a working title, let’s call our integrated new municipal order the United Communities of Waterloo County. It would be wise to begin with a resolve to protect and conserve every locational identity that is cherished or otherwise meaningful, even if only to a few. All boundaries, past and present, are relevant in some way. We need to hold firm on fundamental demarcations, like the County Line itself, the Haldimand Tract and the Countryside Line, but in order to break debilitating patterns of resentment, rivalry and injustice it would be good to keep the rest as fluid as possible.
The County Line is not a natural formation; it’s simply how colonial authorities sectioned off crown land to get it ready for “alienation” to private proprietorship and settlement. It remains relevant as the matrix from which all settler communities emerged. The “subdivisions” through which our high modern suburbs came into being can be seen as a continuation of the same process. Instead of carrying on with carving up the landscape, I propose that we simply identify a constellation of habitation centres, or points of origin, and imagine all our cities, towns and villages fanning out from where they began without being too precise or dogmatic about where they end, beyond a rough sense of where traditional, grid-based building patterns gave way to suburban development.
We’d be wise to apply what was learned through the Cambridge amalgamation experience, and avoid trying to legislate a new identity into existence to replace all that came before. Let’s call all constituent elements by their original nomenclature, but also recognize, and even celebrate, the fact that once the original towns and cities reached a certain level and style of development, distinctions began to fade away.
At first glance, and as things stand, there is little or no discernible difference between a Cambridge suburb, a Waterloo suburb, or the subdivisions of East, South, West or North Kitchener. But our original cities and towns – Galt, Preston, Hespeler, New Hamburg, Kitchener, Waterloo, Elmira – are wonderfully distinct. In the new municipal order that I hope to see emerge, protecting, conserving, appreciating, enjoying and promoting all that is distinct, unique, precious and irreplaceable is a fundamental public concern. That includes, of course, all the farmlands, meadows, woodlands, wetlands, ponds, lakes and waterways of Waterloo Country, which are inseparable from lands and waters of the watershed as a whole.
I’ve talked about drawing an original city or town line between what was built before and after the advent of suburban building forms around 1950. These patterns are different, and therefore warrant distinct planning and maintenance practices. This is not to suggest that developments on one side of such a divide are in some way inferior or superior. We can get rid of terms like “suburb” or “inner city” and all their negative connotations.
For purposes of basic orientation, natural and historical points of reference are always preferable: the Grand River; the watershed; Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of the Haldimand Tract; Huron Road; Highways 6, 7 and 8.
Waterloo County is not an island. Treating it as a world unto itself constricts the imagination. Conceptions of what the new order could look like must take into account where we fit into the larger picture. Here geographic and historical references can be of great service: The river connects us to the rest of the watershed. The river and the valley connect us to Lake Erie, and to Hamilton-Niagara to the East; the Thames watershed to the west, and the Hills of Headwaters to the north.
The 401 and the original GTR and CPR railway lines connect us to the Quebec-Windsor-Chicago corridor, the spine or central nervous system of Laurentian Canada, and its antecedent, New France. But the original orientation of Waterloo County settlement is through the Huron Road route, which, like the river, connects us to Dundas, Hamilton, Niagara, New York, New England and Pennsylvania.
The development of distinctions at the precinct, parish, neighbourhood, village or non-historic town level is best left to evolve organically, starting with the availability of certain prerequisites, like public or semi-public gathering spaces – schools, parks, community centres, places of congregational worship; open-membership clubs, and public recreational facilities. Basic distinctions like the ratio of homeowners to renters and the history and character of the built environment can also be taken into account, as well as traditional identities: Forest Heights, Country Hills, Pioneer Park, Langs, Fiddlesticks, Lakeshore, Laurelwood.
The next step is developing a set of clear, but loosely defined and flexible, directions and targets. That includes a clear conception of what we can practically and legitimately do together, working through our elected governmental structures as members and stakeholders of the municipality as a corporation, or body politic. And we need purpose, starting with a vision for the kinds of lives we want to live, individually and collectively, in relatively close proximity to one another.
I’m imagining a combination of
walkable neighbourhoods (a made-in-and-for-Waterloo variation of the 15-minute city, concomitant with the goal of preserving the mid-size city 20-minute commute, rather than as a “war on the car” battlefield);
sensible, considerate and creative infill and densification;
a thriving locally conceived, owned, managed and staffed business ecosystem, for profit and mandate based;
re-mutualization;
restoration of the commons;
community beauty a civic duty;
strong local-regional supply lines (say roughly half of all goods and services originating from within 100 miles);
a historic reconciliation between the settlements of Greater Waterloo and the Six Nations of Grand River Country, along with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, that will serve as a significant step towards reconciling the Indigenous peoples and nations of Turtle Island with Canada the nation state.
I’m an arts, culture and heritage advocate, so a cultural florescence is an integral part of my hope for the future. The communities of Waterloo County, united or otherwise, include more than three times the population of the City of London in the Elizabethan era, and twice as many people as the nation state of Iceland today. There is no insurmountable reason why this constellation of habitations couldn’t match or even surpass the cultural achievements, if not of Shakespeare’s London, which had a nascent global empire to draw from, then certainly that of contemporary Iceland, which is not wealthier, better educated or otherwise more richly endowed than we are. If that sounds far-fetched, we should at least be able to match the cultural vitality of small town Stratford, Ontario.
All of this is to be achieved without coercion, without unsustainable subsidies, and with the active and willing participation of citizens and residents. Each of these bullet points could be expanded into another full-length Evening Muse post. The list is personal, and far from definitive. I’m imagining that each citizen who cares about such matters would have a different combination of imagined possibilities they’d be willing to work towards.
My sense is that somewhere in that direction is the route to real peace, a sustainable prosperity, and every variety of both freedom and belonging.