(03-26-2019, 04:03 PM)clasher Wrote: Waterloo at least has a name that's been around since its founding. Kitchener is named after right shithead and Cambridge would probably never be happy with any choice. Amalgamated towns all still keep their identities for a long time... Scarborough is still there and people all know where you're talking about when you mention it. Same goes for Ancaster and Dundas in Hamilton.

(03-26-2019, 03:42 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 03:27 PM)jamincan Wrote: Isn't him saying "no no no no no" just him sharing his opinion?

Right, it's just an opinion. My *opinion* is that amalgamation isn't going to happen, not at least the way we'd think. Secondly, while I doubt that a majority of  Kitchener residents are OK with now being Waterloo, I guarantee Cambridge will NOT want any part of "Waterloo". Perhaps enough so to ask for a separation (kind of like what Mississauga wants).

I'll keep it nice, but I think there is more advantage for it to be Kitchener than Waterloo (or Cambridge). But, just an opinion.

I will say though, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, we're not going to have a larger city by the name of Waterloo.

(03-26-2019, 01:45 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 09:48 AM)urbd Wrote: Ok here's one more for you: no. And okay? It's an online forum - am I supposed to go back pages and pages so that I am allowed to contribute? People are allowed to jump in and express an opinion at any point. So yeah, it will be Waterloo. And I will read this free forum in any way I want thanks

I shared an opinion ("sand hills is a cool name") and you shot it down ("no no no no no"). Then you said that people are allowed to express an opinion at any point.

So now I'm confused. Is it only you that gets to share their opinion at any point, or are you in fact full of shit?

(03-26-2019, 04:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 04:03 PM)clasher Wrote: Waterloo at least has a name that's been around since its founding. Kitchener is named after right shithead and Cambridge would probably never be happy with any choice. Amalgamated towns all still keep their identities for a long time... Scarborough is still there and people all know where you're talking about when you mention it. Same goes for Ancaster and Dundas in Hamilton.

The lack of unified cultural identity is a pretty good against amalgamation. Too bad I really don't think there's anyone listening.

Ironically, at least to my feeling, Scarborough, Ancaster, Dundas, are all more culturally distinct from their amalgamated cities than KW would be.

But I'm sure plenty will disagree...

(03-26-2019, 04:14 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 03:42 PM)jeffster Wrote: Right, it's just an opinion. My *opinion* is that amalgamation isn't going to happen, not at least the way we'd think. Secondly, while I doubt that a majority of  Kitchener residents are OK with now being Waterloo, I guarantee Cambridge will NOT want any part of "Waterloo". Perhaps enough so to ask for a separation (kind of like what Mississauga wants).

I'll keep it nice, but I think there is more advantage for it to be Kitchener than Waterloo (or Cambridge). But, just an opinion.

I will say though, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, we're not going to have a larger city by the name of Waterloo.

Genuinely curious, but what are those advantages? I would have to agree with urbd that Waterloo, on first glance, seems like it has a lot more going for it in terms of national/international reputation and branding. Plus, with the sordid history of how Kitchener got its name and the even more sordid history of Mr. Kitchener himself, I think killing the Kitchener name would be rather fitting move from a historical perspective! Now Cambridge, that's another story. I feel like unfortunately they'll hate whatever happens, however it happens.

(03-26-2019, 03:27 PM)jamincan Wrote: Isn't him saying "no no no no no" just him sharing his opinion?

(03-26-2019, 04:14 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 03:42 PM)jeffster Wrote: Right, it's just an opinion. My *opinion* is that amalgamation isn't going to happen, not at least the way we'd think. Secondly, while I doubt that a majority of  Kitchener residents are OK with now being Waterloo, I guarantee Cambridge will NOT want any part of "Waterloo". Perhaps enough so to ask for a separation (kind of like what Mississauga wants).

I'll keep it nice, but I think there is more advantage for it to be Kitchener than Waterloo (or Cambridge). But, just an opinion.

I will say though, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, we're not going to have a larger city by the name of Waterloo.

Genuinely curious, but what are those advantages? I would have to agree with urbd that Waterloo, on first glance, seems like it has a lot more going for it in terms of national/international reputation and branding. Plus, with the sordid history of how Kitchener got its name and the even more sordid history of Mr. Kitchener himself, I think killing the Kitchener name would be rather fitting move from a historical perspective! Now Cambridge, that's another story. I feel like unfortunately they'll hate whatever happens, however it happens.

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote: Strictly speaking from a government management point of view, Waterloo has a very poor reputation with the way it manages.

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(03-26-2019, 04:14 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: Genuinely curious, but what are those advantages? I would have to agree with urbd that Waterloo, on first glance, seems like it has a lot more going for it in terms of national/international reputation and branding. Plus, with the sordid history of how Kitchener got its name and the even more sordid history of Mr. Kitchener himself, I think killing the Kitchener name would be rather fitting move from a historical perspective! Now Cambridge, that's another story. I feel like unfortunately they'll hate whatever happens, however it happens.

Again, I am trying to keep this nice.

Advantages of Kitchener:

1) Population 240,000 vs 105,000
2) Current 401 Signage (also applies to Cambridge)
3) Signage in the US, and abroad
4) Parcels (always labelled Kitchener), for example, FedEx (to a lesser extent, Cambridge as well)
5) GO, VIA, CN, etc. are Kitchener (to an extent, Cambridge as well)
6) Ownerships (Kitchener Utilities, Kitchener Rangers, Kitchener City Hall) Waterloo, owns nothing of significant importance like this. The U of Waterloo remains U of Waterloo no matter the outcome.
7) Festivals & Special Events -- Kitchener has way more going for this than Waterloo. Bluesfest, Rib and Beer Fest, Multicultural Festival, Cruising on King, Christkindl Market, etc. I think Waterloo has the Jazz Fest, Comedy Fest and Buskers, but Kitchener does have more going on, especially the summer.
8) Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The place is historically significant, and very busy, not just with the Rangers, but with concerts (Waterloo really has nothing), and Shows (RV Show, Home and Garden Show, Wine and Food Show, etc). Not that the name could be changed though.

A name change in Waterloo (and for that matter, the rest of the region, except Kitchener) doesn't change many things. Though disappointing for Cambridge because they have that beautiful city hall (another thing Waterloo doesn't have).

I have other reasons too, but they are just opinions and no point of discussing them here.

That said, I really don't believe for a second this will happen. Even if "Waterloo" was the governmental choice, Waterloo does not want amalgamation, Cambridge doesn't either (and would try to separate), and the same applies to the townships.

I think the differences are too stark and a mentality change would be too much for many to handle. Would Cambridge and Kitchener be OK with spending a lot less on social services and community centres, etc to appease Waterloo? Or would Waterloo be OK with social services being added, along with money spent on community centres and the like?

When you look at Hamilton and Toronto (and I lived in both cities), there was pride in each city, but differences weren't huge. At the same time, Brampton and Mississauga never merged, one reason was that the differences were quite large.

Strictly speaking from a government management point of view, Waterloo has a very poor reputation with the way it manages. I think some here know that I work for a local government, and we have had people move on over from Waterloo, and describe management as a complete sh*t show. That sh*t show came out loud and clear, for example, with the RIM fiasco. In that case, neither management nor elected officials read the agreement at all. But a news reporter with The Record did and broke the story. But even though RIM is years ago, things haven't changed. It's a cultural difference that Cambridge, Kitchener and the townships would want no part of, and neither would the residents outside of Waterloo would want. The universities have made Waterloo what it is, despite the government. But even then, most students high-tail it out of Waterloo as soon as they complete school (which explain the anemic growth).

That's my take on why it won't happen.

(03-27-2019, 03:14 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote: Strictly speaking from a government management point of view, Waterloo has a very poor reputation with the way it manages.

There are two entities currently named Waterloo, right? The City of Waterloo and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Your concerns here, which are very well articulated, seem like they are based on the assumption that, post-amalgamation the governing entity will be formed from the City of Waterloo. Is that understanding correct? If so, would they still exist if the governing entity is the Regional Municipality of Waterloo which would then have to build out roles, staffing etc and in theory might be able to do so from all the cities and townships?

I am pretty ignorant of the mechanics of amalgamation so this may be a particularly stupid question.

(03-27-2019, 05:50 PM)KingandWeber Wrote:

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote: Again, I am trying to keep this nice.

Advantages of Kitchener:

1) Population 240,000 vs 105,000
2) Current 401 Signage (also applies to Cambridge)
3) Signage in the US, and abroad
4) Parcels (always labelled Kitchener), for example, FedEx (to a lesser extent, Cambridge as well)
5) GO, VIA, CN, etc. are Kitchener (to an extent, Cambridge as well)
6) Ownerships (Kitchener Utilities, Kitchener Rangers, Kitchener City Hall) Waterloo, owns nothing of significant importance like this. The U of Waterloo remains U of Waterloo no matter the outcome.
7) Festivals & Special Events -- Kitchener has way more going for this than Waterloo. Bluesfest, Rib and Beer Fest, Multicultural Festival, Cruising on King, Christkindl Market, etc. I think Waterloo has the Jazz Fest, Comedy Fest and Buskers, but Kitchener does have more going on, especially the summer.
8) Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The place is historically significant, and very busy, not just with the Rangers, but with concerts (Waterloo really has nothing), and Shows (RV Show, Home and Garden Show, Wine and Food Show, etc). Not that the name could be changed though.

A name change in Waterloo (and for that matter, the rest of the region, except Kitchener) doesn't change many things. Though disappointing for Cambridge because they have that beautiful city hall (another thing Waterloo doesn't have).

I have other reasons too, but they are just opinions and no point of discussing them here.

That said, I really don't believe for a second this will happen. Even if "Waterloo" was the governmental choice, Waterloo does not want amalgamation, Cambridge doesn't either (and would try to separate), and the same applies to the townships.

I think the differences are too stark and a mentality change would be too much for many to handle. Would Cambridge and Kitchener be OK with spending a lot less on social services and community centres, etc to appease Waterloo? Or would Waterloo be OK with social services being added, along with money spent on community centres and the like?

When you look at Hamilton and Toronto (and I lived in both cities), there was pride in each city, but differences weren't huge. At the same time, Brampton and Mississauga never merged, one reason was that the differences were quite large.

Strictly speaking from a government management point of view, Waterloo has a very poor reputation with the way it manages. I think some here know that I work for a local government, and we have had people move on over from Waterloo, and describe management as a complete sh*t show. That sh*t show came out loud and clear, for example, with the RIM fiasco. In that case, neither management nor elected officials read the agreement at all. But a news reporter with The Record did and broke the story. But even though RIM is years ago, things haven't changed. It's a cultural difference that Cambridge, Kitchener and the townships would want no part of, and neither would the residents outside of Waterloo would want. The universities have made Waterloo what it is, despite the government. But even then, most students high-tail it out of Waterloo as soon as they complete school (which explain the anemic growth).

That's my take on why it won't happen.

Oh ok sorry I think we're talking about different things! I was talking about just the Waterloo name vs. Kitchener name, not about governance structure. I don't know enough about the local governments to pick sides, but I would imagine some sort of brand new structure would have to be put in place. Or as robrimmie suggests, maybe the more natural thing would be that the [b]Region would just be expanded to become the new city by taking on bits and pieces of the former cities.[/b[

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote: That's my take on why it won't happen.

(03-27-2019, 03:02 PM)jeffster Wrote: 6) Ownerships (Kitchener Utilities, Kitchener Rangers, Kitchener City Hall) Waterloo, owns nothing of significant importance like this. The U of Waterloo remains U of Waterloo no matter the outcome.
7) Festivals & Special Events -- Kitchener has way more going for this than Waterloo. Bluesfest, Rib and Beer Fest, Multicultural Festival, Cruising on King, Christkindl Market, etc. I think Waterloo has the Jazz Fest, Comedy Fest and Buskers, but Kitchener does have more going on, especially the summer.
8) Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The place is historically significant, and very busy, not just with the Rangers, but with concerts (Waterloo really has nothing), and Shows (RV Show, Home and Garden Show, Wine and Food Show, etc). Not that the name could be changed though.