Amalgamation

[danbrotherston]

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...

[KingandWeber]

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.

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.

[urbd]

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?

I didn't shoot down your opinion, I mean I do think Sand Hills is a pretty terrible name that does not reflect this community, but if you like it it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I simply replied 'no no no no' to emphasize that I really don't think the name will be anything other than Waterloo - I just quoted your message because it was the last one to suggest a name, I could've quoted any of the others to express the same thought. Maybe Kitchener-Waterloo, but it will definitely include Waterloo in its name (IN MY OPINON), because I am aware of the big push that governments, companies and institutions are doing with the Waterloo name and brand outside of our local bubble. They will not throw everything out the window and the reputation Waterloo has nationally and internationally by renaming the amalgamated city something confusing and too different. Keep sharing your opinions and be happy, no need to get mad in an internet forum.

[urbd]

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...

I definitely agree with this. In an amalgamated scenario, all of the current cities will still exist as their identities and as parts of a bigger city. People will still say "I live in south Kitchener" for a long time. They could even make this official by keeping them as boroughs (or whatever would be the name here) like in NYC. Bigger than neighbourhoods or wards, but smaller than the amalgamated city.

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.

And I agree with you. Waterloo has the longest history of the names (Township of Waterloo - 1816, County of Waterloo - 1853).

[robdrimmie]

Isn't him saying "no no no no no" just him sharing his opinion?

[robdrimmie]

I just posted a reply from an iPad and it turned out like that. So that’s a recurring problem for two of us now.

[robdrimmie]

I think that saying “no” is an opinion. I think that saying “no no no no no” changes the tone to one that conveys more than just the thought that I am incorrect. And I do not think that tone is intended to convey respect.

[jeffster]

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.

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.

[robdrimmie]

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.

[KingandWeber]

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.

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 Region would just be expanded to become the new city by taking on bits and pieces of the former cities.

[jeffster]

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.

Yes, I understand that there are two entities although they're entirely different. I don't know enough of the regional government as I have had little exposure to it.

I don't believe that the governing entity would be formed from the City of Waterloo, nor the region for that matter, but certainly when it comes to staffing, you would get some merging from all 8 (the region, the 3 cities, and the 4 townships). The City of Waterloo part is the issue. Even if it was agreed that we'd follow the same ideals of Cambridge, Kitchener and the 4 townships, which are more similar to each other than Waterloo, it doesn't stop some of profound sh*t show from migrating over from Waterloo, as that's just the way they roll.

Perhaps it's an HR issue with Waterloo, I don't know. We know that in general politicians are fairly lazy when it comes to their work, and heavily rely on city staff to inform them in order for them to make informed decisions, it seems that in Waterloo staff is fairly lazy too (again, refer to RIM).

Again, though, I have no exposure from the regional portion, as staffing seems to be consistent, and same applies to Cambridge and the townships. But I do have a lot of exposer from people that once worked for Waterloo and had nothing positive to say about it. A few of them have worked with other cities (after leaving Waterloo), but ended up in Kitchener simply because of work location and/or promotability. One of the men had worked for Waterloo and left to work for Woolwich Township, and even then said the difference was like night a day, aside from lack of ability for advancement.

When you amalgamate, you certainly will get some of that staffing from each city and township, and sometimes attitudes start to permeate the rest of city hall. Would regional staff, for example, understand the importance of arena's, pools, parks, local utilities, etc? Yet they might be thrust into a position like that. You would also get changes in staffing in such areas that come from Waterloo, which I can guarantee none of the cities or townships would want to be any part of, along with the poor management style. And likely, they're not going to choose Cambridge, Kitchener and Township managers over Waterloo, it'll more likely be even.

[jeffster]

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[

That's the part that worries me.

But then again, in my opinion, it's not going to happen. If it does, it does. There will be pain, and I am sure there is going to be fighting among wards and a good chance that wards will team up against other wards. Kinda like the bastard creation that is known as Cambridge (and for those there, it's still Hespeler, Preston and Galt). Oh my, I put Galt last....Galt should have been first.

The fact that Cambridge was created before my time, I shouldn't even be familiar with the location of those cites/towns nor the names. Yet, here we are. We exist in a region where Bridgeport still exists, Freeport still exists, Blair still exists, not to mention Hespeler, Preston and Galt...I mean, Galt, Preston and Hespeler.

[jeffster]

Speaking of Freeport, that would have been a good name....just saying.

[ijmorlan]

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

I think a lot of what you are saying makes sense. And if amalgamation was up to the residents of the Region, I suspect amalgamation would not happen, more or less for the reasons you give. Unfortunately, the decision will be made arbitrarily by Doug Ford with zero consultation. In the event of amalgamation, the best we can hope for is that he won’t make the decision during the nomination period for the next municipal election.

[tvot]

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.

6. Doesn't Waterloo North Hydro count as something if Kitchener Utilities counts? Waterloo also has a city hall, but it's mediocre and I would definitely approve of Kitchener City Hall being the seat of local government if amalgamation happens.

7. Jazz Fest and Buskers are pretty big, not Blues Fest big, but respectable and definitely a draw to out-of-town visitors. Living in Uptown I'm actually amazed how much is going on in the summer, there is something in the public square every weekend and Waterloo Park multiple weekends a month (medieval festival, afro-canadian festival, other cultural groups).

8. There are regional, provincial, and national sporting events at RIM Park and the Waterloo Memorial Rec Complex, not really any concerts, but they are respectably busy. The Aud still wins.

FYI: I'm just addressing these points alone, not really in relation to how things would play out if amalgamation were in play.

As a life-long Waterloo resident who worked at a Kitchener community centre in high school, I agree that in general Kitchener seems to be the better run city on average, but I'm not sure how much that will have to do with anything the province actually does to us.