PUTTING THE COMMUNITY BACK INTO THE MEMORIAL CENTRE

A month ago, I made the mistake of allowing myself to be interviewed by Shelagh Rogers on "Sounds like Canada." The problem was that I waxed theoretical on the proposed monument to the "Draft Dodgers" who had sought refuge in B.C. The result was predictable. Friends and others challenged me on why I had said nothing about our local debate: the future of the Kingston Memorial Centre.

Their point is well taken. After all, my CBC interview made much of the fact that monuments are intended to nurture unity. They should be didactic devices expounding commonly held beliefs. They should stand as ideological exclamation marks punctuating our lived-in landscapes.

In reality, however, monuments are often question marks. Call it "the pigeon on the head phenomenon." So often the query, "Who is that, Daddy?" elicits the bored response, "No idea, dear!" Old monuments loose their significance as they survive beyond their original motivation. Space is slow, time is fast. Granite and marble ensure that images linger on while events race by them at ever accelerating speed.

And then monuments can be ambiguous sites of debate or even conflict. Think of the contestation surrounding the memorial to the events of 9/11 in New York, Louis Riel in Manitoba, or the "Alberta Five" on Parliament Hill. What becomes even more contentious is when the original role of a monument is called into question following regime-change: warehouses full of bronze and marble Queen Victorias, Marx/Engels/Stalins, and Saddham Husseins!

Some of these issues come to the fore in the consideration of the future of Kingston's Memorial Centre, complicated even further by arguments of urban politics and economics. But the central questions remain: what did the Memorial Centre mean to those who constructed it? What has it come to mean? What should its future role be in our community.

The matter of the "memorial" function has been addressed effectively in these pages by several writers such as Lt. Col. Bob Chamberlain (21 October 2004), Mike North and Linda Cameron (27 October 2004). Their point is well-taken: this is land consecrated to the memory of those who have served and, as such, should be protected and revered.

But my focus is directed to another word: "community." On 6 November 1944, exactly sixty years ago, the minutes of City Council record Council's unanimous approval of the third reading of By-Law No. 352 "providing for the Establishment, Development and Management of the Kingston Community Memorial Health and Recreation Centre." The rationale was clear: Council approved the issue of debentures to the amount of $100,000. Importantly, clause 2 stipulated that the $100,000 only be released following the raising of $250,000 by "public subscription." That's at least $2.25 million in 2004 dollars!

And they did it. On 6 October 1950, the building was unveiled in honour of those "Who Had Served and Died for Freedom's Sake in Defence of their Country in the Two World Wars." Significantly, it was also noted that the building had been made possible by "Gifts from Citizens, Organizations, Commercial and Benevolent of the Kingston Community," as well as from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. It was truly an exercise in public-private cooperation. Hence its name: The Kingston Community Memorial Centre.

On the occasion of the dedication, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Governor General of Canada, commented on the importance of the adjective, "community." Noting that earlier "heroic" war monuments had communicated the important message of bravery and sacrifice, he questioned whether or not they reflected the more prosaic intent of those who had died. Rhetorically, he voiced the wishes of the dead: "The sacrifice that we made was to give you an opportunity to make a happier home and a better life for those we died for." Viscount Alexander expressed his pride in the fact that Kingston's new facility would be "a lasting memorial to those brave sailors, soldiers, and airmen" and also that "the community centre be of ever growing benefit and pleasure to the good citizens of our fair city of Kingston."

Fifty years later, in October 2000, Dan Andrews noted that the Kingston Memorial Centre had "touched more people than any other city asset and deserves to be remembered for her 50 years of tireless service." True. But note the name used throughout all of the publicity marking the occasion: "The Memorial Centre." That important word "community" had gone. The word that reflected the original commemorative rationale, logistical support, and populist function had been dropped from the title.

Perhaps it's time to put it back. The intentions in 1944 were made clear in the preamble of By-Law 352: the construction of a Community Centre "for the purpose of providing proper facilities for recreation and sport and a forum for public gatherings." Clause 7 stipulated specific functions: an auditorium, grand-stand, swimming pool, children's playground and equipment, facilities for outdoor sports, and agricultural buildings and subsidiaries.

Of course, as a "living monument," perhaps the community needs of 2004 are not necessarily those of 1944. But are they so different? Certainly, the members of the Williamsville Residents' Association and Friends of the Memorial Centre argue that the 23.6 acres of recreational facilities, green-space, parkland and agricultural fairgrounds are public assets. They endorse the continued dedication of the site as a memorial to those who sacrificed their lives for Canada. They propose a focal point for the city and neighbourhood's varied community activities.

And they prompt me to ponder what role should this important site perform for the next fifty years. Perhaps the fairgrounds can go but, surely, whatever else is done must, as the Governor General put it in 1944, "be of ever growing benefit and pleasure to the good citizens of our fair city of Kingston." Is it the short-term fiscally responsible initiative of yet another residential development or shopping mall? Or should it be something that continues to serve as a "living memorial" in line with the progressive tenets of "smart growth" that are sensitive to the long term health and recreation of the Kingston community?


Brian S. Osborne, a member of the Kingston community