In these debates, modernizers prioritized economic prosperity, technological innovation, and efficiency.
(13) In other words, the prominence of automobiles reflected their centrality in modernizers' thought, which pervaded city politics.
(27) While market proponents argued it infused the central city with a lively atmosphere, modernizers who sought to eliminate the market argued it violated a "respect for order, rationality, and wealth." (28) In all of these cases, those who worked, lived, and played in cities struggled to find ways to ensure the city centre could withstand suburban retail competition.
In Hamilton, it was the dual pressures of suburban sprawl and the automobile's burgeoning dominance that gave rise to modernizers' and traditionalists' duelling ideologies.
Modernizers did not rate the market's cultural and community value nearly as highly as traditionalists did; in a few extreme cases, members of this group argued the market had no value whatsoever because it was not an essential provider of food for the community.
Although by far the dominant group, modernizers did not go unchallenged in postwar Hamilton.
Where the market was concerned, traditionalists and modernizers were divided by two key issues.
(38) Market Clerk Alfred Smees, responsible for managing the market's day-to-day operations, was a traditionalist, but he appealed to modernizers dominating City Hall by warning the proposed regulations would result in significant financial losses.
This measure was significant, however, because it was a direct manifestation of modernizers' goals, prioritizing the accommodation of automobiles at the expense of the market.
Over the course of the decade, modernizers speculated about how much more the city could profit from the market site if the property was sold.
This operational atmosphere meant arguments over the market were framed in very different terms, derived from traditionalist and modernizers' interpretations of what type of economic policy governed the market, as well as the kind of economic policy that should govern the market.
As the battle between traditionalists and modernizers raged, one high-profile member of City Council complicated the situation and blurred the lines between these opposing ideologies.
(72) In failing to provide specific suggestions, Cline's vague stance resembled that of many conservative modernizers, who applauded urban development but also sought to preserve some historical urban features in a way that would be compatible with, not in stark and awkward contrast to, downtown's evolution.
