Regional council forgoes further spending on Kitchener bunker, opting for further consideration

Decommissioned in the early nineties and deemed to have “serious health and safety concerns”, the cold-war era bunker located on King Street East in Kitchener has become a point of contention for residents and councillors – and while regional staff had recommended immediate repairs to stop the space from degrading further, that request has been defeated. While those repairs were meant to provide more time for planning decisions on the uses of the bomb shelter, staff have instead been directed by council to follow through with their recommendation to explore “uses, associated design options and funding sources” for the site – on an accelerated timeline.

The matter was brought before the region’s special council on Tuesday – the subject of lively debate on the historical significance of the space, the value it could provide should it be repaired, and the sort of lessons to be learned from the context in which it was built. Staff estimates to have the space fully restored currently sit at just over $4 million dollars, while costs for demolition are believed to be around $475,000 due to “archaeological requirements”, as well as the decommissioning of the septic systems and fuel tanks installed in the space to support dignitaries that would have used the space for protection.

Speaking during that council meeting, Councillor Michael Harris had suggested that council move to demolish the structure, arguing that it has been occupied by “barely anyone in the Region” for the past 20 years. In recent history, the space had been leased out to the KW Rowing Club for boat storage from 2003 to 2018, though that group was asked to vacate the building until repairs were made following building condition assessments in 2017 and 2018. That club indicated that they’d be unable to pay for those repairs, and while staff say the region attempted to “address the issues concerning the repairs”, an agreeable solution was not reached, and the rowing club discontinued use of the space.

Councillor Harris argued that the space had become “too costly of an unused asset” in the region to have any more spending directed to it, drawing attention to the challenges created in adaptive reuse of the space due to it’s location and lack of parking options. While staff have suggested the bunker, if fully repaired, could act as a community art space, filming space, community event space or an area for Indigenous activities, Harris said that to spend “one more dime” than what’s needed would constitute an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

While both the recommendation to repair the space for $700,000 and that to explore potential uses and options were presented together, Councillor Tom Galloway suggested to Councillor Sean Strickland that the two be considered separately, as numerous councillors expressed discomfort with funding a repair effort without a clear indication of what the space could be used for. While staff had originally intended to present a report to council for consideration in six months, Strickland asked that staff accelerate that timeline to three months to avoid further degradation of the facility.

Councillor Strickland also raised his own concerns regarding the fallout shelter’s purpose, and his perceived notion that “nuclear mutually assured destruction” may be considered “yesterday’s problem” by some, as he said that capacity still exists today. Pointing to examples of nuclear arms tests in North Korea, and efforts between Russia and the U.S. to “decrease their nuclear arsenal monitoring system”, Strickland maintained that residents should remain “hyper vigilant”, as he expressed his support both for the immediate repairs and the continued exploration of uses for the bunker.

“My vision for this facility is an interpretive reuse (…) to educate young people – put this issue on the radar so that people understand what risk we still have as a human race,” said Strickland. “… it’s critically important to educate our community and citizens on the risk of mutually assured destruction. It’s a real risk. We don’t talk about it anymore, but it’s a real risk.”