Revitalization

Petition Launches To 'Bring Residential not Commercial to Hamilton's West Harbour Barton-Tiffany Area'

By RTH Staff
Published August 06, 2012

In a followup to a comprehensive plan developed for the West Harbour neighbourhood, a petition has been launched that calls on Councillor Jason Farr to "Bring Residential not Commercial to Hamilton's West Harbour Barton-Tiffany Area".

The overview of the petition reads:

We must act before the potential for this prime piece of real estate in Hamilton is squandered. Let's build a vibrant neighbourhood, bringing people close to the water's edge and downtown instead of building low-quality commercial buildings!

To read the full text of the petition and to add your support, visit the petition site.

14 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By LOL (registered) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 00:16:01

Does this mean that High Quality Commercial would be acceptable?

The wording is full of emotional adjectives such as best and highest use, just what is highest use?

Just who are these "engaged citizens" and why should you or I or anyone else believe anything they have to say? Do they have any expertise? Are they financially invested in the outcome of these properties? Why are they against an urban design study of these lands? In my mind that is exactly what should be done by the city.

Personally I never liked the idea of a stadium at this location but I absolutely hate the way the city buckled and walked away from their plan at the last minute due to the pressure from the Tiger-Cats. Building a stadium there was not a good idea in my opinion but we elect a city council to do what they believe is best for the city. Spending millions to acquire the lands and then abandon the process at the last possible moment is absolutely ridiculous. A bad plan is still better than no plan. The city has a plan in place to study the best use for these lands and that is exactly what should be done. Not let another group dictate to the city what should and needs to be done. Is one group after another going to dictate to the city and the council what to do. This is why we have a council to do what is best for the city, at least in their opinion. In this process we have recourse if things go badly if only to kick their sorry ass off of council. If this shady group gets to decide what happens to these properties where is our recourse?

Maybe I can form a group with a bunch of my buddies and type up another petition. I think we could get a whole whack of signatures especially from people in Ancaster, Dundas, and Stoney Creek and convince council that the best possible use for this land is a parking lot, or better yet a Walmart.

If this group has any expertise in the area and are willing to reveal it I, for one, would be much more likely to at least consider their ideas.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 08:43:15

Where's the petition for mixed residential and commercial? I'll sign that one in a heartbeat.

Permalink | Context

By kdslote (registered) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 10:09:28 in reply to Comment 79592

If you read a little further, you'll see that this is the petition you're looking for:

"Commercial is not the best and highest use of these lands. The Setting Sail Secondary Plan study has determined the correct use for these lands, which should be the site of a mixed use, medium density residential neighbourhood between the downtown and the water’s edge."

Mixed use and medium denisity residential - the 'mixed use' part implies compatible uses other than residential such as institutional, commercial, retail, etc.

Comment edited by kdslote on 2012-08-07 10:10:12

Permalink | Context

By HamkyPanky (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 10:29:19 in reply to Comment 79594

They will get what the Development Mafia decides, just like all other areas of Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By For Reference (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 11:36:48

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=43.316127,-79.840355&spn=0.000002,0.000633&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=43.316127,-79.840355&panoid=kR-2IInHOWzLow7GtXO_EQ&cbp=12,145.12,,0,-3.22

This is not far away. Plains Rd Burlington and while it may not be the most creative development, it should be a great starting point.

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 14:19:31 in reply to Comment 79596

Yep, I agree, 100%. Dense, low-rise, mixed use. Perfect for this area. Throw in a couple fully detached homes for families, and we're looking good.

Comment edited by mrgrande on 2012-08-07 14:20:09

Permalink | Context

By LOL (registered) | Posted August 09, 2012 at 23:50:25 in reply to Comment 79597

Dense and low rise are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other but not both. Single family homes are as far from high density as you can get.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Miasma (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 15:20:30

Ah, petitions: The bulletproof shield against objectionable civic planning. Has worked a charm in every us-versus-them development standoff in the city's history, from York Boulevard to Civic Square to Red Hill Valley. Paperwork never goes out of style.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 15:30:26

Well I certainly think that this type of residential usage for the West Harbour fits in better than the atrocity of Toronto's waterfront with a stadium (Rogers Centre close by) and high rise condos there that have ruined the ambiance of what could have been a wonderful openness to the area rather than an enclosed concrete type of environment it developed into.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2012 at 18:49:17

-, you actually like Toronto's waterfront down there? Yikes, I'm no city planner but it's a disaster IMHO, one concrete jungle with 0 aesthetics.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By becareful (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2012 at 09:30:27

Will the people involved in starting this petition and the people who support and sign it be happy if they somehow win their battle but the housing is high end and out of reach of the "loud" citizens of Hamilton? I could get on board if high end townhomes and beautiful single family homes dot the waterfront. That would fit the criteria set out here and beautify the area. It could look like Burlington and Oakville and attract people looking for an upscale lifestyle. It would bring money to the city in a way that is meaningful and stimulating to the area. Imagine the upscale dining and retail that would follow. Why do Hamiltonians aim so low- lets go big and celebrate prosperity.

Permalink | Context

By norendr (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2012 at 15:49:01 in reply to Comment 79605

Low density high end single family homes?
Absolutely the wrong approach IMO.

The waterfront itself will ALL always be public.

Residential should be further back, tiered low mid and highrise and will appeal to downsizing retiring boomers who are the coming wave of downtowners, the coming real estate boom. Mixed use allows for all the commercial entertainment and retail services needed by residents and the rest of us public users.

I'd even like to see some artisan type manufacturing on the old Stelco site - metal, glass, wood, boats, etc - connected to Dundurn Castle too.

And lots of public park, splash pads, awesome playground and outdoor gyms for adults too.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 08, 2012 at 10:07:29 in reply to Comment 79605

I'm all for taking cues from Burlington's waterfront:

Burlington waterfront

It would be pretty pathetic if Burlington manages to build a taller, denser, more urban waterfront than the city of half a million to its immediate southwest.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mainstreet (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2012 at 08:39:52

this debate was held 17 yrs. ago at bennetto rec centre.the cost of moving the rail yard was pegged at 100 million,plus 90 million each for two new bridges to also be constructed as part of the move.CNR cannot be expropriated and are not interested in moving.Is this land worth 280 million(1995 price)?Is the city planning to enter into another joint public/private partnership?You know the type,-taxpayer dollars and risk and if profitable, that money naturally goes to the developer.Why are ALL the downtown developments tax dollar projects?Is it because Hamilton has no real investment oportunities due to our current council and staff?

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds