Comment 121146

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted April 07, 2017 at 16:02:50 in reply to Comment 121139

Assessment cannot be the only criterion for development.

That is not what I wanted to say, so let me be a little more clear. The population of Hamilton and the GTHA is steadily increasing. Those people have to go somewhere. The question is whether they will go to appropriate or inappropriate places.

The appropriate places for high-density growth and development are places such as next to GO train and LRT stations as well as existing downtown surface car parking lots.

The inappropriate places for such growth and development are urban sprawl or places currently occupied by buildings of a high heritage value. An example of the latter is the proposed destruction of pre-Confederation buildings at Gore Park.

This article is about an infill 100 meters away from a GO railway station. High density is the way to go for this property.

My concern is that if this property is developed by a public or non-profit entity, as the author advocates, is that political pressure will result in an inappropriately low density level.

This is not to say that I am an opponent of non-profit entities providing housing. I am a member of the Board of Directors and Corporate Treasurer for Micah House, a provider of housing for refugees. These positions are entirely unpaid, and I will add that the opinions expressed here are entirely my own.

My point is that I am not against non-profit entities providing housing. I am against public and non-profit housing in inappropriate areas where they are vulnerable to political pressure being brought to bear to result in inappropriately low density.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2017-04-07 16:03:22

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools