Comment 46998

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 14:42:18

I posted the previous comments not because I endorse the site, but because far to often we distort the facts in these debates and I find it counter-productive. We tend to put everything in a box and ignore what's outside the box.
Another example is the WH site we've focused on 25 acres surrounding the old Rheem factory. When in fact this site sits below 2 bluffs to the east and west, one of the more interesting city parks to the south and a rail yard and waterfront north. One look from a satellite view shows 10's of acres of unused land. Who owns it? What prevents it from being developed?
How about the LaFarge properties on Windermere Road in the East-End. 30 plus acres at the most easterly point of the harbour. Backing onto the Windermere basin a shallow body of water fead by the Red Hill Creek. This property is the 1st thing visitors see when they take the Burlington St. off ramp (sand piles). Taxpayers are investing $700 million dollars in the water treatment plant that treats the sewage water before it enters the bay via the basin. The land is presently on the market. Shouldn't we be thinking about re-purposing these lands. Clean Water Technology comes to mind.
The one thing all these sites have in common is that they are considered 'brownfields, and we have a huge inventory of brownfields. That may seem overwhelming to some but to me those same brownfields are our future because most if not all of them have strategic locations for developement.
"Sorry for the rant, but 53 years in this city can do things to you."

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools