Raise the Hammer

Between a rock and a hard place....well I see two options for this one. Either deny it, but make another piece of land nearby available to the developer for a steal (such as the Augusta Firehouse) or allow it, but demand the developer finance a new park in the area or keep the majority of the parkland publicly open present and go with underground parking and limited surface guest parking.

Carter Park and Shamrock Park are both close, there also is a possibility of an upgrade for those parks to compensate the loss. The city also has the possibility of asking for a bit more so it could convert nearby land to Parkland.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-06-10 10:41:54

what's the big deal??? the park itself is still going to remain... and are residents really concerned about parking? this is a replacement of a building, not something entirely new. it will be just as it was (if not, very close to it). besides, who wants to make a bet that not 100% of the new condo owners will have a car?

my grandparents live across the street in the taller building at 130 st. joe's.... i've never had an issue finding parking on the street when i visit. what i have an issue with is looking at the big empty void on the north side of the street!

Not that big of a dilemma. They're only selling off the embankment at the edge of the park, all the rest of it will still be a park. Hard to see this as anything other than nimbyism -- or maybe nimpism (not in my park).

Agree. ditto to what the 2 above commenter's posted.

If they are just selling the embankment, then this is a non-issue. Build it, just don't encroach on the main area of the park itself.

Put the parking lot under the park.

The core cannot afford to give up greenspace. If you are going to infill and build vertically people still need somewhere to walk and sit. Downtown is already underserviced with parkland and greenspace especially Durand.

they are not giving up "any" greenspace... (its just an embankment) this will create virtually no change to the park - where people can still walk and sit just as they do now

What's going on with that lot at Catherine and Young? Looks like it's still sitting empty surrounded by concrete blocks, exactly the same as I remember it 15 years ago. Can't the city purchase that and add a park?

Hamilton has loads of wonderful park space. Hamilton does not have an loads of successful highrises and good developers. I say go for it.

The "best use" and "correct price" for these lands could be determined by returning them the space of voluntary exchange and un-coerced use;

A modest proposal:
Auction the lands in question (or much better the entire park) to the highest bidder, subject to the following conditions:

1) After sale the lands would be exempt from the zoning bylaw, and all other laws restricting land use, in perpetuity. The new owners would be free to use it for whatever purpose they wished. Should they sell some or all of the lands in the future this freedom of use would follow the sale.

2) The money received from the auction to be used only to reduce the municipal debt.

3) The budget of the Parks Department to be reduced by a proportionate amount based on the size and current operating costs of the park.

4) Insofar as the property tax rate of residents in the area is based on the proximity of the park their tax rate to be reduced by that amount.

5) Provide sufficient public notice of the auction for all bidders to come forward (say 6...9 months)

This last point is important, certainly if residents in the area, or the city as a whole for that matter, wanted to organize a private syndicate to bid on the park they would need time to organize themselves. I'd certainly be willing to pay a modest annual subscription for such a purpose in exchange for the tax reductions itemized above.

Seconded.

BTW, this might even bring about traffic calming measures at the St. Joseph lights (those additional 55 units may bring more than cyclists/pedestrians), which would be an additional bonus.

Hamilton does not have enough parks downtown. How big is Gore Park? How big is Durand park? How big is City Hall parkette? Not parks!!! Look at you average subdivision on a map, every one of them has a local park. If you want lots more highrises and condos downtown and a liveable core, then you have to have greenspace.

Why the heck should residents have to buy their own park back from the city, which already owns the park as public property owned by everyone. Sorry but this just shows how ridiculous libertarian economics is when you try to put it in practice.

If this is just the embankment, I can live with that. If it encroaches on the park at all, I've got a problem with it, and that coming from someone REALLY interested in seeing Molinaro begin to construct new highrises downtown.

Well Rufus, I know what it means to own the socks that I'm wearing right now, and I know what it means to say that my partners and I own our business, but I have no idea what it means to say that "public property [is] owned by everyone". can you explain that one to me please?

I remember when that retaining wall collapsed - it was a nightmare. Residents were thrown out and not allowed back to get their possessions, many of which got looted over the next few months as the building stood empty.

I really don't see any reasons to cut any of the developers in question any deals, especially those which encroach on public parkland. If this is coming from the same ownership (Sam Disanto), then we've got every reason to be sceptical.

Let's see the area involved - maps, photos, perhaps somebody could tape it out. When they say "embankment", what exactly do they mean?

Disanto didn't own the property when the when the collapse happened. The previous owner didn't pay taxes and the city auctioned the property off.

My main concern is if we the taxpayer got the best price in the auction, because if this park property was included in that auction perhaps the sale price could have been higher. Perhaps more than the $170,000.

Likewise, why should the city be "sole selling" this piece of property? If it's deemed "surplus" shouldn't it be sold in an open bid process?

Finally, the money from the sale of surplus land at a neighbourhood park should go back to that neighbourhood. Or at the very least an adjacent/adjoining neighbourhood. General Parkland Dedication typically benefits suburban neighbourhoods.

>> On the other hand, the diminishment of a well-used park may reduce the livability of the existing neighourhood. So what should we do?

Cut taxes.

Disanto didn't own the property when the when the collapse happened.

Thanks for clearing that up. That just didn't sound right, even by Hamilton standards.

I'd still like to know exactly what area's involved, though.

Who says that the topography of a park should be flat, by declaring the embankment surplus? The City's legal department's stamp is all over this one. We can't have children rolling down the embankment in the summer and of course we can't have them sliding down in the winter. Has the City violated its own policy for the sale of lands deemed surplus? Has it been listed on their site? Why not offer the developer a land swap for a surface parking lot where they can develop a larger project with more underground parking that could service the residents and other members of the public. This of course will not happen as the location is a very desirable one and all of the interests seem to have aligned, leaving the residents and the growing number of children on the bottom looking up!

Gary Santucci

Aside from Foster and Ferguson, this neighbourhood is exclusively high-rise, and probably has one of the highest population densities in the city. That wasn't always the case, though. I'm sure this was a battle waged when the Olympia arrived as well, and throughout the 60s as adjacent buildings eclipsed single-family homes. What does history tell us of those battles?

I believe that the retaining wall already encroaches on the embankment.... there was already a parking structure in place for the old tower. You can see a bit of the outline of it here, where it more or less matches the profile of the neighbouring tower: http://goo.gl/D7ej6

The impact will probably be most noticeable in terms of trees, which are reasonably thick on the embankment. Some sort of incursion is probably unavoidable if you're looking to almost quintuple the capacity of the building, and I'm sure that there will be restrictions placed on the park as construction begins, whatever comes of the embankment.

For what it's worth, a five-minute walk From Woolverton Park will get you to Shamrock Park or Corktown Park. Stand at King and James, meanwhile, and it's twice that to Beasley Park or three times that to Central Park; The Core Lofts are as far to Durand Park, Victoria Park or the HAAA Grounds.

Thistle Club/City Square, May 6 2009:

The city uses parkland fees to help pay for new parks. Even after the 2 1/2-year stimulus period, developers will pay less than the current cost for parkland on townhouses and high-density projects.

Planning staff recently recommended a permanent fee reduction that will save developers from $1,000 to $4,500 per unit.

The interim stimulus initiative, which is expected to be passed by council next week, will be even cheaper, charging only 5 per cent of the land value for large developments.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/83797--city-gives-developers-break-on-parkland-fees