Comment 33584

By UrbanPlanner (anonymous) | Posted September 15, 2009 at 19:31:09

Though I bristled at some of the verbage used in this article I definitely agree with all of the positive raves.

Personally I have been preaching for years now against the concentration of any one land use in a "neighbourhood", be that low-income/social services, office use, commercial, residential, cultural, etc. Unfortunately, as noted in the article, the senior staff at City Hall don't seem to be terribly interested in what an actual vibrant neighbourhood is like.

As Dave knows, the City staff are more interested in being the traffic flying by on Cannon than doing something about it.

I am alternately torn with dismay at what a s#*t-hole this city is and bubbling with glee about how much potential there is for re-development. It has to be done right though, and that is what fuels my dismay as I am employed in the development industry and don't see it happening with the status quo.

I live, work and play downtown and cringe whenever I hear from my friends how gross/dangerous downtown is and that they are uncomfortable to even walk to my condo.

I am not fully aware of all of the details of the proposal, but if it is in fact a building of this magnitude for low-income housing, I would just like to give City staff a bus ticket to go look at Jamestown and Regent Park and then reconsider things.

Like most other posters on here, I'm not against social housing, very much the opposite, but as my original statement said, any high concentration of any one land use will negatively affect the living organism of a neighbourhood.

My vote is for Dave on Council :)

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds