Comment 2360

By (anonymous) | Posted November 26, 2006 at 20:15:14

Portland Oregon did it, why can't Hamilton?

But be careful with what the developocrats call infill. It often involves ripping down neighbourhood schools, selling off public land at bargain prices and building houses on greenspaces long considered park space, even though it was not "officially" designated as such.

Mixed infill (maximum 3 story buildings) must take place on the brownfields and neglected properties of the lower city before another survey on upper city schoolyard/parkland/greenspace space is granted. Some of the lower city space muct be reclaimed as park space and public squares or "piazzas".

Downtown/waterfront Toronto is NOT a model to aspire to here in reclaiming Hamilton's seminal urban spaces. European cities have long found the formula for human-scale, livable cities. Why pursue the failed US car-centered urban space any longer?

Take a trip out Rymal Road and Mud Street. See the sickening destruction of farmland to throw up crackerbox McMonster homes that will only remain affordable as long as interest rates and gasoline prices stay at current artificially low levels.

The City is broke because of Larry's Folly (aka the Red Hill Debacle). Funny how the amount for building Larry's Folly exactly matches what we are told the cumulative tax shortfall is. Selling off our public resources and spaces at bargain prices so developers can build sprawl is false economy. Each sprawl house costs Hamilton taxpayers more in infrastructure overloading/expansion requirements than those properties could ever generate in taxes or real economic "growth". There is not enough public land to sell off within the city limits, or taxes to be raised from sprawl housing to pay for the Red Hill idiocy.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds