Comment 33460

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted September 14, 2009 at 14:04:25

"The bottom line is, despite tangents, we need to ask if this is a good investment IN THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY."

Agreed, which is why I suggested that opponents do a better job of divorcing this issue from the tennants and provide a solid argument to people like me who don't yet understand why it's a poor use of the building.

For someone like me, who lives down the street from the Connaught and walks by it every day on the way to work, there's nothing that better exemplifies the decay of the city's core than a beautiful but empty building in a PRIME location. So when I hear "Development of Connaught" all I think is "YES! It can't possibly be worse than what's there now! More people downtown = better!"

But I'd like to fancy myself a reasonable man who can be convinced otherwise, so it'd be helpful if someone gave me the boilerplate, "for public consumption" argument as to why the Connaught development is the WRONG decision, ideally without referencing its proposed tennants.

In the absence of a solid financial/preservationist/whatever argument against subsidized units downtown, it really just sounds like NIMBYism has finally infected what I figured was the last refuge of progressive Hamilton urbanists...

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds