Comment 5299

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 10, 2007 at 12:20:09

In response to Concerned Observer's post, I should say that this article was more about what Hemson said at their presentation than what they wrote in their report.

They may have been slightly more diplomatic in their report, but under questioning it was clear that they had completely discounted brownfield redevelopment. In fact, the report does not allow for any job creation on brownfield lands (which is just as unrealistic as thinking that all job creation should occur on brownfields).

It was also clear from the presentation that the one industry Hemson was encourage Hamilton to pursue is logistics (which has a very low job density). No other industry was considered 'realistic' for Hamilton.

Hamilton needs to offer some greenfield land, but the question is why we should be re-zoning another 1000 ha when we have had vacant greenfield business park land for decades.

Finally, I was thinking of 'creative class' type businesses moving in downtown. There is a lot of urban 'greyfield' land (e.g. surface parking and one-storey stripmalls) that could be re-developed.

Thanks for all the comments.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds