Comment 84666

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 11:19:26 in reply to Comment 84665

If you read the interviews Blanchard has given, it's clear that Blanchard's and his partners think that a condo will "probably not" end up being part of the final design.

They don't have a design, or even a proposal, at this point they have an idea that "something could be done there". That's it. Any rubbish about a condo is pie in the sky dreaming, and Blanchard and his partner know this. They have no plan, they don't know what will go there, he mentioned the condo and grocery stores, but does he have any real interest or financing? The answer to both is no, and he as much as says so himself.

I'm not opposed to condos in the core, and we have numerous empty lots which would be suitable for such condos and apartments, and are already sitting vacant. A 40 story condo tower (or even a 12 story one) is NOT the right thing for Gore Park in my opinion. There are many other places to increase density and put residents without tearing down part of the streetwall that gives Gore Park its character.

If he had a concrete proposal, financing, retail grocery store lined up, etc., and was applying for a demolition permit so they could start construction in the fall, I would be much more comflicted and perhaps, like you, I would feel that progress, tastefully done, should prevail. But at present he's proposing to do the same thing he did with the previous buildings he has demolished - nothing. Take a look beside the Landed Banking and Loan building to see what I mean. There is a reason we enacted a bylaw (I believe named after him) to prevent these kinds of demolitions without replacement plans, it's time we used them.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools