Comment 103795

By RobF (registered) | Posted August 07, 2014 at 16:52:33 in reply to Comment 103793

You're missing my point. All of what you've said is nice, but it doesn't change that you've made your argument for changing one-way thoroughfares about social and economic change ... Hamilton needs to join the creative city bandwagon. In a certain sense, I agree with the underlying need for certain changes and i certainly don't wish to keep Hamilton "crappy" so that housing remains affordable in it. It is a question of who benefits, how much, and by what mechanisms. You can bracket out housing affordability and say that has little to do with the question at hand, or at least for the moment, and that there are other tools to address it. To an extent I agree. Fixing our urban realm, land use policies, and so forth doesn't preclude us from addressing poverty and housing need. Yet, so much of your argument rests on the need to change the social class make-up of the lower city. At least that's how it reads to me. You can make the argument that everyone benefits, but that's basically a redux of new urbanist Andres Duany's essay "Three Cheers for Gentrification" (a trickle-down argument for urban revitalization par-excellence). You'll have to forgive me if that makes me uneasy.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds