Comment 110715

By John Neary (registered) | Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:51:03 in reply to Comment 110712

Hi Chris, thanks for that. Honest mistake on reading my comment.

I agree that we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I'd also prefer not to make the terrible (surface parking lots and sprawl development) the friend of the bad (a 22 story tower at the front of a lot with the podium behind?)

The Beume building across the street and the Templar Flats proposal on King William are excellent examples, in my mind, of how mid-rise and even low-rise buildings can achieve density in a downtown core. The BNA supports the proposal to provide no on-site parking at the Templar Flats. If all of the vacant space in our neighbourhood were developed with a similar form, we would be as dense as many large European cities.

The best way to encourage intensification in Beasley would be for the city to immediately sell all of its surface parking lots after rezoning them to prohibit surface parking and eliminate parking minimums. Mid-rise (or high-rise in deeper lots) mixed-use redevelopment would then be economically viable. Underground parking might be part of some builds but it would need to be able to sustain itself financially.

The Tivoli is, in my mind, the answer to the wrong question.

I'm not questioning your motives. I agree that we share the same goals. I suspect that we'd agree on our response to most development applications. (For example, I'm sure you'd support the BNA in its opposition to further expansion of the Hamilton General Hospital parking sprawl at Robert and Cathcart!)

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools