Comment 110832

By AChew (registered) | Posted April 01, 2015 at 19:00:44 in reply to Comment 110808

The CBC article stated the following:

"Allison Chewter, co-chair of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association's planning and development subcommittee, wanted a deferral too. The association believes the tower is incompatible with the neighbourhood, she said. It also doesn't like that the project adds more surface parking and doesn't include plans to incorporate the historic theatre."

I never said that the proposal included tearing down the theatre. I simply mentioned that in the plans submitted by the developer there seemed to be little information regarding the actually restoration of the theatre and as such we as a neighbourhood association had fears that it would be found structurally unstable and potentially be removed. Following the interview with CBC I spent over an hour talking to the architect and planning consultant getting more information about the project. When the article was released I noticed the lack of clarity and potential for confusion in the above section, which was paraphrased by the CBC, and was in again in contact with the architect, planner and developer to explain the context of my statements. I apologized and they accepted my apology.

I'm curious: have you read the City Planner's report? Or the applicant's Urban Design Brief? Planning Justification Report? Heritage Impact Assessment? Or the City's Peer Review of the proposal? Our objections and concerns are not based in ignorance but in the realities of the proposal, good planning practice, and our past experience with developers in Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools