2 new power centres for Hamilton!!!!

[DC83]

^^ I bet VIA would prefer Fifty/QEW as there are hectares upon hectares of available parking! But it's right next to the Grimsby VIA... I'm sure they'd get rid of it in a second.

And I'm not 100% against Centennial/QEW Walmart... however, I know there are a lot of other options for this site.
If the city builds adequate pedesrtian accesibility to this new centre, then it wouldn't be such a huge issue to me. However, the only way to access anything north of Barton on Centennial is by driving.
Create a walkway/bikeway from Barton to Confederation Park (with access to Home Deopt, the business ctr on the west side of the street incl Holiday Inn) and then I'll be a bit happier.

Re streetscape the entire stretch from King to Confederation Park with wide sidewalks, trees, art, furniture... and I'll be VERY happy! Not likely tho.

[fastcarsfreedom]

So the sky is falling, is it? The city is doomed because Wal*Mart wants to build two stores in Stoney Creek--one of which we've already known about for months. Seriously, all of you need to get a hold of yourselves and take a sober second look at this. As soon as I saw today's Spec article I absolutely knew I could come over to the Forum and find everyone having a field day with this--all despite the fact that the city administration you all detest so is doing quite an effective job at bureaucratic stonewalling on both projects. Do any of you realize how much breathless hyperbole you use about how the city is "dying" and how everything bad here always seems to go back to Bentonville, Arkansas. I've said it about developments in the past--it's really only the presence of W*M that gets anyone here bent out of shape. Do you realize how much your vision is clouded by Wal*Mart? Seems to me there is no Wal*Mart being built at 5&6--yet over months of debate suddenly the fact that the city paid to have the land serviced MUST mean that Wal*Mart is part of it. (Sorry folks, it's Zellers, Canadian Tire and Rona).

We are talking about two--count 'em, two sites. Releasing these two sites to retail development does not sink Hamilton's EcDev future. Retail and homebuilders are here because the area is desirable--it's a place people want to live--that is far from being a bad thing. All of Burlington's Service Road developments are mixed--retail/industrial/office--and while I'm on topic--this Forum is suddenly pro-Burlington? The retail component does not eliminate a single future use of those lands (although I doubt industrial development will return to the Centennial area).

As for business park development--I'm the first guy to call for more of it. The Ancaster and Clappison parks have both done well--and seeing more development on the highway corridors and in the Glanbrook parks is something that will benefit the entire region. The city needs to pursue these opportunities with far more vigor--but let's not forget, the highways JUST opened and some of the taxation challenges were JUST overcome--given time, there will be more interest. Of course, I'm sure the reception Maple Leaf got will put some pause out there in the business community--which takes me back to me previous statements--that the Hamilton area wants development--but only if it's done OUR way. Aerotropolis?...a great intermodal development opportunity that seemed to instantly unite the peak-oil crowd and the NIMBY crowd all at once. We get a canola oil plant and someone bitches that it smells odd.

Now, I've saved my real rant for the sudden turn this Forum has taken. Suddenly, an "urbanist" forum is talking about highway service road development and extoling the virtues of development in Burlington (what is that coloquial name you usually refer to it by?....hmmmmm). As frustrated as I often am with some of what I read here--you have--in the past, stuck to your guns and stayed on-point about the sort of future you want for Hamilton--now suddenly you are half on the other side--talking about the potential for development created by highways (as long as it's development done YOUR way)...I'm sorry to say it, but playing turncoat just to fight off Wal*Mart reallly harms your credibility--there are dozens of anti-W*M sites and forums out there--if that's the real purpose behind this discourse--perhaps your arguments are better taken there. I mean, I've heard nothing from this Forum but infill for the last two years, and now you're upset that they're building a Wal*Mart at Fifty Road? FIFTY ROAD, suddenly you acknowledge that there is life beyond Kenilworth Ave?

[markbarbera]

Oi! That's quite the rant! I think you need to review the comments here. There certainly hasn't been an overall anti-WalMart slant in the discussion.

For the record, I do not have any issue over what big box goes in at Centennial and QEW, be it WalMart, Zellers, COSTCO, it's really the fact that this spot could (and should) be developed more wisely than as a big box outlet. It is already zoned for industrial use and is a brownfield already serviced for industrial use. Placing a retail plaza of any kind at this location is a waste of prime industrial land easily accessible by a highway and two parkways (Centennial and Red Hill). The city should be making every effort to fill it as industrial, or at least mid-to-high density commercial space.

A big box outlet is a total waste here, especially with plans in the progress to convert Centre Mall to this format. The owners of Centre Mall must be thrilled by their potential investment being royally screwed by allowing a similar development in such close proximity.

As far as I can see, the city is performing due diligence here. It is in its best interest to attract higher-paying industrial employment to this city, not another pool of minimum wage part time jobs. The poverty rate in this city is high enough, thank you.

As far as Fifty Road development goes, a close look is necessary here as we are talking greenspace development requiring new service at a time when the city can't afford repairing existing infrastructure. Also, how does Places to Grow impact development of this area?

[chris k]

I think this lot at Centennial would be great for a building similar to the parkdale industrial mall inbetween barton and burlington st(not exactly sure where). It would fit perfectly as an entrance point from Toronto to the 'business park' and i think it would do very well judging by the location right beside the highway and on a busy street(to remain that way?) The most important feature of this would be perfect transition from the industry coming off the QEW to the big box stores on Centennial.

Well thats my two cents...

[raisethehammer]

I didn't read the above book from fastcars but saw a lot of 'W*M' splashed throughout.
my opposition has nothing to do with Walmart. It has everything to do with being lied to nonstop from the old bags at city hall.
billions of MY tax dollars being spent as a massive subsidy for the homebuilders and box store builders.
NOT for any real development that we're always promised. NOT for real jobs. NOT for a wise use of land. I hate all the highway development to begin with but I'm not stupid enough to want them to be mis-used once they're built. Highways are such a waste of money. The only possible saving grace is to line them with industry.
But in Hamilton we don't do that. We line them with homes and box stores and line the pockets of those developers while we're at it.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I gotta call you out on this RTH--I invest the time to read the arguments of others and not dismiss them out of hand. You quite fervently requested that "Pro Red Hill" people not sit this debate out--and I haven't. I took the time out of the afternoon to sit down and write what I feel is a well thought out response. Had you taken the time to read it you would see that I too called for more industrial/research development to go hand-in-hand with what's been propsed. Innovation Park along 403 is a great example, as are the Ancaster and Clappison Parks. I want to see more, believe me. The fact that you are so completely dismissive of my submission (again, made at your request) angers and disappoints me. Do your negative feelings toward Wal*Mart color your arguments--frankly, I think it does, but there was a helluva a lot more to my submission than that. The truth is, we want the same things for this city--prosperity, success and a brighter future, we just differ when it comes to the best path to take to achieve that. Many of your arguments have merit--but they are always peppered with accusations of THEM, THEY, THOSE PEOPLE, THE SUBURBS--all be damned.

What is most tiring is your firmly held belief that all of these development issues are Hamilton-specific. I'd be more than happy to send you some links illustrating the fact that all the same issues and arguments are happening where I currently live, and no matter where else you go in North America, someone is making the same arguments you and I are both making here today.

[raisethehammer]

hey fastcars...actually, I did go back later and read your post. Just didn't have time the last time I was online.
As far as your suggestion looking at more industrial research, I think that's what the city is currently doing in delaying these projects. I spoke with someone at city hall a couple of years ago and they told me that they were putting an end to the practice of coverting industrial land to other uses since we are so desperate for investment and job creation. that's all they are doing here too.
Hamilton's media stinks though and always makes it sound like city hall is just sitting back delaying a permit for no reason. That's not true in this case.
The fact is, we need more industrial development in Hamilton. I think you and I are asking for the same thing, but in a different way.
Sure, I'm no fan of highway development, but I at least want it to be done properly once the roads are built. Otherwise, all of us end up paying city debt for decades because we spent billions on highways and then didn't build anything worthwhile along them. Enough is enough.

I heard CHML earlier interview the developer who said they sent in a similar application in Barrie on the same date as this one in Hamilton and the Barrie one just got approved.
Well, great. Let's add Barrie to the list of fabulous, world class cities that Hamilton should model ourselves after. We've already got Borington and the hot town of Brantford to copy.
We're really setting our sights low, if you know what I mean.

City hall should really delay this thing now...teach this clown a lesson for going to the media and trying to skirt a very clearly explained piece of policy in the city right now - no industrially zoned land being converted.
I hope they stick with it too. We need industry more than 2 more walmarts.

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

City hall should really delay this thing now...teach this clown a lesson for going to the media and trying to skirt a very clearly explained piece of policy in the city right now - no industrially zoned land being converted.
I hope they stick with it too. We need industry more than 2 more walmarts.

If this were to go to the OMB, hopefully the city would win. The 'Places to Grow' Act prohibits the conversion of employment lands into other uses. This is to prevent the spread of bedroom communities. The only issue I could see arising is if big-box retail falls under the category of 'employment lands'. Hopefully the province has fine-tuned that policy enough that the Wal Mart application can be refused.

[LikeHamilton]

You know that the Power Centre on Fifty Road is not being built for Hamilton? It is being built to service the fast growing Grimsby area.
If you remember the big fight that Loblaws went through to build their Superstore on the QEW. People fought it saying it would kill the business district in town and the other grocery stores in Grimsby. That went to the OMB and Loblaws won. This is direct competition with the Superstore and the people of Grimsby have no say in it.
Though this is a change where people will come to Hamilton to spend their money instead of people leaving the city to shop.

[fastcarsfreedom]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm certain that Centennial/QEW is a fait accompli, QEW/Fifty Road is probably another matter--my guess here is that retail will fall under "employment lands" (as it should)--but that's not to say there shouldnt be a continued emphasis on attracting other businesses to these areas. Mady is a solid developer--based here in Windsor--they've done various projects from big-box retail, to smaller scale retail on inner-city brownfields and downtown office-to-condo conversions as well as suburban business and office parks. OMB or no OMB, Mady is not going to roll over on the issue, I can assure you of that.

Now, let me tell you, I am no fan at all of the OMB--I think it's a completely counter-productive body--and that's coming from someone who's very pro-development. What utterly floors me is when private businesses go running to the OMB to avoid competition--the free market is the free market as far as I'm concerned, and businesses ought to compete as opposed to hiding behind bureaucracy. As for Loblaws-though I'm glad they won in Grimsby, my sympathy is limited--they themselves have run to the OMB many times--you may recall that there was once a ban on the Costco in Ancaster (nee Price Club) selling meat because Loblaws went running to the OMB in an effort to "protect" their property in Ancaster (Fortinos, nee Zehrs). Burlington squandered how much in the way of taxpayer dollars trying to fight off Wal*Mart? There is no doubt in my mind that this is "Grimbsy's" Wal*Mart--obviously Mady felt Hamilton would be the more favorable place to invest. Do I have sympathy that the people in Grimsby "have no say" in the matter of the Fifty Road Wal*Mart--ummm...I have none--this is a free market the last time I checked--development in Hamilton is Hamilton's business.

Again, pro-development on this end--whether it be retail, industrial, corporate--whatever--but Hamilton has to be willing to take development not solely on it's own terms. Maple Leaf is a perfect example of that.

As for Barrie--I suspect most would consider Barrie a prosperous city--albeit entirely different than Hamilton. Nonetheless, the same forces are at play in both cities--the geographic proximity to the GTA is not something that is going to go away--it's not something a moat or stone wall will solve--the truth is Hamilton is going to develop in a way that mostly reflects it's geography--that's unavoidable--it will not develop the way it would sitting out alone on a prairie somewhere. Time to embrace proximity as opposed to denying it exists.

[markbarbera]

The city should not change the zoning for the Centennial site to allow this big box development. I have given my reasons before, but to summarize:

1) The site is best suited for industrial use, given its proximity to QEW, Centennial and Red Hill Parkways. To change it to retail to accomodate a big box would be throwing away prime industrial space.

2) Hamilton cannot justify the infrastructure cost associated with new industrial zones such as aerotropolis if it removes this zoning from existing, serviced lands. THis is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

3) Hamilton needs to focus on bringing quality employment to the city. The kind of jobs associated with retail developments does not enrich the employment pool, while industry contributes to a better paid workforce. Changing the zone from industrial to allow retail forces down the potential wage earning level associated to the land in question. I was sad to see the missed opportunity with Maple Leaf Foods. As it turns out, the company ended up abandoning the meat processing segment of their business anyway, so in a way we dodged a bullet. Regardless, the opportunity was missed because the proposed site was perceived as unsuitable by nearby residents. Whether or not it would have negatively impacted the neighbourhood is a moot point now, but the Centennial site would have been far more suitable for this line of business.

4) How can the city justify another big box development in such close proximity to the Centre Mall redevelopment? What kind of message are we sending to the developers at this site - glad you're investing in the east end, and to show our gratitude we're going to let your tenant's main competitors set up shop in your backyard and totally f**k up your demographics.

fastcarsfreedom, please look at the bigger picture. I think your overzealous pro-retail-development bias is clouding your judgement here. Big Box stores have a significantly lower impact on the economic well-being of a city compared to the much more favourable impact of industrial development. Imagine if, in a rush for development, the old Camco site was rezoned to allow big box stores a couple of years back. The Innovation Park and all the benefits it will bring to Hamilton (research funds, well paid scientists, spin off industries) would have been lost to a neighbouring city, so to add a hundred minimum wage, part-time jobs to the city's employment base. Hamilton has made too many bad decisions in the past to allow this rezoning to go unchallenged. The city should be praised for being thorough in its review of the zoning requests, not scorned.

[SteelTown]

From SeanTrans, highlighted the land Wal-Mart wants at Centennial

[miketoronto]

Is Hamilton City Council serious about reviving downtown or not? If they are, then they will say no to these developments. When will they learn that they must put a stop to this sprawl?

Infact instead of allowing more power centres and malls, I would say Hamilton could go the other way and look at demalling the city This sounds really communist, but just think.

DEMALLING HAMILTON
-A structured multiyear plan to shift the focus of the city from the edges back to the centre. The plan will call for for the closure of all regional malls in Hamilton. Starting first with Centre Mall, followed by Eastgate Square, Limeridge Mall, and then Meadowlands.

retailers will be given locations in the core downtown area, and new retailers must open in the core, unless they are able to show that they can not find a suitable building and location in the core area, and need more room(i.e. Ikea).

^That does sound REALLY communist.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

From SeanTrans, highlighted the land Wal-Mart wants at Centennial

I just realized that big white box to the left of the highlighted area is Home Depot haha. A Wal-Mart in that area won't seem so foreign. The gap is the CN track, the track VIA uses, hmmm.

[raisethehammer]

not to take this conversation way off topic (by the way, great chat so far), but we don't have a free market economic system here. Not even close.
In a true free market, suburban sprawl and lowest possible density land-uses wouldn't exist.
The only reason they exist is (what some researchers have called) thanks to the largest social program in the history of western civilization - the government-built (read, taxpayer) infrastructure and insane zoning changes made over the years to support sprawl. No business person in their right mind, operating in a true free market would ever decide to buy a piece of land nowhere near anything, and then put single family homes on it with no amenites, no downtown, no shops, nothing. The only reason they're able to do that is because taxpayers are on the hook for trillions upon trillons of dollars worth of highways and roads snaking across the countryside.
In a true free market, we'd see more new development look like Westdale, or Ottawa St neighbourhood of Concession St - not full downtowns, but everything you need in walking distance, connected to the nearby big city with transit or short roadways.

My two cents for the night. not meaning to rant, it's just that this topic bugs me...we're closer to being a communist society than most people realize - the media does a great job of spinning this to sound like a 'free market' (because they're in on it along with big oil and big food and big auto etc...) -check out their largest advertisers.

[LikeHamilton]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

From SeanTrans, highlighted the land Wal-Mart wants at Centennial

The big white box at the top of the picture is the new Lowes store. I looks bigger than the Home Depot. Grand Opening Events from December 14 - 16, 2007

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

the media does a great job of spinning this to sound like a 'free market' (because they're in on it along with big oil and big food and big auto etc...) -check out their largest advertisers.

So the biggest media advertisers are big companies? Goodness me --- this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do not live in a free market. I have also heard that big pharma, big tech, and big retail are also big advertisers, which is even further proof that our market is anything but free.

And here I was thinking that CNN was sponsored by the Locke Street Bakery.

[HAMRetrofit]

De-malling is a ridiculous idea. Consumers will just leave the city to shop elsewhere ie. neighboring malls and power centers in Burlington, Oakville and Brantford. This will further deplete the city's tax base and lead to declines in real estate value.

The idea of urban development is to pack the city with as much amenities as possible not to begin discriminating and taking them away.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I'm generally not in favor of dismissing people's ideas here out-of-hand, but in the last several weeks miketoronto's posts have become increasingly bizarre. Mike, someone spiking your brew down at Coffee Time, or what?

Good post RTH, needless to say I couldn't disagree more--but that's more a political conversation than anything else. In short, I summarize, the business person who bought up the land that wasn't near anything to build houses did so because the land was cheap relative to the land in urban areas--once people were living on the cheap land--business followed--that's pretty much free-market economics. It's easy to forget that both the U.S. and Canada went through some serious population growth in the past 50 years--and the vast majority of urban areas (with a few notable exceptions) have not depopulated. When the Eisenhower administration bore the Interstate Highway program it was designed as an engine for economic prosperity--and clearly, if you look at business and commercial growth in the U.S. since the 1950s, it has followed those paths--so though the skeleton was certainly taxpayer funded infrastructure--the flesh has been private investment. Though one may find "big oil, big food, big auto" to be distasteful--they remain the pillars of North America's economy.

On a completed unrelated note--since it's been several months since I've been back in that neck o' the woods--I can't tell you how bloody disoriented I was looked at the aerial shot of the QEW/Centennial interchange--it took a good few seconds before the light went on and I realized why I was looking at two freeways...duh.