Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
What is the size of the development Trinity has propsed? There is no where even close to the space on that property to erect something along the lines of Ancaster Meadowlands at 510,000 square feet - and some of the sites you've listed are downright tiny - at 50,000 and 85,000 square feet.
|
According to their site, the size is 397,000 sq ft. So it's not far off. It's also not only about the size. It's about the style. You said "To suggest Trinity is somehow "unable" to execute non-retail development is nothing more than an unfounded assumption." But if you visit their website, they say specifically that they build retail developments. And even the smaller ones are simply retail plazas. They do not develop mixed use facilities and it is proven by their track record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
Nonetheless, without an intimate knowledge of what Trinity is planning for THIS SITE--I really can't comment other than to say I'll wait to see what is proposed before I pass judgement.
|
If you took the time to go to my link (
http://hammerboard.ca/viewtopic.php?...102&p=496#p496) or to their website, you'd see their proposal. It is single-storey plaza style development with minimal lip service paid to "street life", more surface parking than retail space and no office space at all. Compare that to the MIP plan which, as you can see form the image below (also taken from the link above so you probably haven't seen it yet), is being developed with a true long term plan in mind which pushes all parking underground and maximizes the use of the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
I happen to be a strong believer in property rights--and though Trinity may have initiated this OMB process--it is the City which wishes for the OMB to be their blunt insturment in cases like this--and that has absolute, tangible reverbirations in the business and development community, make no mistake.
|
Talk about drama. Let's try to get this straight again. The city had zoned the entire area as "innovation district" which has special rules. THEN Trinity came in (after all of the hard work was done by the city and mcmaster to get the MIP off the ground) wanting to develop on this land. Trinity does not want to follow the zoning rules. The city said "you have to" and Trinity whined to the OMB. Furthermore, the OMB is known to have a bias toward businesses. The OMB is set up to allow companies and individuals to fight the city. It's not meant for municipalities to drag businessmen through the ringer. You have it backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
While the attempt is to have people envision a "Meadowlands-type" development smack in the middle of the IPark--the truth is that nothing of the sort has ever been proposed.
|
See above - the development plan is published on their website and that's exactly what they are proposing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
At most this development would consist of supermarket, a large drug store--and probably a collection of banks and restuarants to service the large number of employees who will be working in the area.
|
Yup. And all will be single storey and in separate buildings, with one or two major anchor tenants - like a giant grocery store and, say a Canadian Tire. Gee! That's exactly what their plan is! If this does not represent "big box retail" to you, I'd like to hear your definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
The types of businesses which are giving new life to downtown are not the types of places which will suffer if there's a Montana's on Frid Street.
|
Man, I think you are missing a major point here. It's not purely about the small business owners being choked. It's about a true long term vision for bringing in quality employers to the core of this city. You speak of supporting growth of downtown - well this is the future of downtown employment. REAL employment, not just minimum wage service industry jobs. By converting this land to retail, we are eliminating the possibility of future job growth in that area, and guess what - in 10 years we'll be whining that there's no "employment land" and we'll blow another hole in the farmland at the fringes, further hollowing out the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
More importantly, perhaps the main thrust of my post was somehow missed. This business of playing the Walmart card is pure theatrics. It is spin and subterfuge to the n-th degree and is nothing more than a flaccid attempt to win support for a particular point-of-view.
|
The theatrics are all yours. Wal Mart is often used as a metaphor for "big box retail". Whether it's wal mart, zellers, home depot, costco, warehouse style fortinos - that's beside the point. They are all cookie-cutter big box.
This has happened in a thread before - we were discussing the (minimal) pros and (many) cons of converting valuable employment lands in the east end to retail. Then someone mentioned wal mart and you flew off the handle about "anti-walmart sentiment". That's not what this is about. This is non-denominational distaste for plaza/big-box development on valuable employment land in high density areas. This is about waste of land. This has nothing to do with individual retailers.
And besides all of that, I never brought up walmart. So you can continue to respond to me as if I hadn't, and maybe the discussion can go somewhere productive.
Meanwhile, if the thrust of your post is to discuss the issue of bringing up wal mart's name in order to elicit responses, please go start up a "pro versus anti wal mart" thread and take that discussion over there because when you post that in conversations like these, it comes off as a smoke screen to divert attention from the real issue.
I think you may be surprised at the number of people on here who don't give a crap about wal mart in particular. It's not about wal mart now, and it rarely ever is. It's about smart land use, and planning for the future of this city.