Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahump071
What I'm concerned about, which I believe has been raised by Coun. McKenney, is the plan for public amenities that comes with adding 3000 homes (if you add in the Claridge Booth Street development). We need a plan for all of those extra people, ie. schools, parks, gyms, grocery stores, etc. One of the articles I read on CBC compared it to an upcoming residential development in Stittsville where they're adding 800 new homes and those amenities were included in that proposal. 3000 compared to 800 and there is no current plan, other than the grocery store which I believe has been included at 900 Albert (and which is desperately needed in our neighbourhood). This is the real issue, not the height.
|
I agree 100% with your comments. While an urban area like this has many of the amenities already in place, this is a big influx of people and those considerations should be part of the planning. Fortunately the presence of completely vacant Lebreton/Bayview lands should make it easier in this case than it is with most large scale development like this. It is completely legitimate to keep the pressure on to ensure that the amenities do follow.
I should have been clear that the questions as to whether the community benefit being provided is sufficient, and whether the amount of parking included is too much are also legitimate. The complaints about the south side, less so. They seem to have done quite a nice job on the pedestrian amenities, and that is clearly the best side for loading docks etc. Either way, addressing those concerns involves relatively minor tweaks to the plan. They aren't reasons to demand that City Council refuse the application.
And the argument that the land is zoned for 30 storeys and that cannot change is nonsensical. I definitely know what I prefer between a short, blockey 30-storey building and the sleek 65-storey tower that is being proposed.