McMaster Innovation Park | ? | various | Construction

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by the dude

what about that site west of longwood? i thought there were plans for wal-mart to move in.

No, McMaster bought that section of land as well. The current tenant has a lease until 2011ish or something like that. After that demo time.



I'm not aware of any Wal-Mart proposal in the West end. There's plenty of Wal-Mart proposals in the East end though.

[the dude]

^that's sexy. me want that.

[geoff's two cents]

Perhaps this is the sort of development that gives birth to nihilistic squelcherism? As awful as it sounds, if they build a big-box retail centre here, I will probably stop caring (and start making plans to move elsewhere). I sincerely hope that no big-box development goes in here. The close proximity to one of the city's nicest neighborhoods alone would be a disaster - Retail development for this part of town should, in my opinion, be focused along Dundurn and Locke - A large, street-front grocery store (yes, they do exist) is just what this neighborhood needs. A large parking lot/big box thing at the periphery of the area, on the other hand, where people would have to drive, and along a road which already has a tiny sidewalk and horrible air quality, would be a terrible for the community.

It would also do nothing for Innovation Park. I seem to remember rumors (on raisethehammer, if I recall) to the effect that there might be LRT going from Westdale along Longwood, and then along Aberdeen. A large university/business/research facility with street-front cafes, a hotel, etc. would be a fantastic neighborhood anchor. Giant, awful-looking, warehouse retail (I can't say it enough) is a terrible idea for this area. I can only picture residential land values plummeting. Why don't they just demolish all the houses along Aberdeen and build a Walmart there? While they're at it, they could stick a Canadian Tire beside Dundurn Castle or an Office Depot in Westdale? Hell, they should just pave the main quad at McMaster. A Michaels would be just the thing along the waterfront. Why not a used car lot? Hey, with everybody driving everywhere, we're going to need someplace to put our vehicles when we're done with them. . . . Honestly, law or no law, doesn't somebody wield some sort of veto over these types of decisions? Perhaps concerned residents could stage some sort of protest? Perhaps with a little effort we could "discover" an endangered snow owl breeding ground?

Anybody here ever seen how haphazard the McMaster main campus is (with a parking lot on the other side of Cootes Drive, a very random road/path system, and an ugly west side)? Isn't that enough incentive for the city to get this one right?

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by adam

Ok that makes sense. The article says prestige business park - wasn't sure what that was... I guess it translates to big box stores?

I think the reference is regarding the original zoning change... So it used to be (I belive) K zoning which is essentially "anything but residential". Then the city invented a new zoning that was specifically for the innovation lands. This allwed limtied retail but required a certain amount of high grade office space above any retail. I believe it also disallows single-storey development. So his quote (pasted below) is I htink regarding the city's original planing changes, not the new changes proposed by Trinity.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

City planner Al Fletcher said the planning changes to the entire site aim to support the development of a prestige business park.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I personally love this retail development, way better improvement than SmartCentres, but I agree it's in the wrong area.

Be careful here because Trinity conveniently changed their plan right before the public meeting. Details about their original site plan can be found here:
http://hammerboard.ca/viewtopic.php?...102&p=496#p496
Take a look at the second animation near the bottom of the first post.

What Trinity is actually fighting for is a reversion of the land in question back to its original zoning, or to a standard retail zoning.

The problem is that if they get their way, they are not required to build the lightly more dense version of their plan. They could plop any retail development down. The reality is that Trinity is really good at big box development and not much else. If they really want to "invest" in that area, and put retail in, then they can do it without all of this OMB crap by simply following the zoning rules and putting offices above their retail. But they can't do that because they have no experience with it.

Mark my words, if they get the rezoning approved we will not see anything like their current proposal unless there is some sort of caveat built into the arrangement that requires them to build a human scale project.

Originally Posted by adam

The document above has an interesting slide that states
"Diminished benefit to the community if it is a ghost town after 5pm."

Any comments on this point? Would you rather the area lie dormant for the next 10 years?

Yes. If we let big box retail in, it will be in for good. This means that a successful MIP will not be able to draw further employment to the area because the land will be gone. For once in this city's life, we actually have a zoning law that makes sense. One that is looking forward to future development opportunities. I will be sick if we trade that in for instant gratification in the way of Canadian Tire.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

...I sincerely hope that no big-box development goes in here...A large parking lot/big box thing at the periphery of the area, on the other hand, where people would have to drive, and along a road which already has a tiny sidewalk and horrible air quality, would be a terrible for the community...It would also do nothing for Innovation Park...

Right on!

[fastcarsfreedom]

This series of posts is indictive of the hysteria and mania that surrounds so-called "supporters" of Hamilton and their irrational fears of retail development. No one has even laid their eyes upon a final proposal from Trinity, and Walmart has never, I repeat myself NEVER been part of this proposal--the mere mention of Walmart's name here is nothing more than a ploy to drum up opposition to this project. I think there is a definite case to be made for limited retail/restaurant/commercial development in this area making the entire Innovation District project more attractive to potential tenants/employers/investors. Trinity may well come to the table with a proposal that is attractive and adds value to this district and is "innovative" in its approach to retail development.

Instead we get another round of the city attempting to use the OMB as a tool to deny property rights to a landowner--a landowner which has thusfar shown a committment to investing in the City of Hamilton. It's common for everyone to pile on EcDev around here--but how effectively can EcDev do their job when another branch of the same City government is putting potential investors through the legal ringer.

To suggest Trinity is somehow "unable" to execute non-retail development is nothing more than an unfounded assumption.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

This series of posts is indictive of the hysteria and mania that surrounds so-called "supporters" of Hamilton and their irrational fears of retail development.

On one hand, fastcarsfreedom, I hope you're right, and that Trinity comes forward with something other than a standard, big-box format (because personally, it's difficult for me to picture it working out any other way). On the other, I think some of what you call "hysteria" is warranted. Downtown businesses have by and large suffered for some time now, while the malls and plazas on the outskirts are thriving.

Nor, I think, is this anything to sneeze at. A city's reputation is generally contingent on that of its downtown, and Hamilton's downtown has some distance to go. I've yet to meet a Hamilton tourist. Unfortunately, those who, like myself, think of the downtown as something better than a dump, are generally those who have been here for some time and are willing to make the effort. Not exactly a good draw for out-of-towners.

Yet, there's so much potential here. If "supporters" of Hamilton's downtown get "hysterical" every time big-box development is mentioned, it's because this city seems like it's at some kind of turning point (LRT, Innovation Park, a pleasant waterfront), and I, for one, do not want to see it turn into a one-step-forward, two-steps-back scenario. Unlike the GTA, Hamilton is not just a suburb of Toronto, and has an opportunity to carve out a distinctive identity for itself as a place that does not just attract commuters who cannot afford a Toronto apartment, or draw people who would be happy with the same generic, suburban lifestyle anywhere in North America, or - more likely - repulse people who think of it as a "dirty" city (again, a common opinion among those not willing to make the effort).

If what you call "hysteria" does anything to keep a council member or two from committing to something that will outrage a significant part of the voting electorate, to keep them on their toes, and to remind them that they're accountable to someone (they pay more attention to sites like raisethehammer than many realize), I don't think it's a bad thing.

Have you seen the number of parking lots downtown? The five-lane one-way streets? The "adult entertainment" lining the main shopping district?

Conversely, fastcarsfreedom, if you've managed to take a walk down Locke (which has a ways to go, but is thriving) or through the Aberdeen/Markland neighborhood lately, or seen how James S. is still struggling (and yet growth seems just around the corner), you will likely understand the "hysteria." Unfortunately, bad rumors often come true in this city, and we don't want to see a great neighborhood go down the toilet.

"Investment" at any cost will likely not do Hamilton any favors (perhaps a developer could just raze the downtown and build a mine?), but properly-channeled investment could go some way towards ensuring a much healthier, wealthier city down the road.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

This series of posts is indictive of the hysteria and mania that surrounds so-called "supporters" of Hamilton and their irrational fears of retail development.

Absolutely wrong. This series of posts is indicative of the rational fears of the absolutely inappropriate scale of retail development Trinity has proposed for this site.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

No one has even laid their eyes upon a final proposal from Trinity, and Walmart has never, I repeat myself NEVER been part of this proposal

True, but the type of retail and zoning Trinity is looking for is big-box style, of which Walmart is the flagship example. So, literally there might not be a walmart. But figuratively, walmart-style retail development is what Trinity has generally built and is hoping to build here.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

I think there is a definite case to be made for limited retail/restaurant/commercial development in this area making the entire Innovation District project more attractive to potential tenants/employers/investors.

Of course there is. Which is why the city has allowed for retail/restaurant/commercial in the innovation zoning as long as the developer follows the rules: simply put, there is a limit on the size of any individual store, and each retail/restaurant building must have office space above it. It's not a complicated nor an irrational requirement.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Trinity may well come to the table with a proposal that is attractive and adds value to this district and is "innovative" in its approach to retail development.

I am sorry but this is wishful thinking. If they intend to propose something of this sort, they've had lots of time to do so, but instead they've decided to pay lawyers to fight for a zoning change to let them do whatever they feel like instead. The zoning was in place before Trinity was ever involved.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Instead we get another round of the city attempting to use the OMB as a tool to deny property rights to a landowner

WRONG! The city is being dragged to the OMB by the landowner (via Trinity), not the other way around!

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

a landowner which has thusfar shown a committment to investing in the City of Hamilton.

Are you talking about the actual landowner, or trinity developments?

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

To suggest Trinity is somehow "unable" to execute non-retail development is nothing more than an unfounded assumption.

This is pure naivete. The assumption about Trinity's development style is based squarely in reality:

Originally Posted by http://trinity-group.com/index.php?q=node/42

Properties Developed & Sold
Since 1991, Trinity Development Group has developed and sold 16 shopping centres in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta.

Location	Size
	
Ancaster	510,000 s.f.
Meadowlands Centre	
	
Aurora	140,000 s.f.
Home Depot Centre	
	
Brampton	110,000 s.f.
Wanless & Hwy 10	
	
Kingston	765,000 s.f.
RioCan Centre	
	
Oakville	110,000 s.f. 
RioCan Centre      	
	
Ottawa	500,000 s.f. 
South Keys	
	
Ottawa (Gloucester)   	50,000 s.f.
Innes Road Plaza 	
	
Ottawa (Gloucester)   	85,000 s.f.
St.Laurent & Cyrville 	
	
Ottawa (Orleans)	350,000 s.f.
Trinity Crossing	
	
Sudbury	710,000 s.f.
RioCan Centre

Please pick one of those and show me an attractive development that is scaled appropriately to this site...

Large scale retail is NOT economic development. It is a drain on local economies. Money from local shoppers gets distributed locally only as minimum wage jobs - the rest goes to the parent company which is usually in another country. The city for once has done the right thing as far as zoning and planning ahead for true economic development. We can't let it get tossed away like this.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

On one hand, fastcarsfreedom, I hope you're right, and that Trinity comes forward with something other than a standard, big-box format (because personally, it's difficult for me to picture it working out any other way).

Trinty's proposal is a big improvement as really all I can see is maybe 2 or 3 big boxes well the rest are either 2 storey buildings (counted around 5 of these), a strip mall or restaurants. Their lastest proposal is an improvement over the first proposal. It indicates Trinity is willing to work with the city, even willing to pay for the Frid St extension.

But again I agree this proposal shouldn't be allowed for MIP.

Either way this matter is completely up to OMB hands. I believe in Toronto SmartCentre won an OMB case to have a big box next to a film studio, or maybe it's still pending. I hope that isn't an indication.

[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. 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. You may note from my previous posts that my feelings on this project are mixed. Nonetheless, 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. 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. 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. The presumed success of IPark as an employment node is precisely what has made this site attractive to Trinity--and the reason there was a bidding 'war' of sorts for the land.

Anyone who is familiar with my posts will acknowledge my strong support and affection for downtown. Nonetheless, consumer dollars sealed the fate of downtown as a retail powerhouse--when both options were on the table the majority of affluent shoppers chose to shop elsewhere. 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.

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. Because there has been opposition to Walmart elsewhere (Toronto, Guelph, Burlington)--the hope here is that uttering the name will mobilize the community against this particular development. It is an utterly transparent tactic and completely discredits any valuable/tangible arguments that may underlay your opposition to this proposal.

[the dude]

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. Because there has been opposition to Walmart elsewhere (Toronto, Guelph, Burlington)--the hope here is that uttering the name will mobilize the community against this particular development. It is an utterly transparent tactic and completely discredits any valuable/tangible arguments that may underlay your opposition to this proposal.

get real. talk about dramatic...subterfuge, theatrics...are you having a laugh, man??

anyway, a friend of mine lives in that beddoe drive survey and he mentioned they'd been told something about wal-mart. my sincerest apologies for the error. besides, it doesn't matter what sort of big box retail's planned - same sh*t.

oh, and please don't call me flaccid.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by the dude

besides, it doesn't matter what sort of big box retail's planned - same sh*t.

Agreed!

[BCTed]

Test post.

[raisethehammer]

Fastcars, with all due respect, I have little time for someone who has already moved away from our region trying to tell us how great this will be for the economy.
It's not just "a retail development".
It's a waste of prime employment lands, something that our city has desperately needed for decades. High tech, research, high paying jobs in the middle of the city. We need this entire landlocked area to be used properly.
Garbage retail (regardless of the tenants) can go anywhere. The day will come when they'll mothball their big boxes and leave brownfields everywhere. Then we'll really look stupid for passing by research firms and real jobs in order to let some non-Hamilton company make a ton of money off of us while offering virtually nothing to the economy or health in the city.
In fact, it can easily be argued that this box stuff has a negative impact, not a positive one.
It's flat out wrong no matter how you slice it.

[coalminecanary]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

The presumed success of IPark as an employment node is precisely what has made this site attractive to Trinity--and the reason there was a bidding 'war' of sorts for the land.

Bull. If Trinity has their way, the Innovation Park will not succeed because it will not exist. That's why the city and citizens groups and individuals like the people on this board are opposing this so vociferously. We finally have a chance to do something in this city that will attract high-quality employment, and you want us to throw it away on more big box shite? I try to listen to your point of view respectfully, fastcars, but you are WAY off base on this one. I know you just see this as the usual anti-sprawl narrative, but that's not the case this time. There is way more at stake here, and since I live in one of the communities that will be very directly impacted by this 'development', I resent you telling us that we have to roll over and let some developer who doesn't give a shit, do whatever they want, and destroy any chance of benefitting from the Innovation Park in the process.

[fastcarsfreedom]

First of all, I am not the one doing the extrapolation here. I have never fully supported this proposal and I have always supported the IPark as being primarily high-tech/research-oriented employment lands. In reading my previous posts you have apparently come to the conclusion that I feel IPark ought to be abandoned in favor of retail, when I have not in fact said so.

I have looked at the links provided to me--the impression I get is that these are of the older proposal--am I wrong? Trinity does not appear to have any reference to this development on their website--and from what I glean from the McHattie site and the Spectator article, the proposal was completely altered--and at least according to the newspaper contained 100,000 square feet of office space and around 250,000 square feet of retail. What I support is property rights--I don't want to see a flat "power center" type development on these lands--but I'm willing to entertain the concept of mixed-use--which it appears is what Trinity is proposing. They have shown a willingness to be flexible and alter their proposal--despite their pedigree as a primarily retail developer. I do in fact believe that some development in the IPark area of this type would actually enhance IPark's ability to attract tenants--because, all of your personal feelings aside--amenities such as these actually make the district more attractive to employers--even if it is an afront to your own sensibilities and beliefs.

Quote
Fastcars, with all due respect, I have little time for someone who has already moved away from our region trying to tell us how great this will be for the economy.

I have consistently taken time out of my days to come here and weigh in on these subjects because I happen to care about what happens in Hamilton--the city in which I was born and the region in which I was raised. As someone who's family still resides in (and pays taxes to) the city in question, I remain a stakeholder--albeit one separated by geographic distance. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on the issue of where I live and how that does or doesn't have any bearing on my right to opine here. I assume that this particular card is played on occassion because I represent a sometimes "dissenting" voice -- I wonder if my residential choices would even factor in the equation if I were to come here and be enraptured with majority voice?

I also don't comment on the personal flaccidness of individuals here. The argument is flaccid--your personal situation is your business.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

I have looked at the links provided to me--the impression I get is that these are of the older proposal--am I wrong?

Yes, as I have tried to indicate in previous post. More buildings and less parking with the Frid St extension.



About 5 of the buildings are more than 1 storey - retail/office.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Trinity does not appear to have any reference to this development on their website--and from what I glean from the McHattie site and the Spectator article, the proposal was completely altered--and at least according to the newspaper contained 100,000 square feet of office space and around 250,000 square feet of retail.

Here is the proposal straight from the trinity website:
http://www.trinity-group.com/index.php?q=node/391

At the community meeting - which was held in almost emergency fashion due to the growing anger of residents - Trinity had some different pictures than the ones on their website - less parking and a few 2nd floor office areas. I do want to stress that what they are fighting for is a complete zoning change, meaning if they win, they will be free to put whatever retail they want there.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I just wouldn't trust Trinity to depart very far from what they know - as you say, "flat'' retail (good term BTW).

So while they did have the willingness to be (very slightly) flexible, all we have really seen from them so far is a single picture of a new layout with less parking. Meanwhile, their website still shows the original proposal (4 months later) and still shows the proposed anchor tenant, which presumably they have already courted - and used the old proposal as courtship material. I would not be surprised if they still want to go ahead as originally planned pending the zoning change. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt yet. If they show us some drawings, renderings, or some sort of interest in honouring the spirit of the innovation lands, then I could be convinced to change my mind about their intentions - but one picture of a different layout could easily be thrown together in a day and used to placate the angry residents. I'm not saying definitively that this is what they did, but I'm not ruling it out either.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

What I support is property rights

Man - we all support that - but just like you can't buy a building downtown and raze it for parking; just like I can't turn my house into an automotive garage; just like you can't put some walls up inside a factory and rent out apartments, you can't simply buy land that is zoned for one thing and use it for another. Trinity can go ahead and find a piece of land that's zoned for big box and put big box down. Otherwise they had better have a damned good reason for the city to completely alter their innovation lands plan. If your neighbour wanted to open a speedway on his property, I assume you'd be thrilled to see the city upholding its zoning bylaws. They are there for a reason, and for once they are being enforced. I admit that I do not agree with a lot of the zoning bylaws in the city (especially arcane parking requirements), but the laws have all been put in place for specific reasons over the years. The newer laws are more applicable to today's realities. The old ones are slowly being rewritten. This innovation lands bylaw is new, and is quite good - being specific but not overly limiting. It makes me sick that the city is getting bitten by Trinity for doing something right, I just hope this doesn't make them timid about writing decent zoning in the future.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

...I'm willing to entertain the concept of mixed-use--which it appears is what Trinity is proposing. They have shown a willingness to be flexible and alter their proposal--despite their pedigree as a primarily retail developer.

But they aren't! As I said, the current zoning allows for retail - but only as mixed use: limited individual store size and required non-retail above all retail. The current zoning is all about mixed use, while ensuring that a reasonable amount of office space is built at the same time. If Trinity was so willing to be flexible, then they'd simply put offices above all of the retail they want to build. But instead, they are calling in the lawyers and trying to get the rules changed.

I agree that there needs to be a mix of retail, commercial, office space, services, etc in that area. But what we absolutely do not need is a grocery store the size of the main west fortinos on that site. If they want to build something with a footprint like that, they'd better get to the drawing board and put a nice office complex above it, otherwise it's a short term vision and a waste of prime employment land.

I'm not sure what the point is of repeating myself anymore since it's clear that your mind has been made up - hopefully some readers can see my points about why we need to hold on to this zoning with tight fists.

The right tenants are worth waiting for, and in a rare glimpse of forward-thinking mentality, it appears the city is willing to wait rather than go for the quick "fix". I fully support their position.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

So while they did have the willingness to be (very slightly) flexible, all we have really seen from them so far is a single picture of a new layout with less parking. Meanwhile, their website still shows the original proposal (4 months later) and still shows the proposed anchor tenant, which presumably they have already courted - and used the old proposal as courtship material. I would not be surprised if they still want to go ahead as originally planned pending the zoning change. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt yet. If they show us some drawings, renderings, or some sort of interest in honouring the spirit of the innovation lands, then I could be convinced to change my mind about their intentions - but one picture of a different layout could easily be thrown together in a day and used to placate the angry residents. I'm not saying definitively that this is what they did, but I'm not ruling it out either.

Since this is an OMB case and Trinity is showing them their current proposal they'll have to stick with it. If the OMB rules on Trinity's side the OMB will lay a bunch of guidelines forcing them to stick to the plan. Trinity won't be allowed to change the layout once the OMB has put down a bunch of rules. If Trinity does violate any of OMB guidelines they'll get a heavy fine and likely head to a provincial court.

This is what happened with OMB and Setting Sails, the OMB laid down guidelines where drive thru will be allowed and aren't allowed in the North End.

[fastcarsfreedom]

My interpretation of the current zoning is not that it allows retail with offices as above, as has been suggested. The current zoning merely allows for some retail function on the lower floors of buildings--allowing a coffee shop or kiosk or a print shop to locate in the lobby of an office building.

My understanding is that a Fortinos with offices above it would not be allowable under the zoning implemented by the city. It would also appear that the proposal on Trinity's website is no longer linked to directly from their homepage.