Waterfront development
I'm not sure if the Telegraph Journal tries to make the Waterfront Development Partnership look bad, or if its my world view that is colouring what I see.
In the paper today there was an article about the Waterfront Development Partnership's work at St. Andrews Park. A local business owner, Margret Begner of Opera Bistro, suggests in the article that she was told that the park would be a green space, while the new plan has buildings blocking the view from her restaurant. While the buildings are currently having their foundations poored, Begner feels she and her co-owner husband Axel were not given notice of the change.
I think the plan of moving the Little Red School House and Barbour's General Store might make for an appealing park. Still the Waterfront Development Partnership manager's response to concerns being raised seems a little off. The manager is quoted as saying that they made a "very comprehensive attempt" to get feedback and suggested that the project benefits were greater than any ascetic costs. This makes sense, but this is the same organization that opposed the largest residential development proposed for the uptown in decades because it didn't fit in with the specific design of the waterfront development conceptual plan that has sat mainly dormant when it comes to private developments.
The way I read the local news I see that the Waterfront Development Partnership is for working to a specific unchanging plan when it comes to private developments (as was illustrated months ago when John Rocca's project was opposed by the group), while the plan is malleable and can be changed without consulting with some of the nearest neighbours when the ball is in the partnerships court.
PS. The partnership seems fine with the new design proposed by Rocca, but they still spoke against not too long ago, confusing many onlookers as well as city councilors.
In the paper today there was an article about the Waterfront Development Partnership's work at St. Andrews Park. A local business owner, Margret Begner of Opera Bistro, suggests in the article that she was told that the park would be a green space, while the new plan has buildings blocking the view from her restaurant. While the buildings are currently having their foundations poored, Begner feels she and her co-owner husband Axel were not given notice of the change.
I think the plan of moving the Little Red School House and Barbour's General Store might make for an appealing park. Still the Waterfront Development Partnership manager's response to concerns being raised seems a little off. The manager is quoted as saying that they made a "very comprehensive attempt" to get feedback and suggested that the project benefits were greater than any ascetic costs. This makes sense, but this is the same organization that opposed the largest residential development proposed for the uptown in decades because it didn't fit in with the specific design of the waterfront development conceptual plan that has sat mainly dormant when it comes to private developments.
The way I read the local news I see that the Waterfront Development Partnership is for working to a specific unchanging plan when it comes to private developments (as was illustrated months ago when John Rocca's project was opposed by the group), while the plan is malleable and can be changed without consulting with some of the nearest neighbours when the ball is in the partnerships court.
PS. The partnership seems fine with the new design proposed by Rocca, but they still spoke against not too long ago, confusing many onlookers as well as city councilors.
No comments:
Post a Comment