Waterdown South to house 8,900 residents
 

Waterdown South to house 8,900 residents

By Dianne Cornish, FlamboroughReview.com

Waterdown residents got a preview Wednesday night of what to expect in upcoming residential growth. Details of the draft secondary plan for Waterdown South were unveiled for about 60 residents attending a public information meeting at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish Hall on Centre Road.
Waterdown South is a 180-hectare (444-acre) land mass bounded by Dundas Street East, Mountain Brow Road, Flanders Drive and Kerns Road. Within the next five to 10 years, it is destined to hold 3,500 dwelling units and 8,900 residents.

Paul Lowes, a planning consultant hired by the City of Hamilton, outlined the preferred plan, which includes a mixture of low-density and medium-density housing, a seniors’ lifestyle development between Evans and Kerns Road, a neighbourhood plaza on the south side of Dundas Street, three parks, and designated sites for public and Catholic elementary schools.

The plan also includes a four-lane arterial road, which runs north-south through the subdivision lands, exiting onto Dundas Street opposite Burke Street. The road is being proposed as a continuation of the Waterdown Road corridor which will branch off onto Mountain Brow Road before heading northerly on the arterial road on the west side of Waterdown South.

A collector road will serve as an east-west spine through the area.

Residents asked questions about increased traffic, patterns of road traffic, protection of natural heritage features, school accommodation pressures, bike paths and traffic signals.

A final version of the Secondary Plan is expected to be presented at a public meeting in September when it will come before Hamilton city council.

"mixture of low-density and medium density housing".
yea right.
We know what that means in Hamilton:

http://raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=917

I guess this and the new power centre up there are what we can expect for the Greenbelt? At least we'll have 8900 new residents, just in a poor location.

What i'll never understand is anyone WANTING to live in developments like this. Is life across the street from future shop really that fulfilling?

I would love to know where these 8900 residents are coming from to want to live there?

^ GTAers

Sadly, those 8900 units will probably sell faster than a 100 condo units donwtown.

I used to look longingly at development like that in my younger days and think, "Man it would be sweet to live there". But now that i've lived in a denser, more mature and lively neighborhood, I can't remember what was so appealing about new sprawl...

Unfourtunately this area was already set aside for development pre-Greenbelt. Unfourtunately there's no transit there yet, so is it really viable to have more than a low-mid density sprawl survey? Personally I think it should be held off, but the city is in such a desperate situation they feel as if they need a quick tax base even if it will screw us in 20 years.

My guess is either the GTA or somewhere out in the continent of Asia.

(sigh)

What I'll never understand is why everyone on SSP is always making moral judgements about suburbanites. Sure, it's absolutely awful in terms of the environment, but why slam someone just because they happen to like the suburban form? Maybe to us, life across from Future Shop isn't the most exciting, but not everyone is fulfilled by living in a loft above Starbucks either.

we've got a generation of people who have grown up, almost entirely, in these sorts of suburban developments. it's what they know. it's what they're comfortable with. the very idea of moving into the city would never even cross their minds.

what forum are you reading??
there hasn't been one comment on here "slamming" anyone for anything.
Simply people stating that they don't understand why anyone would want to live in such an area. Save the drama for your local SSP forums.

With all do respect RTH, I wouldn't say Cambridgite is stirring up drama. There are people here who feel passionately--we know that--and sometimes passion = hyperbole. Nonetheless there have been numerous occassions in this forum--where, for instance, people who live in the suburbs have been belittled openly. There is passion here certainly, but there is also an undercurrent of elitism--elitism that one poster actually boasted about. Moreover, Cambridgite is correct--the vast majority of residential growth in the Waterdown area are GTA-escapers. The GTA-wash is coming to the entire area--as it has washed through Peel and Halton over the past 30 years. This means residential growth of all kinds--some people will want suburban life, others will want a more urban environment--the demand is going to grow for all forms of housing. Reading between the lines of Cambridgite's post, I would argue he is ideologically a lot closer to the majority of posters on SSP than he is to me...so cut him some slack.

Lol....I get a kick out of this.
As a lifelong resident of Hamilton I could spend months recounting the amount of time that I hear Hamiltonians belittle and bash downtown. It's like a favourite past-time.
But heaven forbid anyone say anything bad about their precious little suburbs!
Which, by the way, I pay a bundle of taxes to service and maintain.
Can't have it both ways folks...if downtown if fair game (and it's much more than fair game in the Hammer) then so is your money-wasting 'American dreamland'.

Lets face it the typical North American subdivision is our version of the developing world's shanty towns or favelas. They are where we house the generic cogs of our society. Living in a high end community close to the city is a privilege for the wealthy and the avante garde. If we did not subsidize infrastructure and social programs to these suburban squatter settlements they would be just as degenerated as everywhere else in the world. I can understand that there is some need to velarize this type of development to maintain higher living standards, but to what extent. People buy housing in these places because it is cheap and offers quantifiable space. If they really had wealth or taste I doubt that these subdivisions would be their first choice to locate. I am not belittling the suburbs I am just calling it the way that it is.

Great point, Retro!!
No doubt if they were as wealthy as they pretend to be, they'd die to buy a house here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140252

please don't drag me into this...but since you have i'll make a point.

i grew up in an old dundas neighbourhood. i lived mere seconds from my school, parks, streams, candy and ice cream shops, the library, toy stores, five and dime stores, bakeries...you get the idea. it was the perfect childhood. i was able to go about my business largely without parental chaperone. i learned how to interact with people, with adults in particular. it was like leave it to beaver without all the bullshit.

when i was ten we moved to the highland hills area of dundas. it was a new neighbourhood, sterile. by year two the house began to fall apart, quite literally. there was nothing and i mean nothing to do. no street life. no sidewalk! no one to talk to. the closest variety store was at creighton and governor's rd. it was a soulless neighbourhood and it was a tragic place to spend my adolescent years. it wouldn't wish that sort of life on anyone. my story has been repeated a million times over. the suburbs suck. sorry to have to break that to you.

today i live downtown. i don't own a car. i walk to work. call me elitist if you will but i think that's a better life than spending untold minutes sitting in a pickup truck, in a drive-thru line, waiting for a double-double.

we need more people like the Dude.
That's not elitism.
Thats fact!
We all ooh and aaah over european cities while continuing to destroy our own.
Wake up.

I for one have never come onto this forum and bashed downtown Hamilton. I love downtown and want only the best for it--I stand by that. I was born in the city, raised in the suburbs--it is the locale my parents (who were both from the east end) chose for us. I may have played hockey and little league close to home and attended a county board school, but we also went to Tiger-Cats games, shopped downtown every Saturday and saw movies at the Tivoli and Century. I had my high school prom at the Royal Connaught. Therefore, if I come onto this forum with a balanced opinion about development issues it is not to the determent of downtown, urban-living or urban-dwellers. I absolutely resent any suggestion to the contrary, and if someone is levelling an accusation in that regard, I suggest that accusation be defended. I have been accused in the past of taking things that are said here "personally." Well, in this instance, I absolutely have taken this personally. An elitist attitude toward people who live "outside" the city is no different than an unfounded negative attitude toward downtown, or urban-dwelling.

I for one, am at a loss as to why there cannot be balance in these discussions. Indeed, roads in the suburbs are costly to build, in much the same way neglected inner-city infrastructure is expensive to maintain. RTH, indeed you pay dearly to build roads in Ancaster--as my parent's pay dearly to fix watermains in the north end of the city. As opposed as I was to amalgamation--I believed for a time that it might be workable. Reading through this forum makes me believe otherwise.

The Dude--it wasn't intended to "drag" you into any discussion you hadn't already participated in. I'm sorry to hear your upbringing in Highland Hills didn't meet your needs as a kid--I really am--obviously you needed and wanted something different than that type of living provided you with.

That being said, there are other people's who's experiences were completely different. I grew up outside the city and never suffered for it. I had an absolutely idyllic childhood, loved the area I grew up in and never felt deprived. That makes us different--but I don't think it makes me a lower-order mammal. I tried living in the city--twice actually--it simply did not suit me. The fact that you found a neighborhood and way-of-life that suit you is excellent. I wouldn't wish my Silverado on you for anything--it makes me grin, but it wouldn't do the same for you. I'm a suburban dweller--but in fact it only takes me about 5 minutes to walk to Tim's--so I really don't use the Drive-Thru...and it's cream only, I don't do sugar.

As for elitism--we're not going to get anywhere on that argument I can see. If I said, "I'm better because I live in the suburbs"--that would be elitism, right? Reversing the argument doesn't make it any less so, and it doesn't lend credence or weight to the argument either--I would say it has the reverse effect. I might add that "reality" and "fact" are also individual--and thus, one person's "fact" may not be another persons "reality".

Just some additional thoughts.