[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure how saying that it is reasonable to replace what is currently a really poor park with a much larger park accessible to many more people makes me callous, but whatever you say. I suppose that if the poor children of the south-east Glebe have to walk another 100 metres to get to their new park, then we should call the whole thing off. Perhaps one day you will realize that such weak put-downs do nothing to help your credibility.

Incidentally, the argument for homes and offices on the site (there are no box stores, that is more empty rhetoric) is that the Glebe has suburban densities in many areas and this is a prime opportunity to incorporate significant density into the neighbourhood with relatively low impact to existing residents. All as per the official plan that you like to refer to so often. The mixed-use development meets any number of the principles associated with smart growth. To refuse to acknowledge as much strikes me as only justifiable if your sole goal was to prevent intensification on a site in your neighbourhood.

As I said before, I can understand the arguments that the land should be kept public on principle, and that another major park would be a nice addition to the central area of the city. What I don't understand is the absolute refusal of opponents to acknowledge any benefits of the current plan whatsoever, such as the creation of an exciting new park (albeit on just part of the site) and the inclusion of a classic live/work/play mixed-use component which will do almost all the right things from an environmental perspective. Or such as the opportunity to use design to create a landmark gateway to an important centra neighbourhood. And on top of that, there is very little willingness to look at the history and recognize that getting anything done on the site is clearly a monumental challenge, so saying no to a viable plan represents a real risk of continued decay.

Instead it is more and more rhetoric about the great tragedy of this development which, did you hear, is to be built by evil developers who want to make money. Conspiracies, closed doors, poor parkless children etc. Never any thought of acknowledging advantages and disadvantages and making nuanced arguments about the possible alternatives available.

Why would anyone trust a plan from a proponent who can't recognize that this is a complex decision, each option has its pros and cons, and that no matter what goes forward, you will have to sacrifice in some areas to make gains in others? Why would anyone give credibilty to someone who casts aspersions and uses insults in responding to those who disagree with him on development issues? If a person can't acknowledge the complexities of the issue, or the validity of competing arguments, how can we have any faith that they have any ability to come up with a good and balanced solution?

You have summed yourself up very clearly in your first paragraph.

The competitive model that balances fiscal needs with public sensitivity will be presented in early October.