City investing in brownfield plan

[markbarbera]

City investing in brownfield plan

The Hamilton Spectator
(Jan 17, 2008)
The city is spending up to $150,000 for a brownfield strategy to guide the spending of provincial dollars sitting in the bank.

The city received $3 million from the province last year for brownfield redevelopment. At the time council voted to park the money, which came with no criteria for spending or deadlines. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial or commercial land that is often contaminated or houses dilapidated buildings.

Councillors agreed yesterday to hire an outside consultant to develop a strategy that will identify, characterize and prioritize the city's brownfields for investment.

The consultant is expected to pick at least 30 sites and highlight possible ideas for redevelopment.

The city has just completed a log of all its brownfields. Nearly 60 per cent of the 350 acres identified are lots that are an acre or less, which complicates their potential for redevelopment, said Guy Paparella of the city's planning and economic development department.

Staff are planning to report back to council in the near future on the supply of brownfields to help the city determine how much green space it should devote to industrial development.

[SteelTown]

Use the money to clean up the CN yard area by the waterfront. There's a section along Hess that's really contaminated.

[the dude]

no kidding. clean up the west harbour and open it up to mixed use development.

do we really need a consultant to tell us what to do with the money? it's such a knee-jerk reaction in politics. everything must be studied to death, years and money wasted in the process. politicians think this is proper due diligence; i think it's a great way to line the pockets of private interests with public money.

[DC83]

^^ ya really, beaurocrats love Hamilton!

I would love to see the west-west harbour (barton/hess area) cleaned up for future mix-use development. Also the stretch beside Ferguson bet Barton/Cannon. I don't know if it's already been cleaned? But if not, it's top priority w/ me considering all the Medical developments going on.

[SteelTown]

^ That land along Ferguson is for retail development and that's up to the company to clean it up.

[DC83]

City Eyes More Brownfield Projects

Ken Mann
CHML
3/19/2008

A familiar message from Hamilton's economic development staff.

They've presented politicians with an employment lands status report, stressing once again that Hamilton must maintain its inventory if it is to attract new jobs.

An inventory also confirms that there are currently 91 vacant Brownfield sites which can be developed across the city, covering 357 acres.

Up to another 250 contaminated industrial sites are currently being underutilized, making them potential development sites in the coming years.

The report also stresses that Hamilton has an "ample supply" of residential opportunities, meaning there's no need to convert employment lands, be they in Glanbrook, Stoney Creek or around the airport.

http://900chml.com/Channels/Reg/News...spx?ID=1001687

[Goldfinger]

Hamilton is loosing out on a great opportunity here. I have just learned that Halton region is doubling their commercial/industrial development charges from $9.50 to $19.00 psf. Thats an extra $1M on a 100 square foot building! This would have forced development out of Halton to Hamilton, but we don't have any land ready to go so we are going to loose out again.

I think the big winner here is going to be Brantford.

[raisethehammer]

no land??? go for a drive along Burlington St and Industrial Drive.
we have nobody in EcDev who knows anything about city-building.
All they know is sprawl crap like Brantford and Borington.

I heard some 'expert' on the radio today say that starting next year Hamilton will have more available land than anyone else in the western GTA/Golden Horseshoe.
I assume he meant sprawl land, since none of these guys ever focus on the brownfields like the city of Toronto does.
Anyhow, if he is right, then the city will lose it's final excuse for seeing no investment here. First it was highways - done. Then it's all this talk about no land - done.
Maybe now they'll realize that image and dowtown are the real issues here. People will flock here if they see a bustling, vibrant city like Montreal or Boston. All the land in the world won't solve our problems. We must solve them ourselves.
Something the local development industry refuses to do. In fact, they continue to be a hindrance (rumour that LIUNA is about to try to outbid Stinson for Connaught. Why??? To continue to hold us back, that's why).

[HAMRetrofit]

I think there is some confusion in Hamilton about the possibilities of its brownfields. These vacant lots on the industrial lake front are somewhat problematic from a development standpoint.

First, I don't see this limitless land that people in Hamilton have their hopes as providing future warehousing and manufacturing land. I am not convinced that attempting to shoe horn shiny industrial complexes into this area is necessarily the right solution. It may be for some sites related to the port, but they will not likely be able to compete at the regional level.

The problems here are extremely complex. Soils are interlaced with harmful chemicals, awkwardly shaped, or dispersed too thinly over large areas. The clean up processes take years to complete, companies typically don't have the patience and will move on. The lands are held by land speculators and industrial corporations that don't have local interests in mind, more so they own them control the market and to reduce competition. This is massive capital that can't easily be bought out or reasoned with. In today's world of fast paced delivery methods and just in time services this is less than ideal. Many of the sites can hardly handle the space needed to fit a single warehouse. I think that a number of these sites including the ones on Victoria street offer different possibilities like park space, something that is lacking in large quantity in that area of town. I think a more intelligent solution is needed than to simply force incompatible uses onto this area of town.

In the end the downtown will be supported more by intelligent development instead of an attempt to repeat business as usual. I think it is relevant to look at the changes of Chicago, Vancouver, and Toronto's waterfronts which historically were in the same condition as Hamilton's is now. All these cities still have thieving downtowns and employment in their cores even though they are now post industrial.

[flar]

I really wish brownfields could be used, but I've said this many times in the context of the aerotropolis: no company will spend the time and money to clean up a brownfield as long as open farm fields along highways are available. Woodstock, Brantford and London just developed a ton of land that is ready to build on now.

[raisethehammer]

i think you're bang on retrofit, except one thing that Don MacLean reminded me of last night at the transportation meeting - we aren't talking about a complete clean-up of brownfield land to make it suitable for residential development or parks (like Liberty Village in TO).
Much of the land in question is industrial land that only needs to be prepared for MORE industrial development. As I'm sure you know, land needs to be decontaminated to a certain level depending on the use.
Hamilton's politicians are full of crap when they say we need the suburban land for jobs...we've had a TON of that land in the past decade and wasted ALL of it on sprawl boxes and townhomes - 403 extension, Linc, top of Red Hill. I'm tired of being told that we need more land for 'jobs' when in reality that land will be used for more cardboard box homes and box stores.
We have one of the best ports in Canada that we need to learn how to leverage better instead of trying to pretend that we have a real airport that can somehow act as a catalyst when nearby airports like Buffalo,Toronto and London are bigger and better than ours.
Let's work with our assets instead of always trying to copy everyone else.

[HAMRetrofit]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

i think you're bang on retrofit, except one thing that Don MacLean reminded me of last night at the transportation meeting - we aren't talking about a complete clean-up of brownfield land to make it suitable for residential development or parks (like Liberty Village in TO).
Much of the land in question is industrial land that only needs to be prepared for MORE industrial development. As I'm sure you know, land needs to be decontaminated to a certain level depending on the use.
Hamilton's politicians are full of crap when they say we need the suburban land for jobs...we've had a TON of that land in the past decade and wasted ALL of it on sprawl boxes and townhomes - 403 extension, Linc, top of Red Hill. I'm tired of being told that we need more land for 'jobs' when in reality that land will be used for more cardboard box homes and box stores.
We have one of the best ports in Canada that we need to learn how to leverage better instead of trying to pretend that we have a real airport that can somehow act as a catalyst when nearby airports like Buffalo,Toronto and London are bigger and better than ours.
Let's work with our assets instead of always trying to copy everyone else.

I think you are viewing my post through some rose colored glasses. I am saying that the priority for a large number of brownfields should be deindustrialization. The priority for land on the periphery of the city should be industrialization, particularly around the airport and major highway interchanges. More land is certainly needed for employment land, it needs to be done strategically and sustainably, otherwise the city will surely falter. If this is controlled growth, the land will not be converted to suburban housing and retail. The key word being 'smart'. These new industrial areas need to be created to offset the deindustrialization of the waterfront. The condition of the waterfront is the biggest problem with Hamilton right now. The area can benefit from less industrial activity, more green space, and more environmental constraints. Instead of attempting to locate office parks and research spaces in this area, I believe they should be located downtown, and warehousing should be located on the periphery of town because it needs so much space.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

I think you are viewing my post through some rose colored glasses. I am saying that the priority for a large number of brownfields should be deindustrialization. The priority for land on the periphery of the city should be industrialization, particularly around the airport and major highway interchanges. More land is certainly needed for employment land, it needs to be done strategically and sustainably, otherwise the city will surely falter. If this is controlled growth, the land will not be converted to suburban housing and retail. The key word being 'smart'. These new industrial areas need to be created to offset the deindustrialization of the waterfront. The condition of the waterfront is the biggest problem with Hamilton right now. The area can benefit from less industrial activity, more green space, and more environmental constraints. Instead of attempting to locate office parks and research spaces in this area, I believe they should be located downtown, and warehousing should be located on the periphery of town because it needs so much space.

hmmm, good points.
I suppose in a perfect world we'd see all of our lower city/downtown area brownfields used for housing, but I just don't see the money being available for that in the northeast part of the lower city.
Plus, it's a heavy industry area still and light industry might make more sense than residential.
Downtown on empty lots and old gas station sites we should see high density housing.
and yes, the larger properties in the burbs would suit huge warehouses like you see along the 401/QEW.
This is going to be a big task that involves good planning. we need transit, compact neighbourhoods and mixed-use wherever possible.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

Instead of attempting to locate office parks and research spaces in this area, I believe they should be located downtown, and warehousing should be located on the periphery of town because it needs so much space.

I wholeheartedly agree. Office space, research facilities, anything vaguely white collar commercial should be concentrated downtown, along with a healthy dose of mid to high end residential. The enormous heritage industrial lands between downtown and the harbour should be rehabilitated (obviously an extremely long term project, but one well worth pursuing). Heavy industry will eventually fold in Hamilton and there's no point in trying to keep this land industrial when it might be put to far better uses. It is possible that the residential market in the lower city will eventually become so strong as to compel developers to begin brownfield cleanups to the highest level. (It would be nice to have the downtown extend all the way from its current position right to the harbour.)

It makes sense to locate industry on the outer fringes of the city. This is how things are now done in major European cities and the policy has thus far shown great success. Indeed I would say the best formula is to invert the paradigm of the 20th century and concentrate residential and white collar commercial in the inner city, leaving the suburbs for medium to light industry.

[DC83]

^^ I thought the Glanbrook Industrial Park was already (or partially) developped, and that's why the RHVP was built?
So 'unservicable' land is a lame excuse to choose Brantford over Hamilton...

regardless, all three levels of Gov't need to create better inititives & incentives to choose brownfields over fresh, green lands. It's just unfortunate our Federal Gov't has a hate-on for Ontario, esp when our Finance Minister who is a Ontario MP (Whitby-Oshawa riding) is saying "Ontario is the last place any company would want to invest." << this guy's a fool to dis his own province. Hopefully Oshawa-Whitby residents send me a strong F-U whenever the next election is.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by DC83

It's just unfortunate our Federal Gov't has a hate-on for Ontario, esp when our Finance Minister who is a Ontario MP (Whitby-Oshawa riding) is saying "Ontario is the last place any company would want to invest." << this guy's a fool to dis his own province. Hopefully Oshawa-Whitby residents send me a strong F-U whenever the next election is.

I agree that in many regards Jim Flaherty really is a fool. Not necessarily in this one. He is not dissing Ontario with the above statement. He is dissing Dalton McGuinty. It is well known that Flaherty has long-term interests in making a run for Ontario premier. He is just laying the groundwork by pointing out McGuinty's economic mismanagement of the province.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by RePinion

I agree that in many regards Jim Flaherty really is a fool. Not necessarily in this one. He is not dissing Ontario with the above statement. He is dissing Dalton McGuinty. It is well known that Flaherty has long-term interests in making a run for Ontario premier. He is just laying the groundwork by pointing out McGuinty's economic mismanagement of the province.

Too bad Flaherty has to do damage to Ontario in the process. But I guess it's all just collateral damage for his personal political ambitions.

By the way, your final sentence would be more accurate if it read "He is just laying the groundwork by creating the perception that McGuinty is mismanaging the province's economy". Opinion is not necessarily fact. I am not a huge fan of McGuinty, but is his government's economic policy really mismanaged?

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

By the way, your final sentence would be more accurate if it read "He is just laying the groundwork by creating the perception that McGuinty is mismanaging the province's economy". Opinion is not necessarily fact. I am not a huge fan of McGuinty, but is his government's economic policy really mismanaged?

This is a ridiculous criticism. Of course opinion is not necessarily fact. But are all posts on this forum supposed to take the form of bias-free, disinterested observations?

You also contravene your own suggestion when you write that "your final sentence would be more accurate if it read [...]". This is a categorical declaration predicated on your own subjective view of the matter. It could very well be an objective fact that McGuinty did mismanage Ontario's economy. Your remark implicitly presupposes that it is not.

Don't you understand that to cloak opinion in the guise of fact is one of the most basic (if not the most basic) tools of rhetoric? It is so basic in fact that nobody even bothers to point it out. No one needs to.

I can't stand such callow sanctimoniousness.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by RePinion

You also contravene your own suggestion when you write that "your final sentence would be more accurate if it read [...]". This is a categorical declaration predicated on your own subjective view of the matter. It could very well be an objective fact that McGuinty did mismanage Ontario's economy.

On the contrary, I am being objective when I say that Flaherty's comments are his perception on how McGuinty is managing Ontario's economy.

Indeed, a declarative sentence claiming mismanagement is purely subjective. I clarified by stating that this is a perception driven by Flaherty's political ambition. I never intended to be sanctimonious, nor did I become subjective in my statement.

Asking for evidence on how the Ontario economy is being mismanaged by the current government is in no way being subjective. Rather, it is asking those offering opinion to support it with fact.

I notice that your previous post again states that McGuinty's economic policy performs poorly. How so? Can you provide examples of what, in your opinion, is poor economic policy?

[highwater]

Originally Posted by RePinion

I agree that in many regards Jim Flaherty really is a fool. Not necessarily in this one. He is not dissing Ontario with the above statement. He is dissing Dalton McGuinty. It is well known that Flaherty has long-term interests in making a run for Ontario premier. He is just laying the groundwork by pointing out McGuinty's economic mismanagement of the province.

This will backfire. The only perception being created at the moment is that the Conservatives are screwing Ontario.