Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
My problem with the community association in the Glebe is that it doesn't represent who it claims to represent. I can't tell you how many of my neighbours have said that the presence of the stadium and arena at Lansdowne was one of the factors that drew them to the area. It certainly was for me. But those voices are not being represented by the association, which speaks with only one voice.
A note on this nonsense about this juvenile insult claiming that we are "working for private interests". That type of comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction between the public and private realms. Some of the most cherished public spaces in the world are not actually publicly "controlled". For instance, the oft-cited Granville Island is covered by long-term leases to private enterprises. Only the streets and the market are truly under public control. Place Jacques-Cartier in Montreal - only the street is public, everything surrounding it is privately held (with the exception of the city hall). Harbourfront in Toronto - though not my favourite, it is the same thing, a whole lot of private development involved in the creation of what anyone would consider a "public" destination that betters the city as a whole.
That is why this debate is pointless. It keeps reverting to the kind of simplistic statements of principle that pepper our friend's last post. Such messages are good for a public campaign against a project, but they are no good for a real discussion of the intricacies of city planning.
If we are interested in debating whether Lansdowne will create a true public meeting place, we should be talking about the site plan and whether it can consistently create the inclusive kind of interactive public domain that it claims to do.
I was recently in Toronto and visited Maple Leaf Square outside of the ACC (again, a private development), which has been hailed as a big city-building success. It was certainly an active public place in the hours leading up to the game. I'd be curious to see how it works at other times. There are bars and retail and the station to draw people through, along with some stunning modern architecture, but I wonder whether they have the critical mass to become a true public place.
|
The stadium is not the issue, it is the process and the resulting privatization of the park that is the problem.
The Conservancy has a stadium too, but stays popular by supporting heritage and public space.
Intricacies of development are complicated if you want them to be.
The bottom line is in this day and age you benefit by cultural economics, public space, and developing along rapid transit.
The current developer proposal fails at both with this proposal.
Doing two sites makes the most sense for the urban development afficianados.
Threaded Mode