Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD)

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^And none of these predictions take into account what is likely to be a very rocky period of economic instability fueled by declining oil production/ reserves, not to mention potential climatic and political factors that will affect the economy. We need farmland, not warehouses for sh*t nobody wants. Time for council to take its eyes off the rearview mirror and to start thinking logically. This sort of model only works in a cheap oil economy which is, in case nobody noticed, long gone.

[SteelTown]

Bring on the jobs.

[ScreamingViking]

I continue to be on the fence about this.

On the one hand, we can (and should) be doing more to reclaim industrial land in the north end. The city says there is not much available... but people drive down Burlington St. and see vast swaths of what looks to be unused land. Sure, it's mostly owned by someone, but it sits empty most of the time. E.g., does US Steel need those huge lots now?

And it's a damn expensive proposition to provide services to the AEGD. Even if it is supposed to pay for itself in tax revenue, that's a big matzah ball of city resources hanging out there.

But on the other hand, I also get that a lot of companies don't want to locate in a dirty industrial zone and prefer a greenfield area that has good access to a 400-series highway and an airport. And that they will locate in other cities if Hamilton hasn't anything to offer.

We need to balance this. It's one thing to set aside the land, but another to service and make it available in a timely fashion, while redeveloping and re-purposing our older industrial lands.

At all costs, DO NOT allow residential development to occur. That's a very real risk, no matter what is said about restricting the land. The city needs to bear in mind that the OMB has a poor track record when it comes to putting city interests above those of developers.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Bring on the 1970s!

This concept is entirely dependent on cheap oil. If oil were trading at $10/ barrel like it was in 1990, then I might go along with the idea...might. However, oil price projections over the next decade or two are dire, to say the least, ranging from $150/ barrel to as much as $500. Either way, a 1970s style economy won't function. This is the kind of idea that desperate municipalities grasp onto because they've seen it work...IN THE PAST. We need to be a little more creative going forward.

My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential. Most of it, though, will be left undeveloped, not to mention rendered useless for agricultural purposes.

Bring it on.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential.

I agree that this is the likeliest outcome. I simply don't trust the City when they say there will be no residential. Even if I believed all of the proponents were saying this in good faith, I think it's highly likely that the plan will change when it fails to be the wild attraction they assume it will be.

I don't have, let's say, a strong proclivity for environmentalism. I don't share your predictions for the scarcity of oil in the future- I see the new technologies being employed in the U.S. and elsewhere for extraction, and new technologies that make more efficient use possible, and I don't think $500 oil is likely in the coming years. But what ScreamingViking said about companies' preference for greenfield sites is important. Greenfield sites are by definition finite. Greenfield locations with good proximity to labour and consumers even moreso. Putting employment nodes ever-further out in to the countryside promotes residential sprawl, even if they say that this particular project won't include residential components.

Like ScreamingViking said, there is lots of industrial land in the north end. We can see with our own eyes that it is not being used as it once was. It will need lots of remediation, but how do the costs compare to servicing locations like the airport? My personal guess (if anyone knows better, please enlighten me) is that areas like the north end industrial areas are unattractive because remediation tends to be a cost borne by property owners, and greenfields are attractive because servicing new development lands tends to be a cost borne by us, the taxpayers. I can't see a lot of other reason for the preference, as existing industrial areas are close to where labour is already located, and close to well-developed transportation routes.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

Bring on the 1970s!
My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential. Most of it, though, will be left undeveloped, not to mention rendered useless for agricultural purposes.

The OMB decision specifically rules out residential development and most of it is nothing more than scrub land that is not being used for agricultural purposes. The project may very well fall flat on it's face but the city at least has to try. What's the old saying, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

My personal guess (if anyone knows better, please enlighten me) is that areas like the north end industrial areas are unattractive because remediation tends to be a cost borne by property owners, and greenfields are attractive because servicing new development lands tends to be a cost borne by us, the taxpayers. I can't see a lot of other reason for the preference, as existing industrial areas are close to where labour is already located, and close to well-developed transportation routes.

I think that's a big part of the issue, and companies that might locate on land formerly used for heavy industry will look for government subsidies to help offset that cost.

Financing it may be more difficult too. Remediation introduces an element of risk that investment firms and banks likely shy away from.

There's also the issue of the time it will take to remediate the land. Once the business decision has been made to go ahead with the capital investment, and the financing is in place, the timing of the project becomes a factor.

I think brownfield redevelopment can and will happen in Hamilton, but it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort, and probably a lot of money too. So the city needs to take a balanced approach and offer greenfield alternatives as well, or at least plan for them now.

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

This concept is entirely dependent on cheap oil. If oil were trading at $10/ barrel like it was in 1990, then I might go along with the idea...might. However, oil price projections over the next decade or two are dire, to say the least, ranging from $150/ barrel to as much as $500. Either way, a 1970s style economy won't function. This is the kind of idea that desperate municipalities grasp onto because they've seen it work...IN THE PAST. We need to be a little more creative going forward.

My prediction:
The city throws everything it has at this project and it falls flat on its face. They then subdivide it for, yes, residential. Most of it, though, will be left undeveloped, not to mention rendered useless for agricultural purposes.

I tend to share HillStreetBlues' perspective on energy too. And not just about oil technologies, but alternatives. The demand for energy is just too great, and I think many underestimate the power of innovation.

I do agree the risk of residential development pressure is big. We've seen the city bend over on development planning far too often, and I don't trust the OMB to remain consistent on the issue of residential land-use in this case.

But why would the undeveloped land be "rendered useless for agricultural purposes"?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

When people speak of innovation as it pertains to oil, my eyes roll back in my head. I don't know what it means, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with a wish and a prayer. Or perhaps something borne out of a Hollywood film script. A lot of people think that when oil becomes really scarce, we'll just input 'technology.' I don't know what that means either. Nobody knows what that means. This isn't Star Trek after all: Klingons, warp speed and photon torpedoes aren't real (though I wish they were).

People need to think long and hard about the future of oil. Forget twenty years because we're in big trouble already. I mean, look at what we're doing in Alberta - that's desperation. It's low grade oil that requires massive amounts of processing (and money of course), resulting in an ongoing, slow-motion environmental disaster. We're doing that because most of the world's big oil exporters are both producing less and using more at home.

Again, this is an situation nobody in the general public, the media or politics wants to discuss (or understands for that matter). But put your ear to the ground and listen to what geologists have to say - it's not good. You have to ignore the Forbes Magazines of this world because they're horribly biased on the issue. In fairness to them, though, they have to paint as rosy a picture as possible or what's left of the economy will go south in a big hurry - I get that. But it's geologists for BP, Shell and so on that we must listen to. They're the ones whose job it is to know how much oil there is and whether or not we can get our hands on it - they're worried.

And by the way, those predictions are not mine; they're the predictions of experts in this field. Yes, oil prices may go down (as the economy fluctuates wildly) but invariably they will rise.

The OECD, whose modus operandi it is to promote economic development around the world, predicts oil at $270/ barrel by 2020. Whether it's $270 or $150/ barrel doesn't really matter - we'll be in trouble either way.

Biofuels are a non-starter because there isn't enough corn and algae on the planet to fuel our insatiable appetites. And why wouldn't we just eat the corn? Isn't that more important than pumping it into our SUVs? The resultant deforestation involved with increasing our food to fuel program would far outweigh any net benefit anyway.

In the end, we'll destroy this planet in a vain effort to keep our cars on the road. What's the point in having a car if you've got no job to go to? These warehousing jobs won't be viable if oil prices rise as predicted. And as pointed out, cheap oil will only be an indication of a failed economy, so that's moot. After all, there are no new - massive - oil fields coming on line. That's been done unfortunately. All we're left with is the dregs.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

When people speak of innovation as it pertains to oil, my eyes roll back in my head.

You mention a lot here. I don't want to hijack a thread about this development with a long conversation about energy, but you're not wrong that it is a conversation worth having. As far as technology goes, no one knows for sure what technology and technologies will be implemented in the future to mitigate our challenges, but there's no reason to say there won't be any. In Europe following the Middle Ages, charcoal was a massive source of energy. Deforestation became a very real problem, so much so that England had a serious lack of wood for constructing ships and buildings. This problem was not put to rest until new technologies for extraction of coal were developed. Coal itself had been "exhausted" centuries earlier. We were utterly convinced that it would be, because the very accessible coal was increasingly hard to find. So this is what people mean when they say "technology." It's nothing to do with Klingons or warp speed: it is a grindingly slow process of innovation, and it requires a lot of patience. A lot of it is invisible, which is why it can be easy to overlook.

What we're doing in Alberta is an example- these techniques didn't exist decades ago, and even where they did would not have been economical because of the price of oil. With oil prices where they are, we are enabled to use more expensive technologies to extract it. It's a choice to view that as desperation. Fracking is another example of a new and expensive technique that only makes economical sense above a certain price for oil. It is incorrect to say that the big oil consumers are producing less- this year, the U.S. will be a net exporter of oil.

I shouldn't have implied that it is a big deal that oil prices will increase- since its discovery, it has increased in price since the most accessible oil is consumed first. This is only logical. The ways in which we use oil have become more efficient- I'm no great fan of the personal automobile, either, and think that our dependence on it has more negative impacts than just environmental, but a car being sold today is more efficient (while still being safer and better-performing) than a car 20, ten, or even just five years ago. Likewise for industrial uses of oil.

In my opinion, corn ethanol is a senseless government scheme that amounts mostly to hidden subsidies to farmers. But that doesn't mean that the technologies being developed to create biofuels are non-starters: we may one day produce ethanol from waste wood and other types of vegetation. Enough solar energy hits the Earth each day to power everything we've ever built many times over. Here in Ontario we have a very healthy electricity mix that relies on nuclear and hydro-electric energy. Our electricity consumption is currently so uneven that we sometimes pay other jurisdictions to accept our surplus hydro overnight- we could power many electric cars in this province without adding a single kilowatt of capacity.

I don't think this development is a good idea, but it's not because I think we're headed for peak energy and economic collapse because there are simply no more "easily" (this is subjective) accessible energy sources. There's too many reasons to be positive about things generally, so my reasoning is that we shouldn't put scarce local resources into more-of-the-same development when there are other types of developments that would add a lot more value to our economy and community.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

When people speak of innovation as it pertains to oil, my eyes roll back in my head. I don't know what it means, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with a wish and a prayer. Or perhaps something borne out of a Hollywood film script. A lot of people think that when oil becomes really scarce, we'll just input 'technology.' I don't know what that means either. Nobody knows what that means. This isn't Star Trek after all: Klingons, warp speed and photon torpedoes aren't real (though I wish they were).

People need to think long and hard about the future of oil. Forget twenty years because we're in big trouble already. I mean, look at what we're doing in Alberta - that's desperation. It's low grade oil that requires massive amounts of processing (and money of course), resulting in an ongoing, slow-motion environmental disaster. We're doing that because most of the world's big oil exporters are both producing less and using more at home.

Again, this is an situation nobody in the general public, the media or politics wants to discuss (or understands for that matter). But put your ear to the ground and listen to what geologists have to say - it's not good. You have to ignore the Forbes Magazines of this world because they're horribly biased on the issue. In fairness to them, though, they have to paint as rosy a picture as possible or what's left of the economy will go south in a big hurry - I get that. But it's geologists for BP, Shell and so on that we must listen to. They're the ones whose job it is to know how much oil there is and whether or not we can get our hands on it - they're worried.

And by the way, those predictions are not mine; they're the predictions of experts in this field. Yes, oil prices may go down (as the economy fluctuates wildly) but invariably they will rise.

The OECD, whose modus operandi it is to promote economic development around the world, predicts oil at $270/ barrel by 2020. Whether it's $270 or $150/ barrel doesn't really matter - we'll be in trouble either way.

Biofuels are a non-starter because there isn't enough corn and algae on the planet to fuel our insatiable appetites. And why wouldn't we just eat the corn? Isn't that more important than pumping it into our SUVs? The resultant deforestation involved with increasing our food to fuel program would far outweigh any net benefit anyway.

In the end, we'll destroy this planet in a vain effort to keep our cars on the road. What's the point in having a car if you've got no job to go to? These warehousing jobs won't be viable if oil prices rise as predicted. And as pointed out, cheap oil will only be an indication of a failed economy, so that's moot. After all, there are no new - massive - oil fields coming on line. That's been done unfortunately. All we're left with is the dregs.

I think we need to look at the future more in terms of energy and less in terms of oil. That's why I said "demand for energy".

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say here about the world's oil production. There are supposedly lots of reserves left - but some of that tally is educated guesswork, a good portion is not conventional crude, they are increasingly costly to access and process, there are large environmental costs associated with doing so, and growing demand means that their rate of depletion keeps rising. The likelihood of finding new deposits gets smaller over time.

We do have an economy in which oil is a vital input. It serves, in part, a massive demand for transportation, and we've grown quite dependent on it for that since WWII (really not very long ago in the timeline of human history). Some people believe that with "peak oil" there will be a catastrophic collapse in the oil sector and this will lead to the downfall of modes of transportation that depend more on oil, which means society may go through a major and lasting shock that will be very painful.

I have a hard time believing that because, like HillStreetBlues notes, we've adapted before. I also tend not to believe in extremes when it comes to predictions. There may be short term impacts, but bigger changes evolve more slowly over the course of time.

Our transportation demand is not going to go away. Our economies are built largely on trade (they have always been, just not to the current scale), both international and domestic. Transportation is also important for services, and it's key in our personal lives for our jobs and family needs.

So the impetus to find new ways to fuel that transportation is big, and people have been looking at that, not just recently either. Whether biofuels go anywhere or not we'll see (I agree that using food crops is not a solution), but there are other technologies in use and being developed that can improve fuel efficiency or supplement oil fuels in the short term, reduce our dependency on them in the medium term, and potentially replace them altogether in the future. That's not science fiction - it's what society has always done.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Sorry for being so abrasive in my previous post - I'd had a bad day. And besides, the Internet isn't the best venue for these sorts of discussions anyway. I'd rather just talk about whether or not Starbucks is opening up downtown.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

Sorry for being so abrasive in my previous post - I'd had a bad day. And besides, the Internet isn't the best venue for these sorts of discussions anyway. I'd rather just talk about whether or not Starbucks is opening up downtown.

That was abrasive?

Nah, it didn't come across that way. A little sarcastic up front, but that's something I appreciate.

I read it as one point of view that has some very valid considerations - while I tend to take a different perspective, at this point there are so many unknowns where energy production and technology are concerned. So who knows how it will all unfold.

It's important to make sure our investments in cities reflect good planning and economics. I just think it's also important to plan to provide options, especially in a competitive environment for attracting business.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

Sorry for being so abrasive in my previous post - I'd had a bad day. And besides, the Internet isn't the best venue for these sorts of discussions anyway. I'd rather just talk about whether or not Starbucks is opening up downtown.

I didn't feel any abrasion, so no need for apology. I agree with you that this is probably not the best forum for that topic, but it does have some relation. It wasn't inappropriate at all for you to originally bring up our energy challenges in a conversation about an ill-advised development on the edge of the city that will consume agricultural land and serve to foster yet more suburban sprawl.

[SteelTown]

Judge dismisses aerotropolis appeal
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/41...opolis-appeal/

By Daniel Nolan

A citizens' group opposed to the largest urban boundary expansion in Hamilton's history has lost its bid to take the matter to court.

Hamiltonians for Progressive Development and the City of Hamilton were in court Thursday to argue about appealing the Ontario Municipal Board's approval of the expansion in July.

The project has been nicknamed aerotropolis because it involves the city taking 1,800 hectares, including 555 hectares for employment land, into its urban boundary around the Hamilton airport. The city says it is running out of shovel-ready land and that the airport site project will create jobs and has the potential to create $50 million a year in taxes.

HPD and other groups argued the project was too large, not needed and will swallow up valuable agricultural land.

A judge dismissed HPD's bid to take the matter to court, meaning it can proceed to an OMB hearing next year to determine the boundaries of aerotropolis.

HPD co-chair Michael Desnoyers said the group is disappointed in the decision, especially since the judge would not grant a one-week delay to allow their lawyer Eric Gillespie to be present. The case was argued by another lawyer from his firm.

"I think we would have been in a better position to debate the city's position," Desnoyers added.

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, a big supporter of aerotropolis, said city officials had anticipated the leave to appeal would be dismissed. He believed HPD "had their day in court."

[thistleclub]

AEGD-related by-law tweaks on tomorrow's Council Agenda:

To Amend By-law 11-272 as amended respecting the Downtown and Community Renewal Community Improvement Project Area (Mount Hope Airport Gateway CIPA)

To Amend By-law 11-273 as amended, respecting the Downtown and Community Renewal Community Improvement Plan

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

AEGD-related by-law tweaks on tomorrow's Council Agenda:

To Amend By-law 11-272 as amended respecting the Downtown and Community Renewal Community Improvement Project Area (Mount Hope Airport Gateway CIPA)

To Amend By-law 11-273 as amended, respecting the Downtown and Community Renewal Community Improvement Plan

Here's a link to the report to the Planning and Economic Development Department titled "Proposed Mount Hope/Airport Gateway Community Improvement Initiatives and Project Area"
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...1PED11188b.pdf

[thistleclub]

Public will get input in Aerotropolis lands
(CBC Hamilton, Dec 3 2013)

The public will get a chance to give input early next year on which lands are included in a massive urban boundary expansion around the Hamilton airport.

In February, the public can make presentations and write letters regarding which 555 net hectares will be included in the Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD), a large area earmarked for industrial and commercial growth by 2031.

The city won an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) challenge in July after Environment Hamilton and Hamiltonians for Progressive Development fought against the plan, which is also known as the Aerotropolis.

In phase three, the OMB will determine which land around the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport will be included, and the city will have to respond.

That response is where the public can give input.

Timeline:

Jan. 10 — Staff will present a report to the city planning committee on how it feels about the lands chosen by the OMB

Jan. 15 — The staff recommendation will become available to the public, and the planning committee will vote on the issue. The clerk’s office will also take written input from the public until Jan. 31.

Feb. 18 — Member of the public can appear before the planning committee as delegations. Councillors will also consider written comments. Legal staff will also give input.

The two opposing groups have pledged to appeal the OMB ruling, arguing that the OMB didn’t consider the availability of brownfield land.

[thistleclub]

Residential plans for aerotropolis
(CATCH Hamilton, Dec 16 2013)

The landowners who worked most closely with the city in the Ontario Municipal Board hearings and appeal that determined the size of the aerotropolis are already proposing a large residential and commercial development on their portion of the lands. A concept plan circulated to councillors last week by the Twenty Road Landowners Group West is framed as a “mutually beneficial solution” that helps the city deal with the reduced size of the aerotropolis and avoids “protracted litigation at the OMB” hearings expected next fall, but it could also significantly increase the servicing costs for any eventual industrial development around the airport.

The proposal would see 171 acres (70 hectares) of residential subdivisions on the developers’ lands between Upper James and Glancaster with required parkland and stream buffers plus about 20 hectares of commercial development along the future extension of Garth Street. It essentially occupies all of the group’s property that is outside the airport’s noise exclusion area and therefore potentially useable for residential purposes.

The six-owner group holds 425 acres (172 hectares) in the aerotropolis lands between Twenty Road and Dickenson Road, but their concept plan depicts more than twice that area (892 acres – 361 hectares) , showing large blocks for industrial uses mainly on lands they don’t own. This includes designating as “prestige industrial” the area along Glancaster Road that is currently occupied by existing homes.

The landowners’ group submitted evidence in last year’s OMB hearings. Initially that included their consultant’s report showing the rate of city use of industrial lands is so slow that there is no justification for any aerotropolis boundary expansion, but it subsequently withdrew that report and struck an agreement with the city for a reduction of the aerotropolis need by about 170 hectares.

In the covering letter for the proposal, the group reminds councillors of that cooperative history and “that our group was the sole private interest to participate in the court appeal and filed materials with the court supporting the city in defending the OMB’s decision on the Phase 2 hearing.”

If the group succeeds in convincing council, or if it achieves something similar in phase three of the OMB hearings scheduled for late next year, its development proposal may have a profound impact on the cost of servicing the aerotropolis. A residential-commercial development of this size could use up most or all of the excess water and sewer capacity that is supposed to allow the first part of the aerotropolis to be developed without having to build new 25-kilometre trunk sewer and water mains to the Woodward Avenue treatment facility....

City planners have promised to release their own proposals for the aerotropolis boundary in mid-January and allow a one-month public comment period before finalizing it on February 18.

Read it in full here.

[coalminecanary]

Well that didn't take long

[KDP]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Residential plans for aerotropolis
A residential-commercial development of this size could use up most or all of the excess water and sewer capacity that is supposed to allow the first part of the aerotropolis to be developed without having to build new 25-kilometre trunk sewer and water mains to the Woodward Avenue treatment facility....



Read it in full here.

Beautiful.