In February 2006, PDVC submitted an application to amend the City's Official Plans. If approved, the amendment would enable a high-rise condominum within a recently designated Heritage¶ District. This latest position paper sets out why the application must be denied.
Webpage Info for: Port Place's Precarious Proposal - A Position Paper on PDVC's Second Application by Bernie Slepkov
A Position on PDVC’s (2nd) Application
Prepared by Bernie Slepkov c. May 2006 Bernie Slepkov (All Rights Reserved)
The full version of Port Place's Precarious Proposal(available by clicking here) was officially submitted to the City of St. Catharines, and Regional Niagara Planning services on May 2, 2006. The independent position paper addresses PDVC's second application currently being considered by St. Catharines and Regional Niagara staff and councils.
Please Note! This webpage cites only the Preface and Conclusion of a far more intensive document available by clicking here. The Wording is Critical to the Intent was prepared for the first application, which PDVC withdrew at the very last moment. The Port Place's Precarious Proposalfull paper presented additional arguements relevant to second application, some of which were overlooked by my first position paper. Since the Wording is Critical to the Intent was still very relevant to the PDCV's second application, it's referred to by Precarious Proposal in order for it to be considered.
If you are interested in it, click here to read my deposition to Susan Campbell, Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board on April 9, 2008.
(Disclaimer:I apologize for any links within any of my websites which may have become inactive over time.)
TrendLinks ( ¶ ) tie into SustainableNiagara.ca's Sustainability Resources Portal, to offer summaries of, and links to related websites. GlossaryLinks ( Δ ) tie into the Sustainability Glossary to offer definitions and informative resource links and StatLinks ( § ) tie into the Stats/Info Portal to offer valuable insights.
Try this >¶ <, this >
Δ < or this >
§ < to see what you get for Sustainability.
PrefaceWriter's Background
I am a home-born resident of St. Catharines for over 40 years. My last ten years have been dedicated to researching matters pertaining to local governance, urban renewal and 'sustainability'. For the past four of those years I have involved myself in related policy-defining initiatives at all levels of government. All of those initiatives relate to smart growth,¶Δ§ urban renewal,¶§Δ and for the most part, socio-economic sustainability. I am making my position known, as I have a vested interest in how my city and region address those matters that are defining 21st Century society.
As this paper will show, I am familiar with most of the policies and guidelines mentioned in the proponent's material. I studied them closely in their draft forms so as to provide my own input for them. Much of my research has been shared with many of the local decision-making and advisory bodies, such as the Smarter Niagara Steering Committee, charged with shaping policies relevant to this application.
While being familiar with, and quite impressed by the quality of the development proposed by it proponents, I am aware of critical issues that present challenges to its placement in the Port Dalhousie Commercial Core. These must not be dismissed for the sake of 'preventing' the deterioration of a district that is far from the socioeconomic decline PDVC and their supporters claim.
Although this paper addresses PDVC's latest application and development proposal, various arguments made previously in "The Wording is Critical to the Intent," still apply. Few modified passages - without footnote citations - are used herein.
Through the Institute of Historic Building Conservation I found a paper quite relevant to the Port proposal. The following excerpt partly captures the spirit of my position:
"There are no economic, social or environmental imperatives for a new generation of tall buildings. It is more a question of choice, of whether we want them for other reasons. If we do choose to have them, then locational considerations are paramount.
In June 2001 English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture Built Environment (CABE) produced a joint consultation document Guidance on Tall Buildings. This emphasised that 'for English Heritage the overriding consideration will be whether the location is suitable for a tall building in terms of its effect on the historic environment at a city wide as well as local level. If not, then no tall buildings will be acceptable, however good the design. Only if it can be demonstrated that the location and context are appropriate will other factors, including design quality, be addressed.'"
~ Tall Storeys and Urban Myths; Philip Davies, Director of English Heritage, London Region
Port Place's Precarious Proposal - A Position Paper on PDVC's Second Application by Bernie Slepkov [Continued]
Conclusion
Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corp., in its desire to redevelop the northern most portion of the Heritage Designated District of the Port Dalhousie Commercial Core, as put before the City of St. Catharines--and Regional Niagara--a very precarious proposal.
This independent position paper, in conjunction with "The Wording is Critical to the Intent", highlights the precariousness of Port Place's proposal with respect to the following:
Our Official Plans, PDVC's proposed amendments, seek to remove from the 'public trust' the very safeguards City staff and council, only recently put into place to prevent exactly that which the proponents wish to do.
The Heritage Assessment Report, by Spencer Higgins, precariously rationalizes contravening significant heritage policies and guidelines, in order to allow PDVC to inject a 17-storey high-rise into a small, predominantly low-rise heritage designated district. This he has done without providing any historical precedents, or presenting either successful or even unsuccessful similar developments.
Provincial and Regional Policies precariously cited by BLS only give superficial evidence of their official intents to pursue and encourage more sustainable long-term, land-use planning. While citing from policies that lend broad-based support for intensification, smart growth¶Δ§ strategies, progressive urban design,¶§ and sustainability,¶Δ§ BLS fails to address or acknowledge, restrictive guidelines or forbidding recommendations, as they seem to pertain to Port Place.
An informative examination of the origins and purposes behind both the Smart Growth¶Δ§ and New Urbanism¶ movements being embraced by the City and Region raises doubts as to Port Place's ability to serve as a credible model. PDVC seemingly ignores, and therefore fails to fulfill key principles¶§Δ, and even progressive urban design¶§ standards intended to strengthen established neighbourhoods. Neither the City, nor the Region can afford to be disingenuous in adopting Smart Growth strategies.
The same logic used by PDVC to claim that City guidelines did not anticipate the kind of intensification now proposed, justifies a re-examination of parking requirements.
The anticipated affects of 'Peak Oil'¶Δ§ are likely to force socioeconomic sustainability on to markets, and communities. These affects could profoundly impact both the success and failure of Port Place, as well as the mid to long-term sustainability¶Δ§ of Port.
Sustainability¶Δ§ addresses far more than environmental issues, and PDVC's development as proposed in this location, may in fact achieve limited, if any, real sustainability. Environmental sustainability, upon which the proponents base their claims, is only one part of a more complex equation. PDVC's failure to complete that equation may in fact result in mid to long-term social, economic, and environmental inequities for Port and the City.
This position paper has explored in fair depth, how PDVC's proposal places staff and councils into precarious positions. Based on those examinations, I say without prejudice, that PDVC's application to amend our Official Plans and thus establish Port Place, must be denied.
Bernie Slepkov
1-213 St. Paul Street,
St. Catharines
tel: 905 984.3493
Disclaimer: The information provided through For Legacies' Sake is without charge as a convenience to visitors. Any reference to products, services, links and other information not produced by me, Bernie Slepkov does not constitute recommendation, endorsement or sponsorship. Nor does it particularly reflect the views and/or opinions of Bernie Slepkov, as an individual. I apologize for any links which may have become inactive over time.
