Barton-Tiffany
What Next For Barton-Tiffany?
The area between Barton Street and the Harbour and between Queen and Bay is commonly known as Barton-Tiffany. Currently much of the land is owned by the City. Houses sit vacant, Rheem abandoned; boarded up property is fenced off with “Keep Out” signs. However, three modern manufacturing plants still operate, houses have been built up to the sides of the area and White Star is still waiting to build on Bay Street.
In September 2002, the City issued a "notice of study commencement and Public Consultation" on the West Harbour called Setting Sail. This became a lengthy planning process. A list of “planning principles” was drawn up including a "Ensure new development respects and enhances the character of the neighbourhoods" and "Generally avoid expropriation of residential and commercial properties."
For over 2 years, a Community Liason Committee, made up of residents and stakeholders worked intensively to analyze the issues, provide guidance to City staff and consultants, and interact with residents. The CLC itself conducted research, hosted public meetings and attended all the City Public Information Centres.
The result was Setting Sail, a secondary plan for the North End, Barton-Tiffany, and Barton-Ferguson.
In March 2005, Setting Sail was approved by the City. Immediately, 2 appeals were launched. One, by the North End Neighbourhood Association (NEN), appealed only the traffic management issues arising in Setting Sail.
The other was by CN who appealed the residential designation of Barton-Tiffany. NEN agreed to support the City in this appeal, to secure the residential intensification in Setting Sail. Also involved in this OMB appeal is White Star who have been waiting for years for the issue to be resolved so building can begin. http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/485095--the-saga-of-white-star
However, in July 2011, the lawyer for NEN was advised that the City had changed its mind. Without public consultation, the city wants to change the zoning of about half the land to commercial to settle with CN without another OMB hearing.
Commercial? What does that mean? Small businesses? Cute restaurants? Box stores? Walmart? A mall? At a recent OMB prehearing the City had no answers. And what does “downtown” (Jackson Square, King, James) business think of that? How would “commercial” affect their businesses?
What happened to intensification? Already Barton-Ferguson is another parking lot and is subject to its own OMB appeal.
More people living in the centre of our city means more support for businesses and public amenities. Residential intensification makes our schools, churches and recreation centres stronger and safer from closures. It is possible for the rail yard and new residents to co-exist in Barton-Tiffany – just as they do at C.P. Rail’s Aberdeen Yard in the southwest near the Chedoke Golf course.
Residential intensification is a major, city-wide issue and is crucial to the future of central Hamilton.
A Brief History of Setting Sail
Or Where is the Stadium?
The story actually begins around September 2002 when the City issued a "notice of study commencement and Public Consultation" on the West Harbour called Setting Sail. This became a lengthy planning process.
In order to keep order during this study period, the City passed an interum control bylaw in March 2003, which effectively "froze" development in the Barton/Tiffany area. This may be why the notion exists even today that no one wants to build there.
However, at the time the owner of the former auto wrecking yard on the top of the bluff was proposing that the committee of adjustment amend the zoning to allow "four story multiple dwellings" as is still posted on a sign on the site today.
The City stopped this and everything else, and is still doing so. However, new residential development went ahead on the perimeter of the area, with houses going in at Hess and Barton on Hess, and more houses at Crooks and Barton on Crooks. All sold quickly, and their owners are paying taxes.
The planning process for the rest of the West Harbour, including North End and parts of Beasley and Central neighbourhoods, continued with public participation, and a Citizens' Advisory Group (CAG), & PIC's which ended in March of 2005 with a list of planning "principles" which are somewhat ironic in light of the stadium debate today!
The document begins with "Ensure new development respects and enhances the character of the neighbourhoods" and ends with "Generally avoid expropriation of residential and commercial properties."
North End residents participated fully in this process as this plan encompassed the whole of the North End neighbourhood plus some of Beasley and Central and the West Harbour.
So, where is a stadium? In 1995, six sites in the area had been looked at for a stadium site (4 in the study area, and 2 just beyond). The study concluded there were no suitable sites. But a few years later, Hamilton hoped to host the Commonwealth Games and in July 2003, the Commonwealth Game Federation executive came in town to review the proposed venues. They visited Bayfront Park to see the site of a proposed Commonwealth Stadium (but nothing had actually changed on the ground since 1995 re:a suitable site.)
Publicity shows a computerized rendering of a stadium on the Barton/Tiffany site with an oval track to the West between Queen and the stadium. THIS bid package is the source of the endlessly reproduced image of a computer-assisted drawing of a stadium that we see today! There are actually 2 versions, a smaller 15,000 seat version and a larger 25 - 30,000 seat version (see below, this page). The one we are being sold is the smaller one, although the larger one is the one that is needed.
This much reproduced rendering of a proposed Commonwealth Stadium has been included in the Pan Am Bid book. (It is often credited in the Spectator as a "file photo", or "special to the Spectator".)
(In actuality, there is no architect and no design and no actual feasibility "study" to put a stadium on the site!)
By December of 2003, the PIC included a stadium option as well as 2 housing options, even though we had lost the bid to the Commonwealth Games. However, by March 2004, housing became the preferred option.
In March 2005, Setting Sail was approved by the City.
In June 2009, Hamilton approved the new Urban Official Plan and Setting Sail is incorporated as a Secondary Plan.
Questioning the West Harbour Stadium Site
Vince Agro was a former member of City Council representing Ward 2. Here is a copy of his letter to the editor.
July 16, 2010
"The stadium is to be placed in the urban core of Hamilton. Much of it has been here for well over 100 years. It’s a neighbourhood, parts of which may benefit from refreshing but none of which will benefit from demolition. It’s not the airport lands, nor the newly rebadged Red Hill Industrial Park. We must not allow it to be destroyed in the drive for short-term tax dollars.
The city’s Vision guides us to act differently. It says, “To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, to promote innovation, engage citizens, and provide diverse economic opportunities.” Ask yourself, which parts of the Vision statement are showing up in the dialogue you’ve been hearing since we were awarded the Pan Am Games? What’s the plan for the kids and their families? Where is the innovative thinking? How are you being engaged in the process? Exactly how diverse will these economic opportunities be? "
This quote is from H Mag, the March 2010 edition in an article called The Stadium Site: Why are we not seeing the big picture?" by Graham Crawford.
Here is the link to read the rest of the article -
http://www.new.hmag.ca/?p=545
No Surprise Vote - West Harbour Chosen as Stadium Site
North End Neighbours attended an all day meeting of the Committee of the Whole as council decided to vote for the West Harbour location.
All was not smooth sailing however. Five Councillors voted against the motion to select the West Harbour Site after considerable discussion.
Lloyd Ferguson thought the plan for 600 parking spaces was too few and wanted it reviewed. He did not think his constituents would want to use transit or a shuttle to get to the stadium. Discussion ensued - Can parking be reviewed? Is 600 "locked in"?
One interesting moment came when Ward 1 Councillor Brian McHattie said - I changed my mind. I can see where this is going. I can't vote for a West Harbour Stadium because some councillors will want to change the parking. I need to protect my neighbourhood (Strathcona).
All was not smooth sailing however. Five Councillors voted against the motion to select the West Harbour Site after considerable discussion.
Lloyd Ferguson thought the plan for 600 parking spaces was too few and wanted it reviewed. He did not think his constituents would want to use transit or a shuttle to get to the stadium. Discussion ensued - Can parking be reviewed? Is 600 "locked in"?
One interesting moment came when Ward 1 Councillor Brian McHattie said - I changed my mind. I can see where this is going. I can't vote for a West Harbour Stadium because some councillors will want to change the parking. I need to protect my neighbourhood (Strathcona).
McHattie's Rationale for Changing His Vote
During the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeing on Thursday, Brian McHattie abruptly changed his vote. Prepared to vote for the West Harbour Stadium earlier in the day, he changed his mind when members of council, beginning with Lloyd Ferguson began questioning that the proposed stadium had 600 parking spaces. Mr. Ferguson had support from several others, and wanted the parking expanded and reviewed.
The link below gives Mr. McHattie's reasons for changing his vote.
http://www.brianmchattie.ca/page2.php?id=190
Our Councillor, Bob Bratina also voted against the West Harbour as the site for a Stadium. http://www.bobbratina.ca/ Mr. Bratina has continued to express concern about the cost of cleaning up the site, as well as concerns about the difficulties of building on that particular piece of land. Bob can be congratulated on wanting to focus on revitalizing the downtown rather than building an extensive shopping center near Bay and Barton. Bob supported our neighbourhood by moving the motion to protect us, Beasley, and Central from traffic.
Protecting the Neighbourhoods
Pan Am Stadium location has many residents wondering how our neighbourhood may change. Traffic and parking for large events will affect us. City Hall staff already count the waterfront as providing 1000 spaces - I assume Bayfront Park, the grass area above the park, the grass on Strachan and near Bay, Pier 4 Park, & Pier 8 (near Williams). It is now very clear why the Waterfront Recreational Master Plan is wanting to put in 700 additional parking spaces! That is a lot of cars looking for parking in our neighbourhood! 1700 spaces! This is not counting "on street parking, churches, schools etc.
NEN wrote and submitted a resolution, and requested Bob Bratina to put it forward.
Brian McHattie, Ward 1 Councilor liked the resolution and asked that Strathcona be added to the resolution.
After a break, this resolution was put forward and carried by Committee of the Whole.
a) that approval of the site includes implementation of a program to ensure that the North End, Strathcona, Beasley, and Central Neighbourhoods are protected from adverse traffic and parking impacts related to the stadium/velodrome site uses, through comprehensive traffic and parking management strategies to be developed in consultation with residents of those neighbourhoods.
Public Meeting Feb. 11, 2010
Councilor Bob Bratina, with David Adames, (tourism and Pan Am Games "point man", and other city staff, made a brief presentation to approximately 75 people at Bennetto Recreation Centre announcing that the West Harbour would be chosen for the Pan Am Games Stadium. A recent report had recommended that site and it would be going to Council on Feb. 18.
This meeting was called on very short order. Many residents did not know about it or were not able to change plans on such short notice.
There was much animated discussion, and generally people seemed unhappy about the process. Although several residents spoke in favour of a West Harbour Stadium, the majority of residents are concerned about the many issues associated with living next to a stadium.
Many questions were asked about noise, parking, traffic, visual presentation (what will it look like?).
This meeting was called on very short order. Many residents did not know about it or were not able to change plans on such short notice.
There was much animated discussion, and generally people seemed unhappy about the process. Although several residents spoke in favour of a West Harbour Stadium, the majority of residents are concerned about the many issues associated with living next to a stadium.
Many questions were asked about noise, parking, traffic, visual presentation (what will it look like?).
The Spectator has written and published several articles and a "visual" of a 15,000 seat stadium. A larger stadium is, well, larger. The visual above is a 24,000 - 30,000 seat stadium. Both visuals are taken from the 2003 Commonwealth Games Bid Book. The Spectator has been written to several times about using the smaller image to show a visual for a stadium.
*****************************************************
The City is not done with their plans. Watch this video from The Spec, with Mayor Fred, Chris Muarry, the City Manager. The Canadian Urban Institute recently completed a report "Building Momentum: Made in Hamilton Infrastructure Solutions". Unfortunately, none of the consultations included "neighbourhoods" or even "residents".
http://www.thespec.com/videogallery/720375
