You will recall that I have written to Council before concerning developments in the downtown area, and I therefore hope you will forgive a further intrusion on your time. I wish to reiterate that I am not opposed to densification, and welcome the concept of revitalizing our downtown core by having more downtown residents.
My concerns with the secondary downtown plan relate to the issue of over height buildings. To date, the downtown area has been limited to five storeys in height. I am especially concerned with the livability and human scale of future development. The proposed plan envisages a number of “hot spots” where buildings of up to 18 storeys, plus mechanicals, may be located. I have visited many cities in both Europe and the Americas where streetscapes have been confined to a human scale in height, and where, moreover, a similarity of building height makes for aesthetically pleasing streetscape vistas. These cities include Stockholm, Paris and Madrid in Europe, Buenos Aires in South America, and the “brownstone” residential areas of cities such as Boston, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. All these cities achieve very high residential density without going to great heights. These districts are routinely chosen by Hollywood as examples of desirable places for the characters in their movies to live. In real life, the residents are connected to the streets on which they live. Converse examples are provided by the inner residential areas of Toronto and Mississauga, where “canyons” of high rise condo and rental buildings separate the people from their neighbourhoods.
Examples in Guelph that appeal to me as good planning include the redevelopment of the Deloitte building on Macdonnell, and the former lumber yard opposite the Guelph Youth Music Centre on Cardigan Street. Another is the redevelopment of the Gummer Building, where the set-back of the higher, interior, part of the building makes it unobtrusive from the street. Converse examples include the distressingly ugly Park Mall, and the high rise apartments on Cardigan Street of which, I am told, previous city councillors said that these were planning mistakes that they wished could be undone.
This last, of course, is exactly the point. High rise buildings cannot be torn down if the result is unpleasing. This is not Legoland.
At this moment in time, you and your fellow councillors face a once-in-a-lifetime planning decision that will impact on the future of our city. It is, I acknowledge, an awesome responsibility. Once permission is granted to erect high rises in the proposed hot spots, pressure will inevitably be placed on you and your successors to use them as precedents for further such intrusions. At the present time, we have a marvellous opportunity to “get it right” with the redevelopment of the two sites at the intersection of Macdonnell and Woolwich and the adjacent Woods factory site. Our successors will not thank us if we get it wrong.
Let me reiterate: I am not opposed to densification of our down town area. Nevertheless, I believe that the downtown secondary plan is based on a fallacious assumption – namely that high rise development is the only solution. Instead, I envision streetscapes of 6-8 storeys that could offer a gracious and livable solution to increased density, with streets such as, but not limited to, Gordon (from Woolwich to Waterloo), Macdonnell, and Woolwich (from the railway to the fire station) gradually being redeveloped in a manner congruent with the planning of the great cities of the world. Moreover, it is simply untrue to say that “the plan ensures that the image and experience of Downtown from within the historic core will not change dramatically.” Of course it will. Placing buildings up the 18 storeys will place a most jarring distortion to the experience of a five-storey streetscape.
Please consider very carefully the options before casting your vote on this plan. I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of our city is in the hands of yourself and your colleagues. NB