Attached below are my delegation notes for this evening’s meeting.
I am here this evening to speak to the issue of the planned 18-storey condo tower at 148 Macdonell, on behalf of the Guelph Civic League.
Since the day it became public knowledge that an 18-storey tower was planned for the Downtown, there has been both support and opposition. Those who own or represent businesses Downtown have understandably been supportive of the plan to rapidly increase density. But many citizens living and working in the Downtown area have genuine concerns that such a development is not appropriate for the Downtown and will have lasting negative impacts.
There have been numerous letters to the editors of local newspapers, letters to councillors, input at city forums, and delegations at Council meetings, as we see here again tonight. Citizens have been trying their best to make their voices heard.
Yes, there has been opportunity for citizen input regarding 18-storeys Downtown.
But outside of the ongoing citizen engagement initiative related to the Woods site, is there any indication that this input has made any difference? It certainly does not appear so.There has been consultation – but no resulting action. Citizens have been listened to – but their concerns have not been acted upon. This is quite low-quality citizen engagement, as many of you will recognize. In fact, this kind of ‘token’ engagement is harmful – it creates cynicism and serves to reduce public participation in the future.
To make matters worse, City staff has allowed construction related to the project to begin even before Council has made a final decision. This certainly increases pressure on Councillors to approve the development, and sends a message to citizens that there is no point in opposing it. Perhaps that was the intent.
Last Monday, I was stunned to hear some councillors say that a Council decision meeting was not the place to “tinker” with a proposed plan; in fact, by doing so, they would violate “the integrity of the process.” I’d like to remind councillors that their representation of citizen input on such matters is a critical part of ‘the process’, no matter how lengthy, complicated, or seemingly ‘good’ the process may be.
Related to this particular project, staff have identified that this location, being a gateway to the Downtown, is an appropriate site for a “landmark or signature building”. They tried to arrive at a design that balances intensification with the protection of the historic Downtown core and heritage buildings. There is some stone work, appropriate colour choices, set backs, lower-level commercial, capacity for district energy use – even bird-friendly building materials.
But will the building, as proposed, be a “landmark or signature building”, as staff envision? Is this really ‘building beautifully’?
The only thing that truly stands out about this building is that it will be 18-storeys in an area that was very recently zoned for six.
In their report, staff says that “in reviewing the major goals of the Official Plan, the proposed amendment facilitates development … in a manner that is sympathetic and compatible with the built form of existing land uses.” It also “enhances the visual qualities of the City and protects existing heritage resources and the unique character of the urban environment.”
This appears to be wishful thinking. This is a building that would be more “sympathetic and compatible” in well-known areas of Mississauga and Brampton.
And how will it protect existing heritage resources and the unique character of the Downtown?Due to site limitations, even the “street-level” commercial won’t be at street level. According to the staff report, commercial entrances are encouraged to be flush with the sidewalk for ease of access and to maintain a strong relationship to the street. But because of the grade at this location, this is not possible.
Lastly, the Downtown’s current tallest tower, the Park Mall, has a growing antenna farm on its roof that is about as visually ugly as it gets. What is there to prevent these antennae from being moved to the top of this much taller ‘landmark’ building? Is that what we want at the ‘gateway’ to our downtown?
In conclusion, Council has a second chance here to show that they take citizen input into such processes seriously. There are significant and genuine concerns about this development, and 18-storey buildings Downtown in general, and Council needs to ensure that these concerns are adequately addressed – without being rushed into a decision by overeager proponents of the project. DS