20 November 2004

Messrs. David Bergen and Carlos Garcia
PROUD

Dear Sirs:

I have followed with great interest the advocacy of PROUD regarding the
proposal of the PDVC. Unfortunately, a previous engagement prevents me
from attending your meeting on 21 November. If you choose to do so, you
may read part or all of the following at your meeting on 21 September:

As an historian who has devoted the past quarter of a century and more to
the history of the Welland Canal, as the co-author of four books concerned
with that history, and as Chair of the recent World Canals Conference held
in St. Catharines this past June, I feel that my opinion may be of some
value. I was absolutely appalled at the PDVC presentation at that
Conference.

My interest in the Welland has led me far afield: I’ve travelled widely
in Great Britain (and to a lesser extent in the United States), visiting a
great number of canal sites. The restoration and preservation of
abandoned canal-side property and buildings has accelerated markedly in
recent years, especially in Britain. Attention has been paid not merely
to the physical properties, but also to the general ambience of such
sites, ensuring that new construction shall be in keeping with its
surroundings, in both scale and appearance.

We who value the Welland Canal and its heritage have good reason to be
upset at the prospect of a large glass tower stuck in the middle of one of
the few canalscapes remaining. West Street in Port Colborne is the only
comparable area.

Much has been made by some proponents of the PDVC scheme that the
buildings of Port Dalhousie are no longer Victorian, hence have no
historic or heritage value. THIS IS A TOTAL IRRELEVANCY, since Port was
the northern terminus of the Welland until late November 1930, when the
first ships were able to transit the completed Fourth Canal. PROUD and
its supporters are quite correct in claiming that the proposals of the
PDVC not only destroy much of Port’s heritage (whether Victorian or 20th
century), but also impose a structure which is totally alien — in scale,
material and general ambience. The PDVC scheme, as you know, violates the
existing and already approved Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and Heritage
Guidelines.

I totally agree with PROUD in their stand — and in their claim that they
are not necessarily anti-development in general, but rather, against this
desecration of what is a pleasant enough townscape. The real problems,
which PDVC have not yet addressed, are lack of access and parking, and the
control of some perceived rowdyism, especially on summer week-ends. These
problems could, I am sure, be solved in more rational ways than sticking a
great blob of glass in the heart of a charming landscape.

Yours sincerely,