ARE
THE TWO TOWER PROPOSALS FROM PDVC REALLY DIFFERENT?
Some people have heard about the developer making major
compromises this time around. Certainly, the community
has a right to expect major changes to the proposal that
was withdrawn at the 11th hour in October, 2005. After
all a large majority of St. Catharines residents were
opposed (poll)
and it is quite likely that the Planning Reports and independent
Peer Reviews were negative.
So, what has changed in this new proposal? When members
of PROUD's Executive met with the City's Planning Services
staff, we asked how it was possible that they anticipated
a Public Council Meeting could be held within four months
for this new application when it was about 14 months for
the previous one (that meeting was, of course, never held
since the developers withdrew their application at the
last minute). The response: because the new application
is the same except for design and form (in other words
all the components, density and square footage remain
the same), and the research done for the previous one
is still valid.
The new application (February, 2006) from the developer
frequently relies on reports prepared for the previous
application as still valid because of the similarity of
the two proposals. For example, the new application reprints
the Economic Effects analysis prepared for the old proposal
in August, 2004. Even an Editorial in the March Issue
of a staunchly pro tower (this and the last tower) local
publication states: " Is it because the new proposal
is so much different from the old one? No! Not much has
changed."
The chart below compares the two proposals ( specific figures are taken right from the Executive
Summaries and Parking/Traffic Reviews in their two applications
to the City). How different are they?" How
naive do the developers think St. Catharines' residents
are?
| Component |
Old Tower
Proposal |
New Tower
Proposal |
| Modern Tower in Low-Rise Heritage
District |
Yes |
Yes |
| Highest Building in City of
St. Catharines |
Yes (328 feet) |
Yes (207 feet) |
| Number of Condos |
80 Condos |
80 Condos |
| Number of Hotel Rooms |
70 Rooms |
70 Rooms |
| Theatre Capacity |
415 Seats |
415 Seats |
| Retail/Bar/Restaurant/Office
Space |
36,132 sq. feet |
39,235 sq. feet |
| New Parking For Theatre or Commercial |
None Provided |
None Provided |
It is obvious that the components of the new proposal
are almost identical. Density and square footage are the
same and so is the exacerbation of already severe parking
and traffic problems. As stated by PROUD President David
Bergen in a March 6,
2006 Media Release: "The tower is shorter only
because it has more condos per floor and they have added
a 7 or 8-storey wing along Main Street. Overall design
is more attractive but, it is still much too massive.
Port will no longer be a village."
Because of the high degree of similarity much
of the information and Expert Opinions included in this
website about the old application are still aplicable
to the new one. Every effort has been made to identify
the limited information that would apply only to one of
the proposals. |
|
|
