By focusing on a single location - the Inner Harbour -- the matter of location is removed from the mix of opinion and fact. The City should not deny itself a full comparison of a short list of contrasting sites. Such studies may show that, all things considered, another site to be best.
The Inner Harbour recommendation is based primarily on the opinion that a location in the downtown core offers the greatest return on investment and will have substantial spin-off benefits to businesses in the downtown. Development theory has dominated the Task Force's rational while giving little or no consideration to the social, environmental and broader urban planning considerations
History of the Inner Harbour Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws
The Task Force states that it consulted the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaws. It failed, however, to comment on their application to the various sites considered. The last 20 years of planning of the Inner Harbour Area would be entirely inconsistent with the planning policies set out in these documents.
The planning of the Inner Harbour is an interesting one. Contemporary planning of the Inner Harbour area began in 1983. Many industrial land uses in the Inner Harbour area had ceased to operate and the end of others was foreseeable. Major redevelopment of the area could be anticipated and landowners were beginning to realize what the post-industrial impact might mean for the area. The City wanted to be ahead of the developers and have appropriate planning policies and controls in place in advance of redevelopment proposals. The City's objective was to avoid a repeat of the problems encountered in regulating the development of the Marina City lands and Block D that confronts the city today.
In contrast to the Marina City situation, the City in 1984 retained planning consultants to study the Inner Harbour Area. This was preceded by the enactment of an Interim Control Bylaw 84-31 designed to limit development while the study was underway. Following completion of the study, the concept plan proposed by the consultants with some modifications was accepted. The City subsequently adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 32 and enacted Zoning By-Law Amendment 85-110. Private lands in the area were designated and zoned medium density residential. Remaining industries would continue until their owners considered it was time to cease operating or move to another location more appropriate for industrial uses. The Metal Craft and Kingston Marina land, then owned by Canadian Dredge and Dock, with its drydock and heavy capacity crane was recognized as a legitimate waterfront use and zoned waterfront industrial.
Mayor Rosen is on record as stating at the time that "The City's Administration is to be highly commended for the prudent course it has determined to follow in the redesignation of the lands involved and I am certain that the final result will be a credit both to the people directly involved in this effort and to the community as a whole."
Since the 1984 zoning by-law was enacted there has been a comparatively quiet transformation of the Inner Harbour. Substantial private development has taken place. Specifically, Frontenac Village Condominium, the Bajus Condominium, the Leeuwarden Condominium, and terrace housing on Rideau and Bay Streets have been built in the area. Rideaucrest Home and Rideaucrest Towers have been built and considerable residential upgrading has been carried out in the adjacent residential area to the west of Rideau Street. This area had been given a substantial boost by the earlier Neighbourhood Improvement Programme in the 1970s. Several applications for developments that would have exceeded the planned medium density have been rejected. The City has maintained the integrity of the plan. The report of the Task Force does not acknowledge the redevelopment that has taken place in the Inner Harbour area during the past 20 years.
Many people now live in this convenient Inner Harbour area close to water and the downtown. Many have done so relying on the planning policies adopted by the City in the 1980s and maintained to this time. Those who moved to the Inner Harbour area in the mid-1980s could be considered pioneers. At the time the Anglin Bay area was a graveyard of sunken barges and a partially submerged dredge. All sorts of abandoned heavy materials left over from the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway were piled up on the Anglin Bay Point. Canadian Dredge and Dock was still operating its century-old shipyard on the Metal Craft and Kingston Marina site. Downtown merchants, as they continue to do, wanted more people to live downtown. Those people who moved to the area answered their call. The early people assumed a certain level of risk in doing so, but trusted the City to adhere to its adopted planning policies. Frequently they moved to the Inner Harbour area against the advice of their more cautious friends. Up to this point, they have not been disappointed. Their reliance and trust inherent in the concept, however, has been shaken by the proposal of the Task Force that would impose such a non-residential and non-waterfront use upon a developing neighbourhood.
LVEC Plan Contrary to Long-Term City Plans
The only vacant lands in the proposed LVEC site that are not developed are the city-owned Wellington Street extension alignment and the Anglin parking area behind the OHIP building.
The Wellington Street extension has regularly been delayed for budget reasons, but will likely come about with the construction of the third crossing of the Great Cataraqui River.
Residents of the Inner Harbour are very concerned about the manner in which the Task Force would provide parking for the LVEC. Surface parking on the Anglin parking lot has been seen as a temporary use pending permanent development consistent with established planning policies. Parking for residential developments has been provided internally. The proposed 300 spaces for LVEC parking would entrench parking as a permanent use on a waterfront site.
Privately owned lands include the Metal Craft and Kingston Marina, which remain much as they were at the time of the Inner Harbour Study. As a legitimate waterfront use, they have been accepted uses at that location. This site will evolve over time. For instance, it is not essential that boat building take place at a waterfront location, although launching and in-water commissioning obviously do require access to a waterfront site. The dry dock and crane remain as valuable waterfront resources. The marina lands could conceivably become the land base for expanded recreational use of the Inner Harbour water area. It could become the Inner Harbour equivalent of the Portsmouth Olympic Harbour area. The cost of such lost opportunities should not be ignored without consideration.
Should the City solely focus on the Inner Harbour as the site for an LVEC many citizens concerned about the development of waterfront lands, the protection of neighbourhoods, and the integrity of the planning process will be very alarmed. Citizens who have relied on established planning policies will be particularly aggrieved if the City summarily chooses to proceed with the proposal focusing only on the Inner Harbour site. Unsubstantiated economic development theories should be acted on with caution and weighed along with broader community values.
City Council should not adopt the Task Report as the basis for proceeding without further studies. All the opinions and facts concerning location are not yet in. Council should consider a short list of potential sites for the LVEC that have rather different basic attributes. Prudence requires consideration of the true options and their comparable feasibility assessed. Focusing on a single site runs the risk that an element of justification will creep into the subsequent process. Like a police officer who focuses on a single suspect and misses evidence that is not consistent with an initial theory of guilt.
Haste should be made at a prudent pace free of artificial deadlines that tend to dictate the process rather than facilitate it. Council will be judged on how well it decided and not by its speed. Mayor Rosen has stated that it does not matter where the LVEC is built as long as it is built. The decision on location is about as important a decision as there will be. A good process will facilitate good judgement. Council should not feel compelled to make a decision just to appear to be decisive. The integrity of the planning process should be maintained. Changes to long standing planning policies should not be made without justification.
Robert Mackenzie
Kingston, ON