Monster home, townhouses in Brampton, neighbours not amused

[RC8]

That's a good point, but somehow I doubt any of the stake holders argued for it!

 

[TOareaFan]

That's a good point, but somehow I doubt any of the stake holders argued for it!

No, you are absolutely right. There are tensions in Brampton and I think that whole San Grewal article raising the cultural issues at play was planted quite intentionally (not necessarily by Grewal...he may have been "used" as a conduit) precisely to get a bit of "election fear" into the hearts/minds of the councillor involved and the Mayor. It took the focus/discussion right out of planning principles and made it nothing more than a political game.

 

[ShonTron]

In my opinion it is a case of the wrong decision for the right reasons (if that makes any sense).

If you are going to rezone these lands for residential a medium (perhaps even high) density residential use is the best decision, despite the misguided objections of an organized community.

Rezoning here, though, is not the right thing to do. The sole and only reason that Metrus wanted the lands rezoned is because they lost out to another developer on Walmart as a tenant.

In isolation, without any tenant names, the city had planned on these lands being commercial. The city does not have a "Walmart specific" zoning classification. If it was good planning that these be commercial lands (providing, both, community services and employment opportunities) then that does not change just because a developer loses a tenant and is too lazy/incompetent to re-work their development to attract other tenants.

If Metrus had not lost Walmart, would they be asking for this rezoning? Off course not. If they had not lost this tenant, would the city be looking to rezone the lands of the other developer who did not get the behemoth from Arkansas?

As a taxpayer in Brampton I was not looking forward to the city spending money at the OMB with the "these houses are too small and dense" argument....but I would have loved them to be going there with the "good planning means a diverse community with multiple land uses. Metrus recognized the planning principles behind the commercial zoning when they thought they had Walmart and spent many months trying to land Walmart. Those planning principles have not changed just because Walmart chose to locate elsewhere" argument.

But Wal-Mart prefers to locate in Dumb!Centres developments. Why would Metrus think that Wal-Mart wouldn't locate at a property controlled by their development b--ch?

 

[TOareaFan]

But Wal-Mart prefers to locate in Dumb!Centres developments. Why would Metrus think that Wal-Mart wouldn't locate at a property controlled by their development b--ch?

In the early days of Walmart in Canada, First Pro (what Smart Centres was then called) were pretty much the exclusive developer for Walmart). Not now, you will find Walmart locating in plazas owned by all the major developers (they are the top tenant by percentage in centres owned by Canada's largest retail landlord).

In any event, it does not matter "why" Metrus thought they could win in this case (perhaps the location is better...it is) but rather that once they lost, the city has no business covering that mistake for them by rezoning the lands.

 

[prosperegal]

On a culturally-related note: I find that when it comes to culture and politics, it's very much a first generation/immigrant generation centric game. Generations born in Canada tend to be more flexible and "adapted" (think: they usually won't live with (elderly) parents/in-laws), whereas the immigrant generation is more ignorant. In Canada (or the GTA, anyway), it seems that "ethnic" politics is the MOST VOCAL from those NOT born or spent most of their younger lives here. I can't express how much it bugs ME as a first generation CBC (Canadian born Chinese).

 

[RC8]

Yeah, only the noisy ignorant types would willingly live with the elderly. Disgusting.