Four Days Left to Ask for Changes to the Vision for North King’s Town

A person can feel a little helpless about the state of the world right now. But here’s something you can do — it’s nearby, it’s easy, it’s right, and it might make you feel a little better.

The Planning Department and Dialog consultants have released a draft of the North King’s Town Visioning Report & Preliminary Market Analysis. We only have until Tuesday, November 15th to suggest changes to it  — and it does need changes! It is important that we get this right, because this is the document that will guide Phase Two of the Secondary Plan. And Phase Two will be the guiding policy document for the future of the Inner Harbour and Old Industrial Area.

We need you to submit your suggestions for changes to Sonya Bolton, Senior Planner, at nktplan@cityofkingston.ca. The more people who write, the more likely we will see a report that will help, not hurt.

In our view, the following changes are absolutely critical.

ONE: Here is the report’s first mention of the WSE:

“The Wellington Street Extension was discussed frequently during public and stakeholder engagement events over the course of the Study. Opinions varied: some members of the public made clear they were not in support of the Wellington Street Extension, in whole, or in part. Others were receptive to building a portion of the extension, from John Counter Street to Railway Street, through the Old Industrial Area. Some expressed support for building the full extension.” (p. 21)

This is simply inaccurate! Here is what we think the paragraph should say:

“The Wellington Street Extension was discussed frequently during public and stakeholder engagement events over the course of the Study. Most of the opinions provided by the public were strongly against the Wellington Street Extension, especially the southern section below Railway Street. Very few expressed support for building the full extension. Members of the public have voiced a strong need to find solutions to transportation issues that do not include building a road along a quiet waterfront park or a recreational trail.”

Our contention that nearly all of the comments about the WSE in the public consultations were against it being built is based on the City’s own summaries of the consultations. See our previous blog post for more details.

TWO:  Several sections of the report need to be strengthened to protect our waterfront and Douglas Fluhrer Park in particular. Some possibilities are:

  • p. 53: explicitly list our waterfront parks in Principle 5: “Conserve natural and heritage resources, and Belle Park and Douglas Fluhrer Park in particular.”

  • p. 55 & 58: include all of our waterfront parks, not only Belle Island, in Big Move 5:  “Protect the green space in Belle Park, Belle Island and Douglas Fluhrer Park. Conserve Belle Island as a naturalized area sacred to Indigenous People.”

  • p. 66, Section 6.2.5, Natural Heritage, needs to be strengthened. Again, all of the waterfront parks should be listed. As well, the word “should” must be changed to “must” in the following paragraph, as highlighted:  “New buildings or structures developed along the river’s edge MUST abide by setbacks that mitigate the development’s negative ecological impact and protect for a ‘ribbon of life’ along the waterfront.”

  • p. 73, Section 6.3.8: the report states there is a potential for higher density development along the waterfront. High density development does not belong along the waterfront.

THREE: The report appears to favour the northern section of the WSE, from Railway Street to John Counter Boulevard. It needs to be changed to make sure the full implications of this road are considered before a decision is made. 

Let us first remind you of some important concerns about that northern section:

  • the WSE is slated to run alongside the new K&P trail. It would destroy an only-just-constructed attractive bimodal (cycling & pedestrian) trail through green space, making it nothing more than a bike lane.
  • there is an urgent need for good cycling access from the north to downtown, given the narrowness of Montreal and Division Streets. The city has invested a great deal in bike lanes recently, but they all end as they approach downtown. With the report’s emphasis on “pedestrian priority” streets, the place for bicycles is underemphasized and the K&P (without the WSE) could be a crucial part of the active transportation network.
  • the report shows no assessment of the benefit of this road, and fails to either justify its $10,000,000 cost, or propose a study to do so. In fact the report suggests that there is little market demand for development in the OIA, so it is not clear why such investment would pay off.
  • there is a risk that the northern section of the WSE could potentially be used in the future to argue for the southern section being built.

With this in mind, some revisions to the report that we would like to see are:

  • All of the maps in the report that show the WSE with the following in the legend, “Potential Wellington Street extension: Subject to further study during the next phase of the Secondary Planning Process” should be changed to show the WSE or a bike/pedestrian only corridor (i.e., the K&P trail) with the legend: “Potential Wellington Street extension or bimodal transportation corridor for bicycles and pedestrians: Subject to further study during the next phase of the Secondary Planning Process.” And the visual needs to show the dotted green line for that corridor going all the way north to John Counter Blvd.

  • On p. 74, Section 6.4.2, Movement Network, the last “Opportunity” describes the vision for the WSE. This paragraph needs to state that the entire WSE needs to be re-evaluated through a transportation study, not only the southern portion, and that a bimodal corridor here only for bicycles and pedestrians must be considered as an alternative that would promote Active Transportation and provide a continuous commuter cycling pathway.

  • on p. 81 the report says that “the transportation study should revaluate the need for the Wellington Street Extension, in consultation with the public, using a study framework that balances transportation, place-making, and urban design objectives. The study framework must also prioritize the Vision’s objective to create a pedestrian-oriented environment and multi-modal street network. It must include a rigorous approach to public consultation, beyond what is typically included in an Environmental Assessment (EA) process.” That’s all very well, but there are more factors to be considered than “transportation, place-making, and urban design.” This list should also include waterfront protection, environmental sustainability, and cultural heritage character.

And, last but not least:

The vision should cross-reference other city policies such as the  Sustainability Plan, the Culture Plan, the emerging youth employment strategy, and so on — and it should state that — if need is demonstrated for them — alternatives to the WSE need to be found.

Please write to Sonya Bolton, as above, and please copy us at wellington.x.kingston@gmail.com.

Thank you! — Mary McCollam and Laura Murray

 

Advertisements

“Keep our valuable waterfront quiet, with no roads”

map_wse_davistannery_wellingtonmidblockYou may have attended or received notice of one of the nine consultation sessions associated with the Community Visioning Exercise and Preliminary Market Analysis to launch the North King’s Town Secondary Plan.

This was an ambitious and wide-ranging consultation. Probably about 1000 Kingstonians took part in the consultations. DIALOG consultants were present at three of the consultations and city staff were at all of them.

You may be wondering what the community said at these meetings, or whether records were kept of what they said.

Happily, the summaries of the consultations have been posted on the city website.

There were valuable, wide-ranging comments from the public on social, business, cultural and environmental issues, and many specific suggestions for the area. On issues especially related to the WSE (Douglas Fluhrer Park, waterfront and wildlife, parks, roads, transit, trails and bike paths), comments in all nine of the consultations were in favour of:

  • more and better transit
  • more walkability and biking, including to work
  • more bike paths, trails and sidewalks
  • the K&P trail a bike/walk green corridor not next to roads
  • fewer cars; less reliance on cars
  • improving existing roads
  • renovating the Outer Station at its current location rather than moving it to Douglas Fluhrer Park
  • quiet waterfront parks with no roads next to them
  • increasing and preserving community green space and public waterfront, including the wild feel of the waterfront
  • protection of wildlife, nature, the land and the water
  • quiet, natural, safe walking paths and bike paths through green space.

No comments opposed any of these.

Many people spoke specifically about the Wellington Street Extension. ALL of the comments summarized in 8 of the 9 consultations were against the Wellington Street Extension; there were ZERO comments in favour.

The one consultation with comments in favour of the WSE was the “Old Industrial Area Visits to Businesses, Social Service Providers and Residents,” for which, unfortunately, city staff did not record the number of people consulted. Rationales given for the WSE in that consultation were to bring more people through the Old Industrial Area and increase property values, to take traffic off of other streets and to provide an access other than Montreal Street for the area. While these goals may be important, they could clearly be met in other, less damaging ways.

It is clear that Kingstonians want a greener, less car-oriented city and no Wellington Street Extension. We await DIALOG’s report and hope that it reflects the feedback they have documented. City staff and Council, please listen and only implement plans that fit that vision!

– Mary McCollam

A sampling of the comments from the public:

  • Keep our valuable waterfront quiet, with no roads.
  • Waterfront should be for everyone, including wildlife.
  • Keep the “wild” feel of the waterfront.
  • Put in a bike/walk green corridor instead of a road.
  • More people will use the K&P trail if they are walking and biking among trees instead of cars.
  • Don’t put trails next to roads.
  • Replant lilacs along the K&P Trail.
  • It would be nice to go for a walk at lunch, but there’s nowhere nice to walk in the Old Industrial Area.
  • Keep the Outer Station where it is – it belongs there. Make it a community hub.
  • It should be easy to walk to work within NKT.
  • I’d like to cycle to work.
  • Improve transit to lessen commuter reliance.
  • The vision should state that alternatives to the WSE need to be found.

Blurry Vision?

Last night at City Hall, Dialog consultants presented images and posters of their vision for the North Kingstown area. The problem was, they were out of focus. It was as if they were looking with binoculars from a great distance and hadn’t quite slid that wheel in the middle to the sweet spot. You know how disorienting it is when you can’t quite tell what you’re looking at, where that tree and branch and bird is that you just saw with your naked eye? That’s what it was like.

Dialog presented eight “Emerging Big Moves,” and they wanted to know if people agreed with them. Here they are:

  1. strengthen connections between the waterfront and a network of public realm destinations
  2. extend and enhance a finer grain network of streets and blocks
  3. plan for compact mixed use intensification around nodes and corridors
  4. cultivate a new hub for entrepreneurial, craft, and knowledge-based employment
  5. protect Belle Island from development and conserve it as a naturalized area sacred to Indigenous peoples
  6. shape character areas to guide appropriate growth and change
  7. continue to intensify the Division Street and Montreal Street corridors
  8. sustain a vibrant industrial employment area, anchored by greater access and connections

OK, some cool ideas here. But the first thing I would ask is whether these are in fact all “Big Moves.” And the second question would be whether “Big Moves” is what we want. Big Moves are showy, risky, and expensive. They might work, but if they don’t, you’re screwed. Instead of a golden fleece, you might end up with a white elephant. Small Moves, on the other hand, a cluster of them, under the radar, are often what win the game.  Small Moves can be agile, responsive, experimental, diverse, reversible, sustainable. I am very skeptical about the Big Move label. Sounds kind of like old-style urban renewal to me, really.

I’m sure we will all look forward to responding to the individual “Big Moves” and the relations between them when the written report is made available within the next month. I am assured by city staff that they really want us to weigh in on which of those moves are most and least attractive, what the priorities should be, and whether the vision and principles the consultants have framed are the right ones. But for now I want to point out how incredibly abstract, how out of focus, these “big moves” are. Other than the specific (and welcome) mention of Belle Island, and the names of a couple of (long) streets, this could come straight out of any planning textbook of our day. So I ask the question, are they really looking at Kingston? Are they looking at where we live and work and play?

If I had to craft a “Vision” for the area — which is what Dialog was asked to do — I would fiddle with that binocular wheel for longer. Or even better, instead of staying that far away I’d ditch the binoculars and look close up. I would say, ok, what specifically are the places we cherish? The places we worry about? The places that could be different or better? The places we don’t want to change at all? This area is not a blank slate, but the map we saw last night kind of made it look that way. The map didn’t for example show the K&P Trail, or the tannery lands as such, or the Outer Station and its trackbed. It showed roads and proposed roads very clearly, but only faint unlabelled shadows of buildings, as if they might not really be there. The consultants didn’t give any specifics or even examples about where the “nodes” suitable for intensification might be or what intensification or “appropriate growth” might look like. Consultant Antonio Gomez-Palacio said that the next phase, the Secondary Plan proper, would “add meat to the bones” of what this first report offers. I don’t know that I see a skeleton here yet. I hope the written report will take us a bit further.

But, you are asking, WHAT ABOUT THE WSE ALREADY!? Well, you could see that alright: a dotted line, all the way from Bay Street to Counter Street. So, what gives? I understand that studies need to be done to assess traffic needs and how to address those, in order to “properly” remove the WSE from planning documents. Fine. But Council explicitly requested investigation of alternatives to the WSE (see here and here). We have been assured time and again by city staff that the Secondary Planning process can result in the removal of the WSE from the City’s plans. In the spoken presentations yesterday we were assured that the consultants do understand there is a lot of opposition to the road — and indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that the large majority of those they heard from oppose it.

Consultants and staff were likely frustrated that so much of the public feedback last night had to do with the WSE and not about the Big Moves. But if this is indeed a “Visioning Exercise,” and it is based on what the consultants heard, and the consultants heard that the WSE is not part of the community’s vision for itself, then why is this line on the map? We’re tired of this topic too, believe me (in fact, this is our 100th blog post on the subject!). But it shouldn’t be surprising that seeing that line on the map — still! — really drew people’s attention, and thus limited our ability to engage with the broader issues we all really do need to discuss.

I look forward to reading the report and coming across a sentence like this, black and white, nice sharp definition:

“The WSE does not form part of our vision for North Kingstown because it endangers waterfront and parkland and entrenches a car-centric view of transportation. We expect that the next stage of planning will a) do a thorough study of multimodal transportation needs in and through the area and b) provide full and transparent rationales for any changes to the road network that may be deemed necessary.”

Then we can all get back to those moves, big or small.

— Laura Murray

 

 

A double standard?

A letter to the editor of the Whig-Standard (2 Sept. 2016) from Anne Lougheed.

The Whig butchered the letter: here’s the original.

 

Over a year ago, opponents of Kingston’s proposed Wellington Street Extension were informed that the WSE cannot be removed from the Official Plan and other city policy documents without a secondary planning process for North King’s Town. This spring the visioning for that process began, with a launch in May at the Royal Canadian Legion on Montreal Street. In June, a well-attended brainstorming session led by Dialog (the consultants hired by the city) was held at the Portuguese Cultural Centre. With Skeleton Park Arts Festival organizers, city planning staff co-hosted a very successful barbecue and concert in Doug Fluhrer Park. City staff were on hand in McBurney (Skeleton) Park on Saturday June 25 to solicit input from festival attendees on the North King’s Town visioning, and set up an information booth at the Princess Street Promenade on July 30th. More pop-up consultations took place August 4th, and the process is just getting started.

All this is necessary, apparently, because although running an arterial road through a waterfront park is an unpopular plan that is neither consistent with good planning practices nor Kingston’s own policies, nothing can be changed without at least two more years’ work and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent.

In contrast, if a developer wishes to ignore city documents (the Official Plan, its specific policies, the architectural guidelines, zoning bylaws etc.) and propose a high rise development for an area of the city where building height is restricted to preserve the human scale and historic fabric, there are fewer obstacles in the way.

Removing the outdated Wellington St. Extension from the Official Plan and other documents is proving to be an enormous challenge. Residents respect the process, however, and have seized the opportunities to engage with city planners and the consultants. Meanwhile, the owner of the Capitol Theatre property has jettisoned our guiding documents and is poised to stomp on our downtown.

The City actively encourages us citizens to participate in city planning, but fails to demonstrate to us why we should even bother.

 Anne Lougheed

Heard in the Harbour on World Listening Day

wind

feet crunching on gravel

sandals slapping the sidewalk

muffled sound of sneakers on pavement

boots tapping

traffic

clunk of manhole cover underfoot

Food Basics doors opening and closing

grocery store music

shopping carts

refrigeration units

fluorescent lights

conversations

cash registers

sprockets clicking on a bike

masts creaking

pulleys clanging on boats

rustling leaves

window AC units

songbirds chirping

dogs panting

dry grass crunching underfoot

voices carrying from boats on the river

pump at water treatment plant

ball game

party

the Moody Blues

city bus’ hydraulic brakes

children playing

bicycle bell

cars on asphalt

car engine revving

the sound of a water bottle being opened

coughing

flags flapping in the wind

breathing

ducks quacking, geese honking

the very faint hum of the causeway, for just a moment

laughter

whispers

train whistle

— Anne Lougheed & Justine Scala, July 18 2016

IMG_1701

Fluhrer Park a Community Asset: Letter to Editor

Metroland Media (Heritage/EMC)
July 2, 2016
Dear Editor,

Last Wednesday (June 22nd), a happy 500-plus crowd made it clear Doug Fluhrer Park is a community asset and deserves to be treated as such.

Part of the Visioning for North King’s Town became a huge family affair.   Most of the 500-plus walked there safely with children and no one had to cross a road to enter the park.  Once there, small children ran freely with no danger from passing cars and the loudest noise was the entertainment.  No vehicle noise and no exhaust fumes.

Doug Fluhrer Park is a valuable, neglected section of Kingston’s waterfront.   It is, and should continue to be, a safely accessible community park.   Many who have never been there believe it to be dangerous and full of discarded needles.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No needles have been found in the annual (Volunteer) park cleanups over the last several years and children play there freely all the time.

The Visioning Exercise has already produced the suggestion of a green link between North King’s Town parks and green areas.  Excellent.   In addition, we suggest simplifying the (expensive and complex) 2014 Doug Fluhrer Park Master Plan to open green space that would allow walking, games, free-running children, gatherings like June 22 – and wildlife.

Upgrade the surface of the old railbed to allow for grass, wildflowers and space for turtles (a far greater population than initially suspected!).   Provide more trees and a few fixed barbeques.   Consider a roofed, open-sided structure that would permit shaded picnics and/or outdoor entertainment – as on Weds June 22nd.   Leave the station building where it is, restore it there and upgrade the immediate area.   And tidy up the Doug Fluhrer Park current car park area and turn-around loop.

Doug Fluhrer Park is a community asset, please let’s treat it as such.

Mike Cole-Hamilton

Imagining the Future of North King’s Town

On the evening of June 20th, with a tornado warning in effect, about 60 people braved the storm to participate in the second public consultation about visions for the Old Industrial Area and the Inner Harbour, hosted by the City of Kingston Planning Department and Dialog, the consultant firm the City has engaged. About 1/3 of attendees had participated in the first public consultation held on May 24th. The session began with an open house format where we reviewed panels that included Dialog’s preliminary study area vision, principles and emerging themes statements, developed by Dialog after the first public consultation. That was followed by a presentation by Dialog’s principal, Antonio Gómez-Palacio, in which he expanded on the ideas and process used to develop this initial vision and showed maps of the study area with possibilities illustrated. We were then invited to provide feedback and discuss further options in five groups facilitated by the consultants at tables with large maps and markers.

At my table, we started with a round robin where each person was asked to say what “resonated most in their thoughts” when they listened to the vision and principles statements. The first statement by the first person (not from Wellington X) was “We don’t want the Wellington Street Extension!” Nearly all at our table immediately agreed. That was later echoed in the group summaries, in which three of the four other spokespersons stated that their table was unanimous in being against the WSE. At only one table did anybody speak out in favour of the extension. The message from attendees about no roads in the park was very clear.

DSCN5078

As always, I’m heartened by the people who attend these meetings and impressed by what they have to say. Smart people with good ideas. Here are a few key points that emerged from my table and from the summaries from the other tables:

  • Create a green space corridor (extend a walking/bike path) that connects the existing green spaces, instead of building the WSE. This would link up several of the existing parks, would provide enhanced waterfront access, increase ecosystem services, and would overall mesh with Kingston’s sustainability goals. Peterborough is an excellent example of a city that has green paths linking up neighbourhoods and more open ‘natural’ spaces.
  • Maintain the more wild areas of the waterfront and the Old Industrial Area. Be cautious about the green corridor idea and what that could turn into. New trails are likely to be very wide (for accessibility, etc.), most likely asphalt, and with severely cut back vegetation alongside, e.g., plans for the K&P trail. New trails would be good as active transportation routes, connections between neighbourhoods and public access to waterfront. We need to balance that with the need to leave as much of the waterfront as wild as possible (including leaving some of the wilder parts without formal trails for humans), and not ‘parkify’ all of the green spaces in the OIA.
  • Revitalize the Outer Station at its current location. The Outer Station (also called the Grand Trunk Train station) should not be moved into the Inner Harbour, not only because there should be no private building in a public park, but because the station could be a focus for the area where it is now. Imagine a brewery with a bistro. Young home buyers could be attracted to this area with lower housing prices, a hub around the Outer Station with food centres and small businesses, transit and bike paths to downtown and to parks nearby, both existing waterfront and new inland parks. Brownfield sites in this area are a problem, but the brownfield sites further south are also a problem. These sites need to be rehabilitated, as is specified in Kingston’s Official Plan.
  • Plan for a second “Innovation Hub” around the Outer Station, instead of only one large hub further south. The two smaller hubs could attract different kinds of businesses. Connect these hubs with active transportation routes: biking, walking, transit. Downplay the car. This ties in to the idea proposed by Dialog to create neighbourhood areas in which people can both live and work. Also, people are increasingly choosing life styles that are not car-dependent, especially young people, partly for life-style reasons and partly to save money.
  • Do not build roads in green spaces or near waterfront. Green spaces and waterfront within cities are a rare resource. Many cities are trying to reclaim their waterfront and add green spaces, including tearing out roads that were previously built. We should keep all of the quiet green spaces we have and add more where possible, not lose them to development. Businesses, as well as citizens, will benefit in the long run.

We did have some concerns with this meeting. Participants at one table were told that studies show an increased need for roads in the north section of the study area, so they asked what studies that was based on and were told that there were many studies (but not which ones) and that following the visioning work traffic studies will be conducted. It would make more sense to have the traffic studies performed in conjunction with the visioning. And all studies on which planning judgments are based should be shared with the public.

A second concern was the lack of note-taking by city staff or the consultants. An attendee was designated as note-taker during the discussions, but not while the spokesperson for each group tied ideas together and summarized. And no one was systematically recording what was said. Thus many of the comments and ideas were lost. (If we had thought of it, WellingtonX should have done an audio recording of all this!)

Overall, though, this was a well-organized, productive public consultation, and we would like to thank Dialog and the City of Kingston. We hope that during future consultations comments from attendees will be systematically recorded and that those comments and all studies used for planning will be shared with the public. We also hope to see many of the excellent ideas provided by the public incorporated into the vision for the Old Industrial Area and the Inner Harbour.

There are two further opportunities for public input this week:  tonight at Fluhrer Park and on Saturday in Skeleton Park. Tonight is a free bbq and concert in Fluhrer Park, 5:30 to 7:30 pm. This Saturday, June 25th, there will be an information booth at the Skeleton Park Music Festival in McBurney Park, 10 am to 6 pm. Come to one or both to say what you want for your city!

— Mary McCollam

Hoping for Dialog on North King’s Town

On 24 May, the City of Kingston Planning Department and the consultant the City has engaged, Dialog, hosted a public consultation about visions for the Old Industrial Area and the Inner Harbour. It was a solid turnout, perhaps 60 people. Dialog’s principal, Antonio Gomez-Palacio, has a good record asserting the importance of public transit and meaningful public engagement; he started the firm Dialog with Jennifer Keesmat, now the Toronto chief planner, who is known for her outspoken support for mid-rise development and a walkable city. So on the face of it they look like a promising choice for this consultation. However, there were a few mis-steps, one being that after we sat quietly through a pretty long slideshow, Gomez-Palacio said something to the effect of “we are eager for your feedback, and this ends the meeting.” It didn’t, quite, because it turned out lots of people did stay and had quite a lot of chance to talk with consultants and staff around large maps and other posters — but in the light of past experiences Kingston residents have had with non-consultative consultations, the statement was a bit jarring.

People were invited to put sticky notes on maps, and they did, like this:

DSCN4929

They were also invited to put red or green dots on posters which had images of features one might imagine for the “North King’s Town” area — features such as community gardens, hotels, schools, and so on. Much one-on-one or small cluster discussion took place between residents and between residents and staff or consultants. I met some people I had not met before and enjoyed talking with them.

The problem was, it wasn’t and isn’t yet clear how those post-it-sized ideas will be documented, digested, and compared. A sticky-note by its nature makes every idea sound simplistic and dogmatic. The dot-sized stickers are worse: some of us didn’t realize that the red dots were supposed to mean “no” and the green dots “yes” and merrily just used the colour of dot at the top of the pile. This format is quite infantilizing, more or less asking us to stick up our hand when our favourite ice cream is called. In the consultation summary posted online, ideas were simply listed, with no sense of which were most often or most forcefully articulated, or how they related to one another. For example, the summary reports that there were “a range of comments about the Wellington Street Extension.” And yet, to my ears at least, that range may have consisted of 2 people in favour, and 30 against. And in fact, we were not encouraged to discuss the topic (sound familiar?) — despite the fact that City staff were instructed to do this planning process specifically to consult on the WSE.

Is this “inclusive” sort of reporting, making sure to nod to outliers, actually accurate? Is it productive? If we have to choose between ideas, we should surely do it by some combination of considering which ideas are held by the most people, and which ideas are best supported by evidence. And that evidence must be gathered according to current best practices, not old-school traffic management assumptions. Will Dialog and its consultant partners help Kingston up its game in terms of quality and transparent evidence? Will it include facts about how much Kingston has to reduce greenhouse gases to meet national targets? Will it help Kingston improve the ways it fosters productive and democratic participation by residents?

Such questions are why it is so important for people to come to the next meeting on this secondary plan, Monday June 20, THIS Monday that is, at 630 at the Portuguese Cultural Centre (the old bus station) at 959 Division Street. We were told that at this meeting Dialog will present some beginning ideas for the visioning arising from what they have heard so far.

There is also opportunity for public input on Wednesday night at Fluhrer Park and on Saturday in Skeleton Park, but we are told that consultants will not be present at these events. If you actually want to hear from and talk with those who will be formulating the outcome of this process, come on Monday! We might have expected one of the consultation meetings to take place in the Inner Harbour/Swamp Ward area — Mulberry School? St. Pat’s? Calvary Church? — but that is not planned. So, come on Monday!

Remember: this process could have a huge effect on the downtown core of Kingston and the places we live, work, and play. That effect could be good, or it could be bad. Let’s dialog with Dialog so they can come up with the kinds of change and preservation that are best for those who live here.

Did I remember to say come on Monday :)?

— Laura Murray

 

Screenprinting Parties Coming Soon!

Join Wellington X and Barb Danielewski on Thursday June 9 and Thurs June 16 for a screenprinting party! No experience necessary. Barb will be on hand to show us the ropes! We will be printing t-shirts and pennants with groovy sayings and images to sell at the Skeleton Park Arts Festival and on other occasions.

This event is free, however, and if you come help us out you can walk away with your own t-shirt and banner. We do encourage people to bring their own t-shirt and/or piece of fabric if they have ones they want to use, but if not, we will have a good selection on hand.

On that note, we are looking for t-shirts and fabric to add to our collection. If you would like to donate, you can drop them off at Minotaur (78 Princess St.)

Both Thursdays we will meet from 6-9pm at 75 Queen St (ramp entrance).
You can RSVP on facebook here.

Keep Parkland, Don’t Swap It

While the proposal to move the Outer Station into the Inner Harbour may not lie at the core of Wellington X’s fight, it is closely related. Just as putting a road through the park deprives people and animals of free and quiet and ample use of the park, moving this building there to house private tenants would do the same. Also, Hank Doornekamp of ABNA investments is on record as supporting the Wellington Street Extension, so it would seem that moving the station to the park is part of a bigger plan he has to connect his various properties (9 North Street, the Woollen Mill, and as he hopes, the Outer Station) with a road. In my opinion, relocating the station poses a threat to the waterfront and to the idea of public space and, therefore, is not acceptable.

On Monday May 16th I attended the City Open House for the proposed ABNA land swap at the Central Library Wilson Room. It was not clear at the outset that this meeting was just an open house, meaning no time was scheduled for the public to ask questions and hear responses as a group. Many of us did want a meeting so we asked for one and staff responded by creating one in the moment.

I initially went to express that I thought the discussion about a land swap in order to move the Outer Station to the park should be rolled into the North King’s Town Secondary Plan. After listening to the other attendees speak, I now think that the discussion should not be happening at all.

One attendee asked if this process itself was not premature in that ABNA does not yet have permission to move the Outer Station to the park. Why were we talking about this issue now, he asked. When staff replied that the heritage questions would be addressed later, he asked, how can we talk about a land swap without specifically discussing what the swap is for? I think we can’t and should not.

Below, I have attempted to summarize the various questions and ideas that came up during the meeting, for your information. I hope that City Staff will answer these questions in any next steps for this process.

Special thanks to Commissioner Hurdle and other staff for being responsive to residents by adapting the open house to a meeting, and to Councillor Schell and Councillor Hutchison for attending the meeting and staying until the end to hear the public questions and comments.

– Sayyida Jaffer

Questions from members of the public about a potential land swap in Fluhrer Park

  • Is it likely that ABNA will receive permission to move the Outer Station given the federal laws and rules that apply – e.g. the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board? Is it likely that the federal government will agree to separate out one of the three buildings that together have a heritage designation and that functioned together at the site?
  • Why have staff recommended this project? Shouldn’t the first step be for ABNA to buy the Outer Station property? Isn’t this proposal premature? Would Council be “putting a thumb on the scales” by agreeing to the land transfer before the station is ABNA’s property? Could ABNA use this in negotiations with the federal government to show community support when that is not necessarily the case?
  • Why would the city agree to any exchange of land when it already holds an easement on the ABNA land and can re-build the waterfront trail on it without any permission or land swap with ABNA? How is a land trade here – when the city already has everything it needs – in the best interests of the city?
  • What justifies reducing the size of Doug Fluhrer Park and allowing a private development in a public park?
  • When would land pass from city ownership to private ownership? Would the property owner have to pay property taxes? Is this property a brownfield? Would clean-up be required? Would property taxes be waived for ten years as has happened with Block D?
  • What effect would having an office building at the edge of Doug Fluhrer Park have on the surrounding buildings and uses? Would this lead to gentrification in the area?
  • If the city is considering reducing the number of parking spaces for the Park to make room for this project, could the city, instead, turn some of the parking spaces into a green space to extend the Park?
  • Shouldn’t the city wait until after the North King’s Town Secondary Plan process before deciding anything? Could the Outer Station be a jewel in the redevelopment of the north end? Is it right to take away this opportunity from the north end? Is it right to have this discussion now when the community has been invited to participate in the community visioning exercise as part of the Secondary Plan process? Has the city asked the company hired to conduct the first stage of the Secondary Plan about the possible role of the Outer Station in the revitalization of this area of Kingston?
  • Since ABNA owns other vacant land in the area, why does the company need to acquire city parkland for this project?
  • What is the actual size of the Outer Station and of the parcel that ABNA wants from the city? How much land around the ABNA building will be for parking and building-related uses? Will there be enough bicycle parking which is a good way to get to a building in the park? (Noted that the city Q and A sheet combined metric and imperial measurements, with inaccurate information, and that the drawings were not to scale.)
  • How would putting a building in Doug Fluhrer Park respect the heritage of the Park which was the site of the K&P roundhouse and had many industrial train-related uses and which would not have been an appropriate place for the Grand Trunk passenger station?
  • What impact would the building have on the park and park users?
  • Would the building include lighting and a public washroom?
  • Have any studies been done to show that the Outer Station can be successfully moved? How long will it last in its current location?
  • How does this proposal interact with the Official Plan? Would the old or new Official Plan apply?
  • What would stop ABNA from adding more storeys to the building as part of the project plan?
  • What impact would the building have on wildlife?