Jan 25
The final draft Vision, Plan and Action Strategy for Downtown Sudbury is ready. We hope to see you at our next Speak Up Sudbury event on January 31 starting at 6:00 pm at St. Andrew's Place. Please see the attached flyer for further details.
La dernière version provisoire de la vision, du plan et de la stratégie d'action pour le centre-ville de Sudbury est prête. Au plaisir de vous voir à la séance < Sudbury prend la parole > du 31 janvier, à 18 h, à la Place St. Andrew's. Pour d'autres renseignements, veuillez consulter l'invitation ci-jointe.
Jan 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM The following has been submitted to the “Speak Up Sudbury” Master Plan Review and has been made public. The submission with logo is attached in PDF format and has also been sent to all Councilors and the Mayor.
Romance and Reality – A Downtown Perspective - Submission to “Speak Up Sudbury” Master Plan
Submitted by John Lindsay, Chair, Friendly to Seniors – Sudbury on behalf of the organization.
Those who have lived in Sudbury long enough and are old enough, fondly recall the downtown that used to be prior to the exodus of many office workers, service providers and major retail establishments to various other locations throughout the city. Many remember the days; now long past, of crowded and busy streets and the sense of being part of a big city, almost like a Toronto of the North. Looking back, these times were seen as almost romantic in the sense that we loved how dynamic and alive it felt to be part of what we considered the biggest and best city in Northern Ontario and proud to be the Nickel capital of the World, an expression now seldom heard.
Those days are gone and in reality will never return. Downtowns everywhere, like Sudbury, have suffered the “perfect storm” of having to compete with new commercial and retail development elsewhere with almost no increase in downtown residential population.
However, considering the expansion and development of shopping malls and big box store complexes and the movement of offices and businesses to other locations our downtown has not experienced the same decline as many other cities. Although there is considerable surplus office space available, few storefronts are boarded up, like in other downtowns, and most businesses, old and new, continue to serve the community.
The city and downtown merchants, individually and through their associations, have worked diligently over the years to try to improve the downtown, to restore, even in some measure, its former glory. These endeavors have met with debatable success. Our organization has conducted surveys and focus groups with older adults to determine their feelings and thoughts with respect to downtown and our findings have been duly reported.
To summarize, older adults, a large and significant segment of our population, are no different than other citizens and respond to what we describe as the Three “Cs” – Convenience, Cost and Content. There has to be convenient access, cost must be reasonable and there must be something of value (content) whether a store, service, restaurant or event. Everything else is window dressing. The reason most seniors, except those few within walking distance, and only 5 percent use public transit, do not come downtown except when they need to for business, health purposes, occasionally to shop, or to go to a restaurant at night, and perhaps the market in the summertime, is very simple - they can satisfy these three “Cs” elsewhere, places where they can get to conveniently, with no parking cost and can have most of their needs and/or wants satisfied. Many say that when they do come downtown they have to contend with dirty streets in good weather, snow banks in the winter and panhandlers at all times of the year, not to mention limited pay for parking spots and fewer shopping opportunities than elsewhere.
It is interesting to note that the new master plan calls for creation of 300 more parking spaces but only 100 more than those being taken away by the new school of Architecture and at a significant projected cost, both to develop and for use. As well, most of these new parking spots will be at a considerably greater distance from the downtown merchant and service core. The same applies to the proposed relocation of the bus terminal. These proposals would seem to run counter to one of the most important of the three “Cs”, convenience, and of course the second “C”, cost, which is a major concern to the older taxpayer, as indeed it should to all ratepayers in the city. The same applies to plans for road realignments and beautification projects, which while interesting concepts, will do little to satisfy the three “Cs”. We think that, quite simply, all involved should work with what we have now and do everything possible to make use of the vacant office space downtown for whatever productive use possible including residential development that will increase the downtown population for maximum economic benefit.
One of the main thrusts of the new master plan is for more institutional buildings that will, by their presence, serve to “revitalize” the downtown. Several of the proposed facilities are “destination locations” which like our present downtown Sudbury Arena may attract significant numbers but for limited periods of time. Peripheral benefits are few, compared to those that could be realistically expected by the creation of downtown housing where residents are much more likely to respond to the three “Cs” – convenience, cost and content, simply because of their location, already downtown, to utilize local shops, services and restaurants etc.
We live in a very large and diverse city. Our seniors are concerned that perhaps undue emphasis is being place on just one particular portion which has limited value to many of our residents who may go for extended periods without ever visiting downtown, for whatever purpose, except perhaps for those already mentioned. Many of these same individuals believe that it is not the role of the city to continue to attempt through “master plans” to restore the former romantic downtown city past, but to deal more realistically and cost effectively with what now exists. The example of the restoration of a former grocery store to the new Steelworkers Hall with large community rooms and free parking is an example of how existing resources, even outside of the downtown, can be developed and put to good use for our entire community satisfying the three “C” considerations of convenience, cost and content.
It is no secret that we are in a period of economic restraint and funding for large scale projects such as envisioned in the new master plan will be severely limited for some time into the future. Expenditures by our community that will put additional burden on our senior taxpayers, many whom are dependant on limited income, would not be prudent or appreciated at this time. Therefore it is urged that the utmost degree of realism and creative cost effective measures be applied in deliberations with respect to all aspects of this plan for the future of downtown and indeed all of the City of Greater Sudbury.
Respectfully submitted
John Lindsay, Chair
Friendly to Seniors – Sudbury
Jan 31, 2012 at 8:47 AM Any attempt to revitalise the downtown core cannot proceed without considering the effects this process will have on the satellite communities. They have their own development issues and any concentration of resources for the downtown will likely detract from these communities. It is unlikely that making the downtown pretty, bringing more businesses into the downtown core, and building a new transit station and parking garage, will work. There are certain services, usually medical, that they must go into 'Old Sudbury' for other then that residents from the satellites will naturally continue to head to one of the shopping centres that are outside the downtown core. Spending millions making the 'Old City' a pleasant place for visitors is probably money not well spent. What may work is to construct apartment buildings outside the downtown that are within walking distance or a short bus ride to the downtown, spruce the place up a bit, and this will help sustain those businesses that are already located there. Under this scenario along with plans to make the area more bike and pedestrian friendly and less so for cars would have the desired result with not a lot of public spending. Make it a pleasant destination for residents that may just want to walk around and enjoy a snack, meal, or beverage at one of the number of eating places already there. Be a nice place for students as well.
Feb 4, 2012 at 2:38 PM I suppose it is good to have a vision for improving your city. Change can be good. But in the case of relocating the transit system it is not a good idea. The older population is growing and I thought, up to now, that the needs of older adults as well as the disabled, wheel chair users, young mothers with strollers, etc. was of concern to our leaders. Relocating the station to the corner of Paris and Elgin is a bad idea. You will be forcing this group (large group) to walk that much further for doctor's app'ts, shopping, recreation such as the Older Adult Centre at Parkside. How can this be a good thing. Personally, I will not shop downtown if I have to carry my purchase from the Rainbow Centre to Van Horne St. I will also have to give up going to Parkside, especially in winter. You need to rethink this one.
Mar 31, 2013 at 9:24 PM Recreate Downtown Sudbury without tax dollars!
Historical background argument:
World war two ended. Thousands of soldiers returned home and were granted low interest "Veterans Land Administration" (VLA) loans. They built suburbia. This was the case in every city across North America. Suburbia spawned shopping malls and those shopping malls sucked the retail stores (Major Chains) out of downtown. As the population moved into the perimeter of large cities and local shopping was more convenient, downtown business died. We tried urban renewal with retail rebuilding in the downtown core. This experiment failed because there was not a neighbourhood in close and viable proximity to support it. Shopping habits had already been established in the suburbs. The only way a downtown retail/commerce can be revitalized is by returning a substantial population into the downtown area. It is illogical to do this within the shopping/retail area, as it would defeat the purpose and ultimate goal. What we have now, is a fledgling retail sector downtown, like a mall, so to speak, without a neighbourhood to support it. THINK ABOUT THIS! Sudbury has a fantastic opportunity to reverse the effects of suburbia by utilizing nearly one million square feet of derelict land just west of the downtown CPR tracks. A substantial portion of this land is owned by the city. The artificial (mental) barrier to connecting this land to the existing urban core has been the CPR tracks. There is a simple solution to removing this block, and that is by extending Larch Street under the tracks via an underpass, opening up convenient access to this large tract of open land. The good news is, there are no store fronts on the required Larch street stretch to be affected by the construction of such an underpass. The underpass would also include east and west elevated pedestrian walkways. By elevating Elgin street to the inclining Larch Street, there would be no need to excavate Elgin Street in the process. The cost of the underpass could be bourn partially by the developers invited to build a huge high density, high rise, residential complex on the brownfields west of Elgin Street. The city has the additional opportunity to set design perameters. I envision one or two levels of underground parkin, massive landscaping and regreening, possible ground level retail and multi storey residential. This will create an impressive new skyline for Sudbury with highest and best use of the land. Three things will be accomplished to eliminate the wxisting complaints about what downtown Sudbury needs. First, the image of downtown will be changed dramatically and improved to such an extent that it will serve as a seed development and encourage retail to return to the downtown core, revitalising and beautifying as a fringe benefit. Second, the influx of a substantial population WILL support and energize downtown retail and commerce. This will encourage more suburbanites to frequent downtown more offten, creating a win/win effect. Third, people living within a very few minutes walk to the center of downtown, will not need to drive and occupy parking spaces. This will alleviate a parking problem while filling the downtown with shoppers. Consider, also, that Dumas's Grocery store is already on the edge of the brownfields, ready to accomodate tenants with their grocery needs, a walk away. We have an aging population in Sudbury and the potential for massive population growth, both considerations for an urban high density village/community. The elevated city lights views would be enticing as well as the higher levels ovelooking Lake Ramsey. A portion of the development site could also be reserved for low rental housing for employees of downtown businesses.
I have created a couple of graphics which I would like to include with my argument that the BEST and HIGHEST use of the CPR brownfields west of Elgin Street should be reserved for high density housing and NOT any other form of development, with the exception of the city proposed multi level parking facility (as shown in the tentative Official Plan). With the parking garage in place, it would act as a buffer from the rail line for urban development. The majority of the remainig land is beyond the, optional, 100 metre buffer zone for residential development. Close proximity to rail lines doen't seem to phase development of condominiums in Toronto, so why should it here?
Edmonton, Alberta provides a perfect template to follow in their housing development on former brownfields. As I have pointed out in previous communications, development of high density housing in this area addresses all the established concerns about how to improve downtown Sudbury.
Housing developers will be more receptive to building, a large scale housing project, here in the brownfields, than within the old core of Sudbury downtown. There are major logistical challenges of building within an established commercial nieghbourhood, as opposed to starting fresh in a large open area. This opens up tremendous opportunity for underground parking, major landscaping improvements and a free slate for archtectural design without resticting confinements. Remember, there is a major grocery store already on the perimeter of this area which adds to the logic.
To build new housing within the existing downtown core, creates a new set of self defeating problems. Parking for downtown apartments and condominiums will be a major issue. There can be only limited minimal underground parking which may neccessitate the removal of adjacent buildings to accomodate parking. This eliminates another commerce opportunity in the downtown core which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. If you want consumers to return to downtown for any reason, why eliminate the reasons? Every building removed for parking cars, is one less opportunity to revitalize downtown commerce.
I say, leave and refurbish all existing downtown commercial buildings to handle the positive commercial opportunities and effects of a NEW URBAN HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY in the CPR brownfields. This urban community will have the effect of reversing the suburban exodus effects of post W W 2.
We failed miserabley with our attempt at urban renewal back in the 1960's. Only recent rethinking of this project has helped. No amount of advertising and promotions will reverse the exodus effects of suburban growth. The ONLY way this can be reversed is by housing a substantial population within minutes walking distance of all downtown ammenities. A, city proposed, techno village CAN NOT do what housing on this same land can do. This is NOT highest and best use of the land. Certainly there will be an influx of new workers downtown, but the possibility of workday numbers having a positive impact on downtown pales in comparison to actual permanent housing. There is also the risk of techno businesses, here, being transient, as we have seen with local call centres. Housing provides guaranteed property tax revenue and is sure not to fail as readily as an industrial component.
Please consider what I have said think this through. Don't be led down the path of political opinion. Lets look at the facts and make a common sense decision to address what we have identified as requirements for revitalizing downtown Sudbury. Thank you for taking the time to consider this.
Best regards, Gordon Drysdale