The City of Hamilton recently released a report from the Setting Sail: West Harbour Planning Area Study, which outlines the opportunities and challenges that will define the potential of the west harbourfront. This document is of particular importance as it sets out a framework that will provide a basis for alternative land use and transportation solutions in the next phase of the planning process. It is therefore essential that the call for public input, as requested by those preparing the framework, be heard and opinion be voiced.

Overall, the report should be applauded for being comprehensive in its identification of factors that should be considered during redevelopment. There is much attention given to the premise that any new development must be compatible with existing land uses, most notably the adjacent residential areas. Similarly, there is a strong stance against the presence of a perimeter road along the waterfront, which will hopefully be adhered to. Hamiltonians need only look east down the QEW to Toronto to witness the nightmare scenario where an expressway severs the city from the water's edge. The framework outlined in the report instills a level of confidence that whatever is to follow in terms of proposed development alternatives will be sensible and feasible.

This is in stark contrast to previous visions for the waterfront, the most recent of which was introduced less than 10 years ago. The 1995 West Harbourfront Development Study proposed a grandiose and bold redefinition of the waterfront. For those who don't remember, the 1995 plan included such proposals as a large linear park extending from Barton Street to the bay, punctuated with an amphitheatre situated at the water's edge and included a number of tourist-intensive uses on what is now the CN marshalling yards. It was viewed as exciting to some and horribly inappropriate to others. Ultimately, the proposal was deemed unfeasible and has been shelved ever since.

However, where the 1995 plan excelled was in its recognition of the potential of the study area as a strategically important part of Hamilton, deserving of a proposal with impressive vision and imagination.

Will this new report set the scene for truly exciting visions for redevelopment? One certainly hopes it will, but there is little in the framework that emphasizes the relative importance of this area to the rest of the city, both now and in the future.

Let's be clear, this is not any typical infill project in a fringe area of the city.

With the west harbourfront, there is a truly golden opportunity to give a significant boost to rejuvenation efforts elsewhere in the city, most notably downtown. As well, there is opportunity to create a genuine link between the city and the harbour, where there is a real sense that the waterfront is part of the city in a way that is more than just another gentrified lakefront neighbourhood or where festivals are held during a couple of months out of the year.

The image of Hamilton itself could be improved tremendously through impressive waterfront redevelopment. However, to do so there needs to be the fusion of imagination and pragmatism into the planning process. This begins with the recognition that the west harbourfront is unique in the context of Hamilton in that it is the primary connection between the city and the water.

There is certainly an awareness in the report that the study area sits adjacent to the waterfront as it includes calls for secure public access to the water's edge and the encouragement of marine activities. These points, along with the provision for compatible infill uses, are positive contributions to the debate but are frankly very basic principles by today's standards of positive urban design.

Of greater significance are principles governing the vision of the site as a whole, not only as it stands today, but how it might look in the future. For instance, the report identifies the CN rail marshalling yards as a barrier between the city and water. To mitigate the barrier, there are suggested opportunities to use land around the tracks to make its appearance more attractive -- essentially creating a buffer between the neighbourhood and rail tracks. There is consideration given to the actual relocation of the rail yard, but as some far off option not to be seriously contemplated at the present time. This is a short-sighted premise that should be reconsidered as the CN marshalling yard is a barrier that can not be mitigated in any real way short of removal. Further, development south of the rail tracks should not be planned with the intention of having the rail yard remain. The long-term planning goal for the marshalling yard should be its removal. If political will and money is available for such mega projects as the Red Hill Creek Expressway, there is no reason why the CN marshalling yards must remain on the waterfront. Simply put, without the removal of the rail yard, redevelopment of the west harbourfront is incomplete.

In addition, there is the laudable guiding principle in the report suggesting that views and vistas to the waterfront be preserved and enhanced. The topography of the western portion of the study area, one that slopes from York Boulevard to the water's edge, provides excellent opportunities for extraordinary vistas. With such potential, there should be the encouragement of new views to the waterfront, helping to firmly establish a visual connection between the city and the bay.

One way to achieve this, as the framework rightly suggests, is to extend the existing street pattern to the water's edge. However, why end there? With such wonderful topography available, there should be an opportunity, at least at this early stage, to contemplate the creation of new sightlines on a scale larger than that of a local, narrow roadway. For example, an attractively designed boulevard extending from the corner of Barton and Bay streets, following the gentle slope past Central Park and ending at the water's edge would create an impressive, breathtaking, and genuine city-water connection. Spectacular views from the edge of downtown to the bay would be created.

While such a boulevard would cause some disruption to the surrounding neighbourhood, it must be recognized that any project that seeks to embrace the true potential of the west harbourfront is going to be of concern to the existing community as it would temporarily be at the centre of renewal activities. Neighbourhood concerns should certainly be taken into account in the planning process, but they shouldn't be a reason to erect blinders on our vision, limiting the available options as we begin to propose alternatives for redevelopment. In the longer term, well thought-out development will be of benefit to both the neighbourhood and the city as a whole.

Looked at in a greater context, the stakes are even higher. Hamilton is poised for a civic renaissance. Early signs of downtown renewal are evident, there is an ever-increasing migration of residents from the GTA to the city, and new clusters of economic development, such as the airport, are emerging. It is within this context that an unique opportunity exists. There is the potential to redevelop the waterfront in a way that it becomes a showpiece for the city, something that extends beyond a simple residential infill project with some reinforcement of existing commercial clusters. Let's ensure that caution does not stunt the local imagination and produce an uninspiring waterfront plan, wasting the potential of this vitally important part of the city.

Paul Shaker is an urban policy analyst with the federal government in Ottawa. He was born in Hamilton and has an urban planning degree from McGill University where he produced a thesis on the redevelopment of the West Harbourfront. His views are his own.