By Pepper Parr
August 28th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The next high-rise tower on Brant Street has broken ground, and demolition is underway.
Demolition has started on the John Street side
Structure on the left was once a jewelry store. Photo credit James Sisson
The east side of what was once Elizabeth’s Furniture. Photo credit James Sisson
They will all be replaced by a 17-storey tower that is dedicated to affordable housing. Financing has been provided by CMHC
your response wasn’t directed at me specifically …. and this discussion solves nothing. It’s simply a display of opinions by residents who have differing points of view. I feel compelled to say however that you’ve certainly made it clear you’ve been “around for decades”, sitting through hearings and dropping acronyms. I guess that’s important information. But if all that experience you point to, yours and others involved in the decision making process at City Hall has led us to a downtown dominated by towers, traffic, and developers calling the shots, then it’s fair to ask what all that time and experience has really accomplished.
The truth is, residents don’t need another lecture about how the Growth Plan works — they live with the consequences every day. And if you’ve been involved since 1993, then you’ve had a front row seat to Burlington’s decline into a developer-driven skyline. I don’t believe telling others to “learn something” is appropriate. I’m able to have an opinion on this matter, even if it doesn’t coincide with yours. Further, maybe some reflection by the people who have been “around for decades”, would cause them to wonder how this development disaster happened under the very process you defend.
You are so utterly and totally correct. The comments here are opinions made by the writers and that every writer is entitled to hold and voice their opinion.
And yet you criticize me for being inappropriate in telling others to “learn something”. I am not sure where I might have said that; but even if I did that would be ok because it would be my opinion. An opinion you clearly say I have the right to hold and express.
You say “Further, maybe some reflection by the people who have been “around for decades”, would cause them to wonder how this development disaster happened under the very process you defend.”. Has there not been considerable reflection already by everyone, including those who have been around for decades, and expressed here in the comment section of numerous articles. My opinion after reflection is we are where we are partly due to the incompetence of Mayor Goldring in not addressing the shortcomings of the then official plan. But the main reason why we are where we are is the politicizing of the OLT combined with the finger on the OLT judgement scales by the Provincial government. My opinion !
Cheryl … your opinion(s) are valid of course. I don’t have the benefit of being involved … I only know what I see, and therefore opine based on how I think the “development” could have been handled.
You’re right about one thing — it’s easy to criticize after the fact. But the reality is, citizens are living with the consequences of Council’s decisions and inaction, so it’s fair to demand accountability.
Let’s be clear: the “loopholes and cracks” were not just figments of imagination — they were the direct result of a messy, delayed planning process. The City dragged its heels on adopting and defending a new Official Plan. That left huge swaths of downtown in limbo, vulnerable to developer appeals. And yes, the OLT ruled within its mandate, but it’s disingenuous to pretend the City wasn’t outplayed.
here are some specifics?
Delay and Uncertainty: Burlington’s new Official Plan sat in limbo for years, under appeal and political meddling. Meanwhile, developers exploited the vacuum and pushed projects through.
Weak Negotiation Posture: Other municipalities have managed to secure stronger community benefits, better setbacks, and lower heights through aggressive negotiation and consistent messaging. Burlington often folded or settled instead of fighting strategically.
Reactive vs. Proactive: Council frequently pointed to the OLT as if it was an inevitable bogeyman. But good planning anticipates appeals, builds airtight policy, and rallies community support. Burlington’s approach was fractured and inconsistent.
What would I have done differently?
Acted Faster – Lock in an enforceable OP and zoning bylaw revisions before the wave of developer appeals.
Fought Smarter – Build a united legal and planning strategy, not piecemeal reactions.
Engaged Citizens – Leverage the clear public opposition to downtown overdevelopment as political and evidentiary weight at the OLT.
Negotiate Harder – When high-rises were inevitable, demand stronger benefits and urban design concessions instead of surrendering on height and density.
Council can’t wash its hands of responsibility just because the OLT stamped approvals. The OLT acted because the City left gaps. Residents deserve leaders who anticipate problems, not ones who explain after the fact why nothing could be done.
Hello Wayne.
I read your comments above and could not let them sit unchallenged.
In my opinion you are incorrect in stating that the City dragged its feet on implementing its new official plan. The current personnel makeup of the City’s Council was first elected in 2018. The immense task of doing research, writing, passing and adopting the new official plan was accomplished in the very short timeframe of 24 months. That is not feet dragging!
It was the developers who challenged various parts of the now official plan. Once challenged at the OLT those parts of the new OP could not be implemented until ruled on by the OLT. The timeline for defending those challenges was controlled and set by the OLT not the City.
I note today Tom Muir who is well versed in the planning process has clearly stated what we all know has being going on. The Ford government has directed it appointees on the OLT to follow government policy in regards to development and to ignore official plans, municipal council and residents’ wishes in favour of developer plans. The OLT is a kangaroo court. You can be incredibly well prepared, have all the winning arguments on your side but that carries absolutely no weight.
You continue to live under the misapprehension that we were in a fair fight.
There isn’t a shred of evidence that the provincial government intrudes on the OLT hearings. Do you really think that Doug Ford picks up the phone and instructs an OLT membner to not approve a development? The decision on the 2020 Lakeshore site is clear to me that the OLT is doing its job. Yes, the developers do oppose part of the Oficial Plan. Do they not have the right to oppose something they disagree with?
Yes, of course developers have the right to appeal to the OLT decisions made by municipalities and to challenge provisions of an official plan. I have never said they do not or should not have that right.
I agree with you. There’s no physical evidence that the Provincial government has instructed the OLT in any way shape or form.
No, of course I do not think the Premier picks up the phone and speaks to the OLT about each and every matter before it. That is a rediculoud suggestion.
However, the appointees to the OLT are all appointed by the Provincial government. So it is not beyond reason to think they are given marching orders by the Provincial government. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests the Provincial government has given broad instructions to the OLT to follow its development policies. Why else would the OLT override the official plans and their zoning and other development bylaws in favour of developers. Remembering that official plans require provincial government approval before being passed by a municipal council.
However, it should be noted a number of sections of the 2020 OP were appealed by developers making those provisions inactive and of no effect when the OLT adjudicates development appeals. In many decisions the OLT completely ignored zoning, height restriction & setback requirement provisions of the still in effect 1997 official plan.
As respects the 2020 Lakeshore Road decision the OLT was in a position where it could not possibly approve the application. The Minister had previously given ministerial consent to a move of the boundary of the intensification area. That boundary move resulted in 2020 Lakeshore Road being outside of the intensification area. The developer’s application was filed after the ministerial consent was given. The developer’s reasoning supporting the application was based upon the development being within the intensification area.
You are so wrong George. Look at what the OLT members always say about working for the Province and needing to work to deliver the Provincial Growth Plan. The developer witnesses say the same thing.
What you do say is not an adequate explanation. Cheryl is far ahead of your self selected self serving points in what you say.
Wayne, I cannot recall where the City approved a development plan for a high-rise in the downtown core that exceeded the new but as yet unenforceable official plan. You talk of loopholes and cracks. Perhaps you could identify what you mean. What cracks? What loopholes?
Developers appealed numerous parts of the new official plan at the OLT which resulted in all those areas under appeal not being implemented and not being applied by the OLT in evaluating appeals.
In my opinion, the general consensus is the OLT was directed by Drug Fraud how to adjudicate each appeal and that it had nothing to do with the competency of the City’s, lawyers or the merits of their arguments. Perhaps you can give specifics to justify your claims.
My overwriting question to all those like yourself who point a finger of blame at Council for the high-rises being approved by the OLT is:- What would you have done differently?
It is very easy to criticize but far more difficult to be constructive and offer an alternative. What would your alternative have been?
Editor’s note: There is no evidence that I am aware of that the province tells the OLT what to do. Put the facts you have on the table please
Cheryl your point is well made however my view of the history, although it coincides with most of your points, I need to remind everyone that there was ample opportunity for for Burlington to resist this shameful result.
Council often talked tough about resisting overdevelopment, but when projects were appealed, the city’s case at the OLT was usually weak, underprepared, or half-hearted.
Developers came armed with planners, lawyers, and consultants. The city either settled or lost — over and over. That’s on council and the mayor for not defending residents properly.
Council approved an Official Plan full of “visions” and “guidelines” that sounded nice, but they left loopholes big enough for developers to drive a condo tower through.
Instead of setting hard limits and sticking to them, they left wiggle room, and developers exploited it.
Councillors and the mayor kept insisting they were protecting “the character of downtown,” yet they approved or failed to stop project after project that clearly changed it.
At some point, if you let 17-, 22-, and 30-storey buildings through, you can’t pretend you’re preserving a small-town main street. Councillors were divided — some wanted to cap heights, others quietly sided with developers. The mayor didn’t enforce a strong, united stance, which meant the city never presented a consistent position. Developers exploited the cracks. Instead of taking ownership, council and the mayor kept pointing fingers at the province, at the OLT, at “uncontrollable forces.” But leadership means fighting for the city, not shrugging and blaming Queen’s Park. Brant Street wasn’t “overrun” because of fate or provincial law — it was because Burlington’s council and mayor lacked the vision, the discipline, and the courage to stand up for the community. They let developers set the pace, they failed to protect downtown, and then they tried to wash their hands of responsibility.
Note the first words of the Gazette story – “the next high rise tower on Brant St … .”
There is really an endless stream in the line, intent on de-commercializing Brant St. It used to be what an attractive shopping and strolling mixed use destination used to be like. I remember Wall’s Meat Market, as it was owned by my family’s relatives long ago – a real Butcher. The small store front and property is still there, as it was, long ago, when I was in it as a kid. How much longer?
Drove through downtown Oakville today along Lakeshore.Not a skyscraper in sight .Too late for Burlington to preserve anything now.
And Oakville has retained all of their Waterfront too!
Unlike Burlington.
hehe …. city hall an developers call this a “process” and “development” …. we all know it’s a “sellout” …….
What a complete travesty for Downtown Burlington!!
Building a residential high rise building right on Brant Street in what once was a major shopping area in downtown Burlington with numerous shops and lovely restaurants and Bake shops in a very walkable part of our city. Now completely destroyed!!
Could they not have located this building somewhere else??
I can’t wait to see what the “affordable” prices will be.
A lot of my history will be gone.The “Coffee Pot”..Pee Wee’s pizza.The store where I got my watch repaired.The room upstairs where the Burlington Band practised etc etc.
Graham,
I agree Graham, it’s all gone!!
So much for keeping any History in Burlington alive!!
Tom, Wayne, Caren, Dorothy, Graham
Reading your comments, I get a sense that you are all somewhat surprised that this development is happening. If you are surprised then I ask where have you been for the last 8 to 10 years. The City has been fighting developers to stop the downtown being turned into a forest of high-rises. Neither the City nor Burlington residents supported the building of high-rises in the downtown. However Drug Fraud and his Conservative Party ignored those wishes and placed a big fat finger on the scales at the OLT which approved the all these developments ignoring the cities, zoning and building codes. So if you want to blame somebody claim Drug Fraud.
So if you voted for the Provincial Conservatives in either of the last two Provincial elections you must share the some of the blame.
Graham, if you are referring to Albert Schmidt’s clock and watch repair shop, I believe that was in the next block north.
Caren, my understanding is there is to be retail occupying the ground floor of this building. What that retail might be, who knows?
Cheryl,
You are way out of line asking me where I have been, and saying that I sound surprised. I have been a Participant witness at many appeals, and have been around since 1993 at City hall and region , OMB, LPat. OLT and the Gazette comments as that, `never mind just the last 8 or 10 years. I never heard of you for most of that time, until just recently.
The fact is I constantly heard from the Planners and appeal lawyers and witnesses that the Province always put forward the Provincial Growth Plan as the Policy framework that the appeal Boards all had to follow, for everything. That was the policy model that was said to be what is “good planning” by all developer lawyers and witnesses.
ceI am not at all surprised, as I am not that ignorant of the process. You need to join in on an appeal and learn something. Read past and procedural organization.
That is where Pepper will find the consistent evidence showing the Province, through the Provincial Growth Plan, is telling the OMB, LPAT, and OLT what development plan and policies they have to follow to decide what development proposal is best.