//static.getclicky.com/js

Councillor takes small group on a tour of Ground Zero - did she give them the complete story?

By Pepper Parr

February 9th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

“A terrific turnout” said ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, who took a small group on a downtown development tour last Saturday.

“We embraced the chilly weather and learned about various developments in different stages, the planning process and Council’s vision for development.

“It was an interactive afternoon and one more way to connect with my office about our community. Thank you to everyone that came out, stay tuned for the next one in April.”

Well now, there was a lot more to the tour than the Councillor is revealing.

In the photograph below, the Councillor is in front of the Waterfront Hotel, a site that will be demolished and replaced by two towers that will be more than 30 storeys high – both sitting on a five storey podium.

Lisa Kearns on the site of a planned two tower development.

It is the most controversial development the city has had to cope with and if it proceeds the way the developers want – the quaint Burlington downtown you now know will be history.

The site Lisa Kearns is standing on will have what you see below.

Rendering of what the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore will look like if the development proceeds.

Developers’ rendering of the two towers they want to build at the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore road – the site of the Waterfront Hotel

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments to Councillor takes small group on a tour of Ground Zero – did she give them the complete story?

  • Penny Hersh

    Bob if you can’t see the difference in providing subsidized housing in the existing Robert Bateman property and building high rises in the downtown which are running at $1,000.00 per square foot I have not been clear in my comments, and I apologize.

    Mr Leigh according to our planning department the cost of providing the infrastructure to accommodate new development far outweighs the property taxes collected for many years.

    • Bob

      So removing green space is OK with you, just not in the downtown core?
      You do realize that in order to make Affordable Housing that doesn’t cost $1000 per square foot would entail building up not out right?

    • Bruce Leigh

      You still have not said how you would have had the City finance the cost to purchase the land, demolish the buildings, and create parkland, whilst also bearing in mind the parkland would not generate any revenue to help offset the acquisition and re-puposing costs.

  • Penny Hersh

    Quaint Burlington is long gone. As we watch the Carriage Development rising on Brant/James Street it is quite obvious that this has already changed the look and the feel of the area and the skyline as you drive along New Street to Brant Road.

    The Pier is dwarfed by the Bridgewater Development, and the area along Lakeshore Road to Brant is already destined to be a high-rise corridor.

    This property is no more “special” than any other. If the city wanted to preserve the area they should have purchased the Waterfront Hotel years ago and turned it into parkland.

    That would have taken Vision something this city and past councils seems not to have had.

    Rather than blaming the OLT perhaps they should look a little closer to home.

    • Bruce Leigh

      Ms Hersh. This is your opinion to which you are entitled. Since you put forward what would have been an alternative strategy, I ask you to expand on how that strategy would have played out. Buying the Waterfront property and turning it into a park sounds wonderful. Perhaps you could say how that cost would have been financed without resulting in higher taxes. As parkland there would be little to no financial recovery via a revenue stream. Should a community type centre have been included a revenue stream would result.

      We all are most interested to hearing your expanded thoughts.

    • Bob

      Aren’t you the same Penny Hersh who commented the Robert Bateman property on New Street should be used for affordable housing? Would that be the same New Street you’re saying is too dense? Talk about NIMBYism.
      When you anti development people come up with cockamamie excuses why not to build downtown, you should practice your arguments in front of the mirror first and listen to the ridiculousness of your arguments.
      I read on another article about this project someone commenting about birds flying into the glass if they went 36 stories. Like birds are smart enough to avoid them at 20 or whatever but 30 and they turn dumb.
      How about the “thin red line” group. What if I live east of the site? Perhaps I’d like a thin blue line so I can have the view instead of people on the west?