By Pepper Parr
April 9th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
It was going to be a 29 storey tower at the east end of the football and serve as the building that would become the “entrance” to the City.
The original design was a 29-storey tower that would introduce people to the City coming from the east.
It was certainly an attractive design, and it would impress.
The site at the east end of the football with Old Lakeshore Road on the south and Lakeshore Road on the north it could become a significant destination.
Didn’t impress enough – the plan went back to the City Planning department, where the hard bargaining began.
David Falletta, the Bousfields planner hired to get the development through the planning department stages, spoke to Council at a Statutory meeting which gave the public a chance to see what was planned this time around.
The revised version would be 20 storeys and there would be no guest parking but there would be seven levels of underground parking. There was a suggestion that some lay by parking would be available for guests on city property.
Cut down to 20 storeys but no guest parking.
Planning was requesting direction to continue to review the subject application to bring a subsequent report to City Council in the future outlining staff’s recommendation and an analysis of the
proposal based on applicable planning policy.
The sense was that the city and the developer were close – but not there yet.
The development application was deemed Complete on January 10, 2025
Notice of Statutory Public Meeting and Recommendation Report – March 7, 2025
Statutory Public Meeting & Recommendation Report – April 8, 2025
Council Meeting – April 15, 2025
Statutory Deadline – April 22, 2025
Located at the intersection of Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road
What was particularly interesting was what appears to be a change in ownership of the property. The owner is listed as Acamar Dwelling Corporation. Originally this was a Carriage Gate development.
That Statutory deadline is the date that the developer can take their case to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
In the presentation David Faletta made to Council there were a number of visuals. Faletta’s practice is to make as little information as possible to the public. All we have at this point is what we were able to grab from the web cast.
We will go back to the web cast and pick up more in the way of visuals.
What was particularly interesting was what appears to be a change in ownership of the property. The owner is listed as Acamar Dwelling Corporation. Originally this was a Carriage Gate development.
That Statutory deadline is the date that the developer can take their case to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
In the presentation David Faletta made to Council there were a number of visuals. Faletta’s practice is to make as little information as possible to the public. All we have at this point is what we were able to grab from the web cast.
We will go back to the web cast and pick up more in the way of visuals.
The rendering on the left of the new proposal is of a building that has what architects call the “brutal” approach to design. The towers will sit on a two level podium. The location of the building will have public access to both Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road. When completed the location has the potential to become a very popular destination.
Bruce,
I live at 360 Pearl. A 17 storey condominium located on the corner of Pearl Street and Lakeshore Road. There are 75 units – 5 of which are commercial. We have 3 levels of underground parking.
We have had water issues on the walls of the lowest level of the underground parking.
Gary has very legitmate concerns about this new proposed development having 7 levels of underground parking on a property that is even closer to the water.
Yes, brutal is the right word to use in all aspects of this proposal. And seven levels of underground parking, unseen from street level but not unseen by Mother Nature. So close to the Lake Ontario shoreline, imagine the likelihood of flooding years after the developers have moved on to their next project.
Gary, your concern about potential flooding in the underground garage I find mind-boggling. I think we should have more trust in our engineers to be able to design to hold back the waters of Lake Ontario. If engineers can build dams at Churchill Falls to hold back those mighty waters, a waterproof garage on the Football should not be that difficult. But what surprises me more, Gary, is that you make no reference to the fact that the new plans call for absolutely no visitor parking. Again, a developer is proposing construction of a building with retail on the ground floor, supposedly to attract residents and non-residents to the area. Where the hell are visitors to the building or to downtown supposed to park? Regrettably I was not able to attend the public meeting. I believe the zoning requirement is 1.1 parking spaces per unit. That In itself is a totally inadequate requirement. Generally, developers seek to have parking space ratio of less than 1 per unit. But even then developers provide some amount, no matter how small, of visitor parking. Let’s focus on the things that affect Burlingtonians and which can be argued against at the planning department and the OLT; things like traffic congestion,
Sorry you find my flooding concerns so mind-boggling, Bruce. As a scientist I hope that I am wrong, but with the 100 year floods occurring just ten years apart in Burlington recently and with lake levels rising and shoreline erosion continuing I find it mind-boggling that we allow ever-increasing levels of underground parking that likely stay dry for years, but not forever in my opinion.
I’ve criticized the other issues you focus on in earlier years, to no avail. So I let others like yourself take the usual concerns on, with my thanks.
I watched a small portion of this delegation.
The one thing that was shown on a slide was the fact that they were proposing 165 suites with only 162 parking spaces. No mention of this was discussed while I was watching. As a matter of fact the person delegating never mentioned this while talking about the other information on the same slide.
In an area that already is dealing with traffic congestion and inadequate parking this lack of owner parking should not be permitted.
Why did the developer drop 9 stories? Not through the goodness of his heart.
I was told years ago by a Burlington developer that “what determines the size of a building is how many underground parking spaces can be provided”..
Not having at least one parking space per unit should not be permitted.
Less units will result in more parking spots being available. This is not rocket science.
“Very popular destination “====With who?