By Pepper Parr
January 15th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The crowd that rides the GO train and those who drive the QEW collectively make up the bulk of the people who think about the economy, where we are going as a country and how their home town Burlington is coping.
Before too many noses get out of joint over that opening paragraph, I did say the “bulk” – not all the people who think in this city.
How soon might we see a functional club house at the Nelson Stadium?
These are the people that sit on community committees with their friends and neighbours – the Nelson Stadium Revitalization group is one example, the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition is another. Burlington has dozens and dozens of strong community based groups.
They are aware of our fragile economy, they see the impact and deal with the stuttering economic growth – and they read – and they hear about the federal plans to take on some debt and build or upgrade our infrastructure.
How much of that infrastructure upgrading money is going to get spent in Burlington? And what will it gets spent on? Surely some of it will go into the roads that the current city council says we are millions of dollars behind on.
But what else – what has city hall got on hold that could be rolled out tomorrow if the dollars were available.
Well Councillor Jack Dennison would be close to the front of that line with a move to get the pool at Nelson started.
Are the Mainway and east end rail crossing next on the grade separation list?
Then there are the two remaining rail grade separations that are on the books: Mainway and the crossing in the east end.
A plaza with trees liberally spread out – where can you see that in this city? Mapleview? Burlington Mall?
Would someone at city hall begin to work with the owner of the Lakeshore Village Plaza and find a way to integrate the city holdings with the private property and get something happening out there? The architect on that project has put forward some excellent ideas and the community took part in a meeting more than a month ago on what they would like to see. City hall has yet to report on just what the 300 plus people had to say at that community meeting.
Would the city want to nudge the Region and fast track the building of the Beachway Park?
Has city hall passed its best before date?
There is a fat file in a cabinet somewhere at city hall with a detailed report on what the city needs in terms of space and also sets out how deficient the city hall itself actually is. We are currently renting office space across the street from city hall.
There is a golden opportunity to goose up the never quite vibrant enough downtown and give it some life. Those who continually tell us that downtown is vibrant have jobs that depend on that sleight of hand. Were we to admit that we have failed with our downtown core – those people would need to find jobs doing something else.
What are we missing here?
There is hardly a word coming out of city hall on what they have in the way of ideas and projects that can be made close to “shovel ready”.
The Mayor hasn’t held a press conference this term – the only real press conference he held in his first term was when the city explained how the pier fiasco was settled out of court – and on that occasion he got the city manager to do all the talking.
The current city manager is basically media adverse.
While we have an economy that is struggling, a dollar that is worth 70 cents; oil that is running at about $30 a barrel – but doesn’t seem to have brought gasoline prices down, we are still a people of ideas and energy and we have within us the capacity to make things happen.
Would someone actually do something – soon?
Tom
There is no doubt or question the downtown core is bless with natural beauty and is home to some of the most diverse neighbourhoods in the city. The cultural assets provided by the tax payers of Burlington enhance these assets, who can question why more people want to live there.
All was not lost when the library was demolished, the building of town hall is a point in time I remember the downtown changing in a meaningful way.
The downtown at one time was the central commercial district of the town. When we actually became a city, I think 1974, that distinction had changed. It was no longer the center of commercial activity or residential development. Today it’s known more for it’s beautiful lake front, diversity, cultural events and festivals, many of the reasons you enjoy wondering around down there.
Changes over time is the point.
From my perspective relocating city hall, if it makes financial sense, would not detract from the downtown experience. It’s one way to help control the annual city costs over the long run and address that projected 4% for 20 years tax increase. If this was to be considered those inside that beating heart will have to be trusted, watched carefully, but trusted.
Your description of the downtown reveals the passion you have for the city, particularly the downtown, that, with respect, is a necessary component of a shared vision, the rest is debatable detail.
Tom
There is some merit to a new city hall and relocating it centrally.
At the time of opening, 1965, the current building was centrally located in the main business district, consider the Burlington mall was built in 1967.
In 1986 we added some 60,000 sq. ft. to accommodate the growing city and staff. By then the main business district had shifted to Fairview, residential development had filled in from Brant St. to Buroak.
Today in 2016 the main business district is fragmented, mostly situated in the North and certainly above the QEW. Residential development is now from Waterdown Rd. to Burloak, Lakeshore to Dundas and beyond. The center of all this would be somewhere around Guelph Line and the QEW.
The current city hall sits on arguably some of the most expensive land in the city and is no longer central to the city it serves. We are renting space to accommodate additional requirements and maintaining a 50 year old building.
The corner of Guelph Line and Harvester has been described as the Gateway to the City. Both the South East and West corners could be considered. They provide easy and central access, accommodate all of our needs and an opportunity to build or negotiate a build to lease with the property owners, using the proceeds from the sale on the Brant St. location.
Staff would be able to crunch some numbers on a sale of the existing location and the cost to build verses build to lease however, there is some merit in relocation to reflect the new reality.
John, I guess we have different visions of and for the city.
What about heritage, and keeping a downtown that residents and people like me can recognize?
You seem to suggest we just tear it down to build more condos for the rich. That’s what will happen. After a lot of anger and angst and manipulation of the process.
I’m opposed to it on principle for a lot of reasons, a main one being waste and extravagant and distracting spending that is not needed.
Renting gives a space flexibility that doesn’t exist when the building is yours and you have to account for opportunity costs and variable cost overheads that just go up.
If there is any truth or integrity to the “official” urban/rural structure of the city OP, and the projections for the next 20 to 30 years, the city is now into a slow growth to maturity stage based on intensification of the existing footprint.
At least that’s the message I have heard emanating from the city and Council for years now.
We don’t need another city hall to deal with this.
And I can think of many more things of greater merit, and need, to spend our money on than a new temple for bureaucrats and municipal politicians.
We can ask the citizens what they think and want.
The location you advocate is the gridlock center of the city. I can get to downtown on transit easily. There are a lot of services and amenities there in downtown.
Getting to where you propose locating means I need to drive, adding to the traffic. There is nothing there compared to downtown and nothing I want to go to.
Staff can crunch whatever numbers they want and can come up with whatever result they want. I don’t trust this approach, or them, for a moment.
It’s not a number crunching decision, and the numbers cannot be relied on or trusted.
Have you forgotten the pier fiasco already?
The city has many greater issues and problems – like compound 4% tax increases for the next 20 plus years – that need tending to than building pyramids.
Tom
I think we share more of the same vision than you realize.
City hall is one of the rare moments where over the years our politicians, by design or just good fortune, have invested well.
Originally the building cost was $857,000, that spread over 50 years is $17,140 per year, far less than what could be leased.
The 60,000 sq. ft. extension cost the tax payers $8,000,000 spread over 30 years or $266,666 per year.
Today a lease for office space usually includes a TMI charge and rate per sq. ft. TMI being the tax, maintenance and insurance, much the same as if the building is owned. The rate downtown varies, conservatively $18.00 per sq. ft. At that rate the 1986 60,000 sq. ft. extension would cost $1,080,000 per year plus TMI. I don’t know how large the original building is however, that would only add to the cost.
What I have suggested is to centralize the city hall relative to it’s current footprint, utilize the appreciation of the city land that city hall sits on and position ourselves for the next 50 years.
I am not sure of the services downtown that are not available in most other parts of the city. Within a few blocks of the location I suggested there are restaurants, shopping, doctors, dentists, banks and most other services one would need. The transit currently services this area and the Go station mobility hub is closer than to downtown.
What would become of the existing city hall ? I don’t know however, there are many developers that could provide some vision. Who knows, this could be the site that ignites vibrancy in the downtown.
Downtown is unrecognizable to me today, probably because I can remember the city hall not being there. Heritage was lost when the library was demolished to make room for the current city hall.
John,
With due respect, I don’t see much if any sharing of vision.
The only place I never tire of going to and wandering around is the present downtown. I remember it from more than 60 years ago.
The street-scape and buildings of Brant St. are much the same as then, which is why I recognize it. That doesn’t mean there have been no changes, but that’s not the point here.
It goes right down to the water, and the park, and the beach and canal, and the pier. Most of the cultural assets are there, and a diversified and original neighborhood surrounds.
I know of nothing remotely similar to this diverse street-scape and neighborhood form anywhere else in the city, and certainly not the location you suggest. That location is dominated by the big interchange, the QEW/403/407 spaghetti, much traffic, and rail lines.
Not much variety and diversity close in, unless you include Burlington Mall. And downtown is much closer to the Burlington GO than is your choice of location.
So I don’t know how you think the Guelph Line and Harvester Rd location is closer to the GO than Brant St. – it’s just up the diversified street from Downtown
Downtown is called the Urban Core because that’s where it all started. It’s still the heart – le coeur – of the city, even if it is no longer “central” enough for your taste.
If you don’t recognize it because the library isn’t there anymore, and city hall is for 50 years, than I would have to conclude that you haven’t really been looking too closely.
And if you think heritage was totally lost forever when city hall was built at the expense of the library, I don’t know what to say to that absolute. I might think that the vision you mention was lost then. Just sayin’.
Your number crunching personifies why I said the crunching can be any numbers of choice, and give any results wanted. That’s why I don’t trust them unless I really have to crunch them myself, and have ownership.
As I said, I don’t see it as a number crunching decision because it can’t be trusted for such a decision because it’s easily biased.
You ignore the inflation in everything, especially real estate and construction costs. To provide a credible analysis you need to adjust the numbers for inflation, and put them in real terms compared to the original city hall.I would also want some real numbers on the TMI.
To me tearing down the city hall would be a disgraceful act. If the redevelopments that have already happened have not made the downtown vibrant, then by what imagined miracle would this site make that happen.
What I see as the “vision” provided by developers is the one made of $$$$ signs, and audacious condo erections, where the $$$$ seem to be.
I never see a vision of what we really need for the downtown, and that city hall location – a “beating heart”.
I find it incredible that we would even think about spending money on a new city hall. I can’t imagine a rational reason for such a spending dream.
It’s so irresponsible to propose when the city has plans for almost 4% tax increases a year for 20 plus years. We have less than 1% a year assessment growth, so how does this fit together?
What’s going on at city hall? They talk about keeping taxes low in the draft Strategic Plan, but this kind of actual performance hardly does that.
It’s mind boggling to even consider adding more dead weight overhead.
And moving it out of downtown would be just stupid and a crippling blow.
I would like to know who is responsible for this idea and see the business plan. Looks like empire building to me.
It makes real sense to rent space, and to locate divisions that should be co-located together. Keep them downtown.
Aaaarg!!
I forgot to mention that I saw the Federal Finance Minister on TV tonight advocating spending the promised infrastructure money on public transit.
Now that makes sense.
Thanks All
I will pass your suggestions to the neighbours.
tenniwas
I don’t think the neighbours were whining, with all the money the city spends on the downtown they were just asking what their family could do there.
Perhaps future city investments should be north of the QEW where most of the residence live. I have heard we may soon need a new city hall, the current site would be worth quite a bit to a developer.
I would like to see any money spent on projects that provide leverage to further activities that provide value-added and incentives to new forms of development and other diverse economic activities definitely not related to more condos.
The feed ourselves idea of Monte here is a good place to start doing some thinking. Doing something here involves what is known as “import substitution”, where we keep the money in the local economy. Same thing as loco-voring, or local sourcing, and food security.
Beyond food, this import substitution is an area that some thinking and data collection are needed to see what other things we source a lot of from outside that we can do more locally, and that might be suitable for a public-private partnership.
The public money could provide needed water, sewer, and electric utility “infrastructure” servicing, and the private partner could provide the building and business model. This is where we can spend money that we get.
Monte suggests canning – preserving, but there are other related processs that could work as well.
I do not want it spent on roads and bridges and the like, which are just dead weight overhead as we have learned. Enough!!
If Monte wants to take the lead on something as he suggests I will do what I can.
How about starting some initiatives to make farming more sustainable, profitable and a desired occupation to pursue?
More efficient method of getting produce to a “year round” market. The building of a canning/preserving factory, in order to offer goods year round would be a start. Greenhouses for year round production of fresh produce.
We must abandon our traditional way of thinking on this topic and start investigating creative ways to provide our citizens with year round local food.
I’m confident with the right mix of citizens we could come up with new and creative ways to feed ourselves.
Is anyone up to the challenge?
Wayswas
What are you doing about developingarts & cultural awareness in your boys? As a parent you have a responsibility to provide a rounded cultural education to your boys. The AGB just received a $10 000 donation to provide arts education to children. Check the programmes being offered by BPAC. I see a Canadian country singer is performing next Wednesday. Alice In Wonderland is being performed Sunday, January 24 at 2:30 p.m.
https://www.burlingtonpac.ca/what-s-on/performance-calendar.html
Stop whining and start using a positive attitude by researching. You bought or chose to live where you do.
How about walking, cycling or rollerblading the waterfront trail, Spencer Smith Park, Beachway park, Lake Ontario, Discovery Centre splash pad and pool or visit:
Joseph Brant Museum – Family $15.00
Art Gallery of Burlington – Family $95/year
Performing Arts Centre – Alice in Wonderland – Family $100
Ciné-Starz Upper Canada Place – Family Maximum cost $24
I notice you are making references to the downtown core and if it is actually vibrant.
A neighbour had an interesting observation, I think it may be a question to explore.
He asked, why would I take my family downtown and if I did what would we do?
We have $100 dollars to spend for a family of four.
She had a few obvious activities that weren’t suitable.
We would like to spend are day doing things other than walking, we can do that where we live.
Our boys are both involved with hockey, they do enough skating.
Have asked the boys if they would like to visit an art gallery, less than enthused.
Most of Burlington does not live downtown, what does a family of four with a limited budget do downtown that they can’t do where they live ?
Vibrant downtown, for who ?