By Pepper Parr
May 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The first of four public Workshops on what people want the downtown core to look like was a success – a notable success. “Destination Downtown – a conversation about our future” invited ward 2 constituents to consider this question: What if developers, businesses and residents could work together to build our downtown – finding common ground instead of fighting?
The answer was some 125 people that included developers, residents and an impressive number of planning staff who took part in two hours of animated discussion.
Councillor Marianne Meed Ward had caught the sense of many downtown residents who wanted to be involved in the growth of their community and not be unempowered dupes who leave everything to the politicians and hope they get it right.
The Gazette asked Meed Ward what she had learned from the first experience and where was she going to go with the second Workshop which takes place at the Performing Arts Centre, May 27; at 7 pm
“I hope that we succeed in building on what we learned at the first Workshop” said Meed Ward who will be putting all the comments – and there were hundreds of them, on her web site.
Meed Ward added that the people in her ward care passionately about what happens in their community and they felt it was great to be able to participate and sit beside a developer and ask why they built what they built.
Meed Ward added that there was a willingness on the part of the residents to understand that there will be changes – they just want to be involved in determining what those changes are going to do to the city they live in
Meed Ward said it was clear that those taking part in the Workshop wanted good design and that they wanted the city’s heritage protected.
Part of the purpose was to allow developers and residents to meet each other and for the residents to get beyond the stereotype that developers are interested in profit and nothing more than profit. Meed Ward didn’t add that there are still developers who take that approach – they weren’t in the room that evening.
The event was focused on ward 2 – Mayor Goldring was in the room and sat in on several of the groups that were poring over large drawings of where development was taking place – the drawing were quite a jolt for some – there are a lot of projects in various stages of development.
The second Workshop is going to focus on two separate developments – situations where there isn’t a site plan – no clear idea what will be built.
Property has been assembled – the developers are now thinking through what they want to do and measuring that against what they think the market wants.
The Molinaro’s have assembled several parcels of land on Brant at Ghent – where there happens to be quite a bit of development that is in various stages of progress
The property known as the Ghent farmhouse appears to be in play; significant expansion of Brant Square Plaza has already been put before the public – site plan approval for that development which will add four storeys to the two storey structure on the south end to Olga is expected by the end of the year.
When the Molinaros’ took their Brock street development that is now becoming occupied – Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon has moved in and will hold a formal opening later this month – the 27th, they tended to buck the views of the people who took part in the public meeting. That project was eventually approved with significant height and density changes.
The Molinaro’s learned however that it is wiser to work with a community and bring as many people as possible into the tent.
When the large Fairview property next to the GO station was acquired and plans for a five tower development was proposed the first thing the Molinaro’s did was meet with the ward councillor and get the public involved.
It worked for them and the number of developers who showed up at the Workshop suggests that the Meed Ward approach may become the direction that becomes the norm for this city.
Another project that will be looked at closely is at Lakeshore and Burlington. The developers apparently want to hear what the residents think – there are no commitments that they will leave the Workshop promising to do what the residents want – that’s not quite the way residential development takes place.
While the event took place in ward 2 and was about ward 2 – the concept that Meed Ward is fashioning is applicable in every ward in the city.
It could work in Aldershot, and in the east end of the city where Councillor Sharman reigns and ward 6 as well.
One would hope that the other members of council would have wanted to at least look in on what Meed Ward was trying to do and see if it might work in their wards.
Unfortunately the divide between the kind of thinking that moves Meed Ward forward and the approaches much of the rest of council take don’t suggest smooth sailing for project that the public wants input on.
If Meed Ward came up with the idea – the rest of Council won’t go near it – with the exception of Councillor Taylor and to a lesser degree Councillor Dennison.
Councillor Lancaster is focused on winning the federal nomination for the new Oakville North Burlington riding – her constituents shouldn’t expect to see much of her locally.
If she wins the nomination and goes on to win federal seat the city will have to hold a by-election to replace her. There are people in ward 6 who are lining up to file their nomination papers.
Meed Ward appears to have tapped into a public desire to take part and to be involved.
The only cautionary note is that the largest property owner in the city and the developer who took his project to the OMB were not in the room.
Peter:
This is a little simplistic, even for you. I trust that since you find so many flaws in the Ward 2 Councillor’s approach that you attended her workshop to provide your sage counsel and expertise. If not, then I really don’t feel you have much room to comment.
The approach is not flawed. It is the person claiming ownership of an approach that has been in existence ever since the planning act has been alive that needs to explain how she failed to deliver what she is preaching; a bit of hypocrisy permeates the downtown air, and we are off to the OMB again.
Being proactive in the development takes more than just workshops. Workshops are great for educating the public and getting people to feel involved; it is definitely a good start for the people to voice their opinions in a positive manner. It is also good for transparency. It is all good, as far as workshops go; a community group hug of sorts.
However, the execution of effective management of development is another matter. There is no excuse for this city to be going to the OMB on the Martha project. There should also have been a recommendation made by the city for the new development as part of the response to the proposal, instead of Meed Ward saying NO we are sticking with the existing governing land use policies which are currently in place; that is not realistic and definitely not responsible management of a very expensive file.
Seems to me every single Councillor plus the Mayor said an absolute no to this project and condemned the audacity of the ask – 28 stories when the site is zoned for 4 – 8. They wisely felt (as a whole group) that you don’t try and bargain when the starting point is ridiculous.
Didn’t seem to me to be just a Ward 2 Councillor vote. Wasn’t Meed Ward against, all others for. Guess you missed that count Peter. But then to you everything is a Meed Ward plot, isn’t it?
I didn’t see Peter Rusin there, and I went looking. My reasoning is similar to yours Mike.
“ask Craven how its done.”
You create a group and a document called “The Down Town Village Vision” calling for greening and a vibrant community. Then let builders build almost anything, almost anywhere at any cost to the community. You support the “The Down Town Village Vision” in theory – so you are associated with all the positive things in that document. In practise the exact opposite is going on. To residents you support all the things they are interested in and developers get to build what they want. Everyone is happy. I assume all this isn’t noticed until it’s all too late – then you shrug your shoulders. Well we “wanted” stores and vibrancy – but darn those pesky people unwilling to walk 50 minutes to do there shopping. And those pesky business owners unable to turn a profit on a street grid locked 2 hours a day. Tisk, Tisk – if only they had believed.
Of course Aldershot own version is the “Plains Road Village Vision.” The last thing built even close to that was the Shoppers Drug Mart. Since then it’s been nothing but shoving people in any which way and dam the consequences. A bunch of people at all levels claiming up is down, good is bad, you green you city by cutting down trees and get stores by replacing them with apartment buildings.
I have no understanding about the Martha/Lakeshore project other than desire for a building higher than 22 stories or Craven having a better solution to participatory democracy?
What I do think is that this participatory democracy style was used by former mayor Rob MacIsaac. It is good to see it being brought back. MacIsssac was interested in intensification, live work scenarios and other municipal issues. I know that the present mayor is also working on this issue.
I continue to think that Meed Ward does a good job. Something must not be working if there is hostility towards her. Let’s hope that the writer is wrong.
If so, then why did Meed Ward and her resistance movement entourage force the Martha/Lakeshore corner project straight to the OMB, at significant cost to the city? It would be easier just to ask Craven how its done.