By Pepper Parr
August 15th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It was a surprisingly good crowd for a meeting that was about Construction Management for a building that is far from popular.
There were at least 75 city residents in the room along with perhaps ten from the ADI Development Group and three – maybe four from the city.
They were on hand to learn what the Construction Management program for the build of the 26 storey Nautique at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road was going to look like.
It wasn’t a pretty picture.
The site is at a part of Lakeshore Road where the lanes narrow. Staging equipment and managing the trucks that will arrive almost by the hour is a herculean management task.
The public didn’t like much of what they heard but city transportation staff explained that they were up against a site that was always going to be difficult to work with.
The development had been approved via an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) – the developer had first appealed the city’s failure to process the application within the required amount of time.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns listening to a question
The meeting was hosted by the ward Councillor, Lisa Kearns who had planned on having the people who were going to do the construction and the city staff who were going to oversee the work speak to the issues.
Kearns had said earlier that she didn’t want the event to be a Q&A where the same questions were asked over and over.
Try as she might – Kearns got a full-fledged Q&A – there were not only a lot of questions – some answers – but some very good suggestions from the audience. She commented that it looked like they were about to “wander into the worst case scenario”. It wasn’t that bad.
Street access and parking, noise and dust control and – ‘will the ambulance be able to get to my door?’ were amongst the questions.
Kearns wanted to assure people that the ambulance would get there – Martha’s Landing, a retirement home is across the street from the development.
Greg Sage, chief of the Paramedic services was on hand to assure everyone that the ambulances would get through although he didn’t say that his people would be working with the traffic managers that ADI was going to have on site.
Albert Facenda listening intently
Josie Wagstaffe submitting a comment.
Lynn Crosby bending the Mayor’s ear.
Parking for the construction workers didn’t get resolved as nicely. The city recently opened 60 spaces in the addition to the parking lot behind Joe Dogs on Brant Street – ADI has arranged to rent 40 0f them. “We just got those parking spaces” was a comment from the audience.
It was suggested that the workers be given parking spots some distance away where they would not take parking away from people shopping in the downtown core and then use a shuttle bus to get the trades people to the site. An approach like this was used by the hospital when it was being built. The ADI people didn’t seem to be impressed by that idea.
Traffic flow – it is going to be miserable. There will be no left turn off Martha onto Lakeshore. Lakeshore will narrow a bit right in front of the site.
One of the pluses was the three flagmen that ADI will have on the site.
Staging of trucks delivering material to the site will be on OLD Lakeshore Road; the flagmen will get them off Old Lakeshore and onto Lakeshore.
Some of the ADI Group staff were on hand to explain what they were doing.
Construction will take place from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and on some occasions, especially when concrete is being poured they will work into the night – requiring special permission to do so.
Both the Councillor, the Mayor and the people from the transportation department said, on several occasions, that meetings to talk about construction management were something new for the city. ‘Never been done before’ said the Mayor and the Councillor.
Not true – when Monarch was building in the Headon Forest community they held meetings with the residents on a monthly basis.
Kearns did her best to convince the audience that she “was their champion” and that she ensured there were “course corrections” when they were needed.
She explained that she was at the table with the Transportation people pushing for the interests of the area residents. “You will know what is happening and I will be here to lead you through this.”
The audience was told that the construction was going to take 30 months and that the Bridgewater development was another year away from completion. The two site are a couple of football fields apart.
No one asked why the building was going to have seven storeys of underground parking rather than the six that has been approved. One has to feel sorry for anyone who has to wind up seven levels to get to the street. It is a very small site.
The meeting also learned that next week, in the same location – at the Art Gallery, the Carriage Gate people will be on hand to explain how they are going to manage the development of their site – opposite city hall – where demolition of the existing buildings is planned for some time in September.
It is not a very big construction site.
Cranes on the Burlington skyline.
The Adi brothers.
The issue on the problems that will crop up and how they will be managed will depend to a very large degree on how the ADI people respond and behave. They are a tough crowd, they know what they want to do and they don’t let very much get in the way.
The buildings they put up are well designed – they have brought some very progressive looking buildings to the city and word is that the quality is there.
Hopefully the corporate attitude has been toned down.
The reality is that development, especially condo development, along our lakefront is here and it’s here to stay. It’s happening everywhere: Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Stoney Creek. Even Milton has approved multiple projects. Why is that? Because the demand is there, that’s all. In the next decade, there will be a multitudes who will be selling their large homes – the children of the last of the so called baby boomers – who are fairly affluent (in part because they’ll be inheriting lots of money from the bona fide baby boomers) and who are looking to invest this money in high end condos, among other things. Builders are smart, they know this and of course, as capitalism goes, they will seek to fill this demand to make a good buck to boot. And why not? Burlington is a beautiful city, with a beautiful waterfront so of course high end condos will be built here, especially near and around the lake. If we prevent these buildings from being built, builders will redeploy and build somewhere else and the money will flow OUT of Burlington. High end and expensive sounds terrible, but we need it here because it brings a lot of money into the area, hence greater demand for services, restaurants, shops: people with money will want to spend it so why send it somewhere else? I am not suggesting not to build “affordable” housing (whatever that means). Everyone wants affordable housing, but to build such, builders will cut corners because they need to make a profit, hence a lower quality product will result. That will bring down property values in the vicinity, which is okay, but I don’t think anyone wants that! Yea, build affordable housing, just not in my backyard, right?
Alfred. You are so right; it is all about capitalism. Capitalism is all about return on investment (ROI). How many new apartment buildings have you seen built (not just refurbished) in the last 5 or even 10 years. I would guess probably less than 1. Many condos and many seniors’ homes. Why is that? The ROI is so much higher than with rental apartment buildings.
I believe the only solution to gaining a stock of affordable rental apartment units is for Provincial, regional and municipal governments to get together and between them build and manage the units.
Penny How do the prices the developers are charging for these units, have anything to do with what can be considered your business? If they choose to cater to the high end market. Which is units downtown on or near the water. Built on the most expensive real estate in the City. Who did you think these units were built for,, homeless people? The City of Burlington is mandated to permit the building of a variety of homes and styles. To cater to everyone. This will leave an opening for other developers to capture the mid or lower range market. It’s called Capitalism and it works.
I would also encourage residents to go to the ADI website to see the cost of these condominiums. They are charging $1,000.00 per square foot for most of the units. This development will do nothing to help young people trying to enter the real estate market. Perhaps 1% of the population will be able to afford these units.
Adam do you really think that this development answers the need that “housing is a public necessity” for the masses.
I live in a condo on Lakeshore/Pearl Street – so it lines up with where this development will be taking place. We have 3 levels of underground parking and have been dealing with Water Penetration problems. Just because they can build 7 stories of underground parking doesn’t mean that owners will not be dealing with water issues once the developer walks away when the 5 year Tarion Warranty ends. When we had issues we found that Tarion had very little clout.
As for parking for the construction workers, I suggested today to City Staff and Councillors that perhaps ADI could make arrangements with Carriage Gate to use the empty lot beside the Berkley Condominium – you know where the parking garage and 8 storey medical building were part of the agreement to get increased height for the condominium – but never got built. This way no public parking would be used. I also was the one who suggested the shuttle option to Burlington Mall.
When this new public parking lot on Caroline was built residents were led to believe it was done to provide more parking for the downtown. Now I wonder if this was done to accommodate this development. The properties that were demolished to construct this lot were owned by the City. What was the total cost for this lot, that was paid for by tax dollars?
I live right across from the unfinished Bridgewater Development that has been delayed yet again, supposedly move in date will now be June 2020. There are rarely more than 5-7 people working on this development presently. I doubt that ADI will be able to meet their 30 month target.
The Bridgewater had 2 construction workers after hours to smooth out the concrete with very noisy machines and done by eye only. There were bright lights shining into our windows until 2am in the morning. Is it any wonder that most condominiums have floors that tilt.
The increase of the median to Lakeshore will be problematic. First of all it will eliminate the left hand turn onto Martha, so cars will be using Smith Avenue instead. The traffic along this area at certain times of the day are bumper to bumper – this will only make a bad situation worse.
The engineer indicated that the water coming from this development will be “slow released” from tanks in the building. They fail to tell residents that there will be 4 large developments in this area. Every development seems to be taken as a one off instead of taking into effect the impact of the 4 new high-rises “slow releasing” into our infrastructure. Residents are aware of infrastructure problems in this area.
More work needs to be done on how to eliminate some of the issues listed above. I have to wonder just how much the City can actually do?
Adam, with respect, maybe this is splitting hairs, but there is a difference between an apartment building and a condo building. The connotation is that apartments buildings areare owned by a single owner and are rental whereas condo buildings are acomprised of individually owned units. Though we know many private investors now buy condos to rent out. There is a huge price point differential of the rents charged. The vast majority if not all the units to be built in the downtown core are destined for the $500,000+ condo market, which in no way can be considered affordable housing either for first time buyers or for those in the apartment rental market.
As to the times when apartment buildings went up here in Burlington, those times were very different from today – considerably less traffic, more space available as examples. Yes, we must find ways to accommodate these projects, some if which are being forced upon us. The suggestion that the workers park remotely and be shuttled to the site is not only worthy of consideration, it is the right solution. It seems to have worked well in reverse, so to speak, just down the road at the building being renovated opposite the turning into Torrance St. There the residents are shuttled to Burlington Mall where they park there cars during refurbishment if the underground parking.
A note to the Publisher:- in your column you question why are 7 storeys of parking now planned when only 6 were approved. Is your questioning one of disapproval? Surely not. The more parking available the better. Maybe, hopefully, the building will be offering some amount of public pay for use parking that takes pressure off the existing inadequate amount of available public parking.
The difference is that this new high rise couldn’t be in a worse location – an intersection on a curve of a narrow, congested one lane main road.
Very well said Adam
Housing needs to get built in this province. I’m not sure why we are trying to make it harder for people to build it. Everyone needs to live somewhere and our population is growing. I’m pretty sure streets were closed, trees were cut down, dust was in the air when all of our houses or apartments were built. Why do we expect any different now? Housing is a public necessity, just like roads, highways, hospitals, pipelines, sewers etc. All of those services require disruption to get built, serviced and replaced. Again why is it any different when someone is building an apartment building?