Waterfront Hotel site is reported to be getting a recommendation for two towers - 17 and 25 storeys - city planner says recommendations have not been made. ved at.

Newsflash 100By Pepper Parr

September 15th, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

Revised

There is word that the recommended re-development of the Waterfront Hotel property will allow two towers with maximum heights of 17 and 25 storeys.

Aerial - Bridgeater - looking to Waterfront

The 8 storey Mariott Hotel is on the left side of this picture. The Waterfront Hotel parking lot is to the right (west) and then the Waterfront Hotel. The plans have been to demolish the existing building and put up two towers. Heights of 17 and 25 storeys are reported to have been recommended.

We have yet to get conformation – our information is from a usually reliable source who however has a vested interest in what gets permitted in the downtown core.

Three structure project has been the "in the works" since 1985 when developers were given the right to build a 22 storey plus building on the property where the Riviera Waterfront Motel used to exist.

Three structure project has been the “in the works” since 1995 when developers were given the right to build a 22 storey plus building on the property where the Riviera Waterfront Motel used to exist.

Bridgewater Aerial-rendering-1024x758

An aerial rendering of the Bridgewater project.

The Bridgewater development to the east of the Waterfront Hotel is going to top out at 22 storeys – something that was approved in 1995 – assembly of that land had begun in 1985

Waterfront hotel from the south.

The site would be completely redeveloped with two towers – 0ne 17 storey and a second 25. Not much more than a recommendation at this point.

The city’s Planning department has been holding public presentations and workshops seeking public input.

City planner Mary Lou Tanner in a response to our piece on the height limits of the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel said: “Your information is not correct.  We are only part way through a process with the community.  We held two public workshops and a stakeholder workshop yesterday.  We received valuable feedback and commentary from over 60 community members. We have not formulated any recommendation because we need to review and incorporate the feedback into the analysis.  To repeat we have not formulated any recommendation.

Tanner adds that the “Waterfront Hotel site is a complex public planning process. I strongly believe we must respect the process and the members of the public who give their time and views.  That includes providing accurate information as to where we are and what has been decided.

We are only part way through this process and no recommendations have been formulated.  I was so pleased with the feedback last night and the many comments we received.   We must be partners with the community in an honest process.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 comments to Waterfront Hotel site is reported to be getting a recommendation for two towers – 17 and 25 storeys – city planner says recommendations have not been made.

  • Stephen White

    Public consultation is really a sham, and in the end the dictates of developers rule the day. City Planning officials are nothing more than feckless lackeys who do as they are told.

    What I don’t understand is this: how can a Mayor who supposedly, is such a big advocate of environmental concerns, and a former Green Party candidate, and such a staunch believer in environmental sustainability, preach sanctimoniously on one hand about preserving green space, while and on the other hand acquiescing to the demands of developers who are, by inference, encouraging congestion and intensification?

    Should he decide to seek re-election, and I for one sincerely hope he “packs it in”, Goldring will be treated to a barrage from irate voters next year. The only thing more pathetic than his leadership at city hall has been his shameless hypocrisy on urban development.

    • Phillip

      Stephen, while I share your hope that Goldring sticks around to receive the electoral thrashing he has earned, I’m afraid we will be disappointed. Goldring will likely jump ship to a provincial appointment that he has earned by pleasing his Liberal masters. Sad really!

  • Judy Gilbert

    NO MORE high rises blocking the lake. The community meetings don’t mean a thing. The city planners have already decided to ruin Burlington!

    • Phillip

      Judy, I have to agree with you completely. When Goldring brought out the public engagement plaques last year, I already knew it was a mere public relations exercise without any substance; the two meetings held on the New Street Bike Lanes were already proof of that. At the first meeting held at City Hall, 4 options were presented–not surprisingly the same 4 options presented by the Cycling Committee/Lobby at the I&E Committee the previous February. The feedback I heard at that meeting favoured a separate lane on the boulevard (however, the lane closures were the Cycling Committees first option). At the second meeting at Bateman in June, I knew it was a “fait accompli” for the lane closures. Goldring, the Toderian Mafia at City Hall, and the special interest group had already decided—public feedback has subsequently shown that they didn’t listen. Turning the downtown into Mississauga West, also favoured by these same “elites”, is no different.

  • Glenda D

    Planning department has no concern about what made Burlington a great place to live, they only call on school learned ideas and the desire to build, high and higher as a goal of the wet behind the ears planning staff who are, as far as I know, people from places other than “Burlington”.

  • William

    Public input is not driving the outcomes for the waterfront or the downtown. It’s the planner’s desire to be part of the latest planning fad – the west coast point tower on a podium. The city paid Vancouver’s Brent Toderian big sums of money to help our Gen Y planners as they try out what they deem is fashionable. The momentum is building to completely change Burlington at city hall – public input is now a formality. The citizens will have to let go of what they felt made Burlington special.

  • Hans

    Re: “The city’s Planning department has been holding public presentations and workshops seeking public input.” Why bother? Burlington’s development consists of putting residential buildings wherever possible and greater height is obviously the objective.

    Sadly, the real estate development industry is motivated by a “land’s highest and best use” principle but that is limited to a quantitative or economic “highest and best”, which results in excessively tall buildings, inadequate parking, no setbacks, no sunlight in the city core, etc.; this motive ignores the qualitative aspect of land use and ruins cities.