By Pepper Parr
March 8th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
If anyone thought for as much as a second that Paul Sharman was going to behave any differently on the Pipeline to Permit Standing Committee than he does on any other City Council Committee – they don’t know Paul Sharman.
Sharman has come to the conclusion that population growth in Burlington is anticipated to be in the order of a minimum 110,000 people, leading to a total population of 305,000
While data consumes him he tends to look at the long game and figure out what we need to do today to ensure that we don’t run into cockups down the road.
With that objective Sharman produced a Motion that focused on where we will be as a city in 2051.
Sharman has come to the conclusion that population growth in Burlington to 2051 is anticipated to be in the order of a minimum 110,000 people, leading to a total population of 305,000. This is despite the fact that Burlington ran out of Greenfield developable land in 2015, when it essentially became built out.
Developments like this are being discussed at Council and within the Planning department.
“Being built out has led to stagnation of development and assessment growth over the last decade. With an influx of 110,000 people, many aspects of the City are about to change, especially when the current economic conditions become favourable for development again.
“In related planning studies, it has been estimated that the mix of new homes in Burlington will be 82% high density, 12% medium density and 6% low density, which represents a significant change in comparison to the existing preponderance of low- density homes. Another aspect of existing housing is the high proportion of expensive large lots, which will likely be unaffordable for many future homeowners and renters. This suggests that future land assembly and densification of lots in single family neighbourhoods will lead to greater densification of Burlington than currently imagined.
“The question Burlington needs to address is how to sustain the existing high quality of life experienced by current residents for generations to come as population increases and densification occurs?
“Our prior and current planning regimes and regulations were designed for different times, where cheap land was readily available, and development occurred around roads and assumed frequent use of vehicles. None of which is possible going forward nor consistent with our vibrant mixed-use vision for tomorrow.
“To answer the question, we now need to look into the future to be able to determine who will likely live in Burlington. What will their cultural heritage be? What will be their sports interests, health needs, transportation needs, work characteristics, financial capacity, age distribution, housing needs? These and a myriad of other factors should be considered to understand the people who will be the future of Burlington, and how we can best prepare for their needs now.
With his Motion on the table Councillor Sharman leans back and watches the reaction.
“Today’s community members do not and mostly will not live the lives of future generations and while we might guess at the answers to the essential question, our answers might not be reliable. It is suggested that the answers can be better understood by seeking to anticipate demographic change, technology change, financial change, energy needs, and housing availability with which to paint a picture and a vision that will satisfy our ambition for our children, grandchildren, and future generations of Canadians, wherever they may come from.
We are not alone in this conundrum explains Sharman. Please see One Crisis After Another: Designing Cities For Resiliency. The book, which calls for a new, comprehensive, systems-driven approach to designing resilient cities and buildings.
Also worth considering is the following video of the mounting pressure and opportunities to transform our urban regions for the better by employing a variety of “shelf-ready” approaches and digital technologies to the problems virtually every city on Earth faces: https://youtu.be/HBMlQZeXMiA?si=6WjzIV7MuQtQox_O .
In his Motion Sharman said: “I propose the City, through Burlington Economic Development (BED) and the Burlington Lands Partnership (BLP), and partner with other potentially interested parties to undertake the necessary research and modelling to answer the questions raised in this motion memo.
Sounds like a good start!
The one thing I know about branding is the best brand names match the product, i.e. Lays Potato Chips or Lemonade for sale $1. The name, “Pipeline to Permit Committee” is a great name and knowing nothing else one would expect the committee would be highly focused on just that, getting applications to the permit stage. Unit I read, “ Who will live in Burlington in 2051 and how do we prepare the city today for the huge population changes that will take place” and the following as excerpted from the “Motion Memorandum” submitted by Councillor Sharman to the Pipeline to Permit Committee.
“Reason:
Preparing Burlington for the Future
In Mayor Meed Ward’s December 7, 2023, letter to Paul Calandra, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, she referenced Council’s letter of May 25, 2023, where we stated we wanted to change our development premise to accomplish the necessary changes to achieve a win-win-win philosophy by adopting triple bottom line determinants coupled with a holistic, visionary perspective oriented towards the 2031 planning horizon. The letter to Minister Calandra re-iterated:
“Priority will be given to achieving the City’s community responsive growth management objectives and long-term community development goals related to achieving vibrant mixed-use neighbourhoods inclusive of the following elements as outlined in our May 25, 2023, letter:
• economic benefits including future employment targets that increase future property assessment growth.
• social benefits including affordable and attainable housing, public parks and greenspace, and community facilities and amenities.”…..
Our prior and current planning regimes and regulations were designed for different times, where cheap land was readily available, and development occurred around roads and assumed frequent use of vehicles. None of which is possible going forward nor consistent with our vibrant mixed-use vision for tomorrow. To answer the question, we now need to look into the future to be able to determine who will live in Burlington. What will their cultural heritage be? What will be their sports interests, health needs, transportation needs, work characteristics, financial capacity, age distribution, housing needs? These and a myriad of other factors should be considered to understand the people who will be the future of Burlington, and how we can best prepare for their needs now.”
Interesting boilerplate, but not a plan to improve the Pipeline to Permit process.
Earlier the city received bad news from the Province that contained this:
“Our records also show that:
• We are in receipt of your ranking of Housing Affordability Task Force recommendations.
• Your commitment and/or council-endorsed pledge to meet the assigned 2031 target was submitted.
Given the above, I regret to inform you that the City of Burlington has not met the eligibility criteria for the Building Faster Fund in 2023. I encourage you to work towards eligibility for future program
years.”
If I were a councillor I would want to at least know the answers to the following:
What is the process model for the pipeline to permit process?
When does the clock start ticking and when does it stop?
What are the key markers or milestones and discrete steps?
When and where does the process begin, and by whom?
What differences if any is/are there between the various types of submissions?
Are the processes for each application type different or the same?
Is the application from a house owner wanting to add an addition?
Is the application from someone wishing to add a granny-suite?
Is the application from a developer, small, medium, or substantive in the type of issues, in conflict or direct opposition to our official plan etc.
In order to improve a process, one needs to have a 100% understanding of which elements of the current process work and which of them do not. One also needs to Identify any bottlenecks. Once we have that information then we can then set about developing a cogent plan to improve the current process.
In addition to the boilerplate, I can only hope that the above questions are being asked by our council members.
I thought they were all supposed to be swamped with work in the present? Apparently they are not; I attended a council meeting in the 80’s with an artists concept flashed up on an overhead screen of a futuristic Burlington along the lines of the ‘Jetsons’ in the 90’s at yet another meeting those planners were laughing at the 80’s concept and had their own version of the future flashed up on their screen, brick buildings with green roof’s (there are a few around today) as an avid reader of D.C. and Marvel comics in my youth I can confirm that we are crap at predicting the future, in the past we had a rather colourful name for time wasting and time wasters.
If you look across Burlington here is what you will see. In one part of the city a war is being waged because a developer wants to build 98 high-end homes on a flood plane. In other parts of the city existing homes are being raised and replaced with oversized homes that can take up to 90% of the lot, regardless of the size of the lot in the first place. This contributes absolutely “0” to intensification.
Meanwhile in other parts of the city developers are proposing tall buildings where each build can easily represent close to 200 housing units. If we are going to accommodate 100,000 more people, tall buildings have to be part of the answer, but few residents want them near them.
Imagine a farmer who decides to plant all of his/her corn in 4 acres of a 100-acre field. How much sense would that make? None, but no farmer would ever do that. Canada has one of the largest landmasses in the world, yet our governments want to stuff an inordinate number of people in places that are already highly populated.
In common sense terms. If Burlington were to hypothetically build 100, 20 story condo buildings tomorrow, that would yield about 20,000 new property units and that would easily accommodate 40,000 people. The question posed by Sharman that requires an answer is, where do we hope to find the spaces for the other 30,000 housing units that we are expected to build.
With respect to intensification, someone has to say, “the emperor has no clothes” (The Emperor Has No Clothes is an idiomatic phrase, that comes from a tale by Hans Christian Andersen where a vain emperor is tricked by two swindlers who promise to make him a set of clothes that are invisible to anyone who is unfit to hold their office or is stupid”).
The current approach to building more homes based solely on intensification is sheer madness.
There is a better way.
Right you are Joe!
What Ford and his cronies at Queen’s Park can’t get through their thick skulls is that intensification leads to environmental degradation, erosion of wetlands, eradication of farmland, and congestion. All you have to do is look at regions like California, or cities like Houston, to see the negative consequences of massive population explosions. Flooding is now the norm in L.A. and the suburbs, and the financial losses incurred by homeowners and insurance companies is staggering.
There are whole communities in this province that are experiencing population decline (e.g. Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, North Bay, etc.). Build the technology and communication links, and encourage immigrants to move there with financial and tax incentives. It’s the same concept that was introduced in England after WW II when returning servicemen needed places to live, and accommodation was scarce in bombed out London.
The affordability argument is equally laughable. Why is it I can buy a 1,500 sq. ft. home in Montreal suburbs like NDG, Cote-de-Neiges, Verdun or Chambly in the $500K range, but that won’t get me a 400 sq. ft. chicken coop in Burlington? Answer: because the developers in Montreal are predominantly small market operators, live in the community, and have a commitment to bringing properties to market quickly that are affordable.
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26588734/1310-rue-rolland-montréal-verdunîle-des-soeurs-verdun
Where are the triplexes, duplexes and quads that are plentiful in Montreal, and for some strange reason aren’t being built in Burlington? The answer to that question is the same as when older 1,500 sq. ft. homes get re-zoned, torn down, and are replaced with 4-5,000 sq. ft. monster homes in the $2-3 million range. If people aren’t having as many kids, why do we need to build such massive homes? Answer: Developers are only interested in a fat profit and a fast buck, and the City is only too happy to oblige.
Funnily enough, my neighbour asked me quite casually if I was thinking of altering my property into rental units; I’ll tell you what I told her, this is my home why would I do that? She seemed quite happy with the answer.