I was recently talking to a neighbor about the city’s willingness to allow highrises in the Old Lakeshore Road area on our waterfront, which would take out almost all the heritage buildings.
“Why didn’t I know about this?!” she said.
It’s a comment we receive a lot at this website. But if you’re looking for answers, you won’t find many from the city. Thanks to you raising concerns and speaking out, the city has posted a “Vision for Old Lakeshore Road” on its website. The city also issued a press release on design guidelines for the area – a full month after council passed them – largely because you’ve made this an issue.
But the documents leave out key information about what council has approved for the area (read them on our ‘media and resources’ page).
Council made mess
Unless you dig through pages of links, you won’t read that the development option approved by this council – and outlined in the design guidelines as Option #2 – allow for 15-storey buildings and the destruction of almost all the heritage buildings. You won’t read that city council was specifically asked to take this development option off the table by such notables as former Burlington mayor Walter Mulkewich. Council refused.
You will read that in exchange for towers and heritage destruction, we’ll get one more block of pathway along the waterfront. You will read that the downtown councilor, Peter Thoem, thinks this overall plan constitutes “reasonable and careful development.”
City passes buck – blames “growth”
You’ll also find buck passing. The city postings blame the province’s Places to Grow Plan, which requires Burlington to “accept a reasonable share” of population growth. But the city doesn’t say that council determines where and how this growth occurs. It is well within council’s power to protect unique districts, as it has already done with the St. Luke’s and Emerald precincts downtown, which have a 2.5 storey height limit.
Area “unique” but city won’t protect it
You’ll read that the city is committed to protecting the heritage in the area. But you won’t read that council could at any time initiate full heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act for the 11 buildings in the area identified as having “cultural heritage significance.” Council has not done so. The buildings only have a “heritage resource” designation, meaning it takes 60 days, rather than 10, to get a demolition permit.
Public consultation that wasn’t
You’ll read that the city consulted with the public. Those consultations amounted to two meetings with landowners, and two meetings with residents in the immediate area. Between the two public meetings, council increased the height limits. The second public meeting, in March, was merely an information session to tell those of us in attendance what the city had already decided. You won’t read that the options presented to residents at the first meeting bore no resemblance to what the city eventually approved (click here to compare how city council’s approved plan differs from the options presented).
This is hardly a consultation, and certainly wasn’t city-wide.
1,000 people join campaign – 3 in 4 outside downtown
Yet this is a city-wide issue. More than 1,000 people have joined our campaign, three-quarters of them living outside the downtown area. Ten percent live outside Burlington – most of them former long-time residents, people who work downtown, or people who frequently visit our downtown because of its unique character.
As many of you have said, saving our waterfront will affect tourism and local businesses well into the future – positively if we get our plan right, and negatively if council simply allows the area to be developed like any other built up urban city (Toronto comes to mind).
What you can do
The Save Our Waterfront campaign will continue to investigate and give you the full picture of what’s happening. We will seek opportunities to influence city council members to do the right thing and stop development until there is meaningful city-wide consultations for a vision in this area that protects its unique character.
You can help by continuing to spread the word – tell your family, friends and neighbours to join the campaign, by clicking here.
Your support has already made a difference – and it’s the only thing that will continue to make a difference going forward.
16 Comments
As I said before…If the city council members will not change their minds, then we must change the city council members.
It is clear that city plans first – according to either vested interests or their own desire – with little or no regard for people’s opinions, and later proceed to “consult” the public so they can say they followed procedures, in the best interest of the City of Burlington! This was evident to me when I took the trouble to ask questions to a City Planner with regard to existing height rules for development along our waterfront! Basically, rules are only there to be broken so long as there is the “right” pressure to bend them!
Perhaps it is time to have this information made available to the public. How much would it cost to have this information made available to the public in either the Burlington Post, or the Hamilton Spectator? Surely there are enough people willing to donate a toonie to the cause.
I always feel that the City gives out bits and pieces of information. Transparency is not high on their list of priorities.
The City has totally screwed up Lakeshore Road, Spencer Smith Park,the pier (the need for it), the PAC (the need for it). Save the waterfront!!!
It is a shame to put big buildings along the Lakeshore, you can hardly see the lake now, should be more careful in their planning. We don’t seem to have any say for what is good for Burlington’s lovely shoreline.
They seem to ignore what the taxpayers of Burlington want, the Lakeshore is a lovely place and should not be built up with highrises.
We should all contact our individual council members and get their position on this matter, push them for the information you need to determine your support, or not, then let them know your decision. They all respond to votes.
Burlington is fortunate to have a beautiful waterfront. Why on earth would we choose to block it from view by highrises? Or to lose heritage buildings which are a part of our history and are lovely in their own right.
Let’s not create a concrete tunnel which will ruin something which many cities would envy.
From the history of this council I fear the Lakeshore issue is a done deal. This council needs to be changed before they do any more damage
Past councils insisted the city would never develop above Dundas Highway. They are doing currently, and multi-storey too. The waterfront downtown will be afforded the same consideration, unless vigorous objections are forwarded. There are no second chances. Once approved, we will of sold our heritage buildings, our view to the lake, our quaint downtown and that decision would never ever be rescinded, ‘nor the land reclaimed. I don’t want either high rise or medium rise,concrete or steel. Leave well alone!
LEAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL LAKESHORE-LINE ALONE. LET US GET THE BREEZE OFF THE LAKE,THE VIEW AND THE SPACE DON’T OVER CROWD BEAUTIFUL BURLINGTON,
The current council has been nothing less than a disaster … under the ‘questionable leadership’ of Mayor Jackson. In his previous incarnation as MPP, he was notorious for ducking contentious issues … and then holding meetings for ‘interested parties.’ He will never have a steak [ sic ] in my future!
We don’t need all this wasted time and money on this project. JUST SAVE THE WATER FRONT. IMPROVE IT CLEAN IT UP. AND SAVE AS MUCH OF OUR HERITAGE AS POSSIBLE.
It seems Mayor Jackson cannot avoid expense account abuse situations. Fresh from his controversy at Queen’s Park, where he spent $104,000 over 28 months under lax rules, he jumps on the expense bandwagon at city council.
Newly elected in December ’06, he decided to send Christmas cards to all his ‘friends’ presumably in celebration of his electoral victory.
“Council banned city-funded cards as a result of Mayor Jackson’s excessive 11,000 family-photo cards last year, with a city message on the back (postage alone, $5,610). Former Mayor Rob MacIsaac had sent no city-funded cards in 2005.”
Why did Burlington council not ask for repayment from Jackson? Was Jackson pleading ignorance of the rules?
Burlington Council Work Ethic
COUNTRY CLUB CASUAL …. BURLINGTON PIER
“He and other city officials would not reveal the amount of the contingency fund, but Martiuk said he would make a report to council later this month on how much the experts have cost Burlington.
About 200 people attended the meeting on the troubled project at the Lion’s Club Hall. Many seemed clearly miffed at the project’s delay and the city’s handling of it. Rounds of applause greeted caustic remarks or jokes about the project’s delays.
Joe Lamb spoke about how the city had made a beautiful forecast for the city’s waterfront, but that the general feeling with the pier problems is that “engineering oversight by the city has not taken place.”
The pier, a year behind schedule when construction began in 2006, was delayed twice last year due to the crane accident and complications following a concrete pour.”
http://www.thespec.com/article/627739
A mistake in the La Salle Park redevelopment was including a commercial restaurant. It has taken away space that used to be open to the public for free.
I would support eliminating the pier, which has become a boondoggle. Let’s just have a beautiful, natural park.
I support the savethewaterfront campaign 100%. I suggest everyone write the mayor and or alderman/woman and state they will not vote for him/her next time unless the representative supports a motion to freeze all current development until new, extensive public consultations have taken place.
Pier fiasco likely an election issue
http://www.thespec.com/article/630391
“The meeting drew a standing-room crowd of about 200. Four councillors attended, two sent regrets, and to laughter, it was announced that Mayor Cam Jackson was out of town.”
It’s positively shameful the mayor did not attend, or give a reason for his absence.
Joan Little’s perceptions are correct.
There will be more issues than just Burlington Pier at next election. Chief among my concerns is the apparent lack of transparency.
“This prompted an outburst from Jackson, who tried to squelch comparisons, citing confidentiality. Taylor wasn’t buying and said supporting Goldring’s motion would be wrong, wrong, wrong.”
Source:
Circumventing planning process 07-16-08
http://www.thespec.com/article/403744