|
[Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26fl | Under Construction
|
If Burlington can keep churning these things out than hopefully Hamilton can at least keep pace.
|
This one might get a rough ride. There's already been opposition to it from the ward councillor and others.
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-sto...-appleby-mall/ http://votemarianne.ca/downtown-wate...re-burlington/ I don't think a tall tower is that out of place, given the other development planned or under way on nearby blocks. The developer probably anticipates a request to reduce the height so I bet they proposed 28-storeys while being prepared to build 20-25. Burlington's lack of available new development land means people have to get used to intensification, but it's going to remain a battle, especially in the centre of town. On some main streets elsewhere in the city there is plenty of space to add mid-rises, but something taller is acceptable downtown IMO. The trick will be balancing it against all the existing low-rise townhouses and older homes. |
Burlington feels development pressure
(Hamilton Spectator, Joan Little, Oct 23 2014) Development in Burlington has been intensifying, but when does intensification become overintensification? Today's game plan is for developers to apply for, say 20 storeys, so citizens feel they've won when the developer settles for 16, which was wanted all long. Adi Developments is proposing a 28-storey condo, with 226 suites, on less than a third of an acre, on the small parking lot on the northwest corner of Lakeshore and Martha, on the fringe of downtown. To its west is a one-storey medical building, and to its north, a small home and new three-floor units. I live nearby. One gentleman at the Oct. 9 neighbourhood meeting, attended by more than 100 people, asked what they really wanted. The answer was 28 storeys. The site is so small it needs eight parking levels to provide 218 parking spaces — only 77 per cent of the required 283 tenant spaces. Parking standards downtown are the lowest in the city. By my calculation the proposed development would need about 393 spaces elsewhere, but wouldn't qualify anyway because the lot is too small. Adi proposes five underground parking levels (a water table issue remains to be addressed), ground-floor retail, then three above-ground parking floors. Condos start on the fifth floor. One astute observer noted that the depicted building appeared to encroach into the air space beyond their land, and asked if that was allowed. Planning director Bruce Kushelnicki stated that if that was the case, permission would be required. It would be addressed in the planning report. He stressed that this was an information-gathering meeting. The planning department has not taken a position, and was there to hear concerns. The meeting was being held now because if a developer doesn't get an answer within 180 days (regardless of how complex the file is), it can take the city to the OMB, as Adi did on a recent application. Council will likely take its position in March. Burlington's official plan (OP) allows a maximum of eight storeys through rezoning, providing "they are compatible with surrounding land use, and provide a sense of pedestrian scale." Mayor Rick Goldring told The Spectator he believes the OP is right in this area, and had said at the Ward 2 debate that he could not support that intensity there. A 22-storey condo approved years ago south of the Lakeshore, not built yet, is to be the city's "landmark" building, Goldring said; so others should be subordinate. I was unable to find one higher than 17 storeys. Read it in full here. |
Quote:
I’m usually not a fan of high-rise, but it sounds like Burlington would be getting something really good here. Parking requirements wind up meaning eight levels of parking, so how could a smaller building make economic sense for redevelopment? |
This kind of fight is going to become more common downtown. The sites that don't affect or encroach on existing land uses are becoming rare... in fact now that the waterfront is spoken for, there are probably no land parcels and lots that don't have a major impact on neighbours.
|
|
I swear Burlington is trying to build a better skyline than Downtown.
|
http://i.imgur.com/oZibSMkl.jpg
nautiqueresidences.com This thread needs a name change: [Burlington] 374 Martha Street | ? | 28fl | Proposed ---> [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 28fl | Proposed |
I looks like a jumbled mess but hopefully the materials they use will make it look better when completed. I like a lot of the buildings in Burlington so I hope this one will have a positive impact on the area.
|
"Nautique"? Like a naughty boutique? :D Subliminal sales pitch to particular market maybe? :haha:
Otherwise, Davy Jones is rollin' his good eye on the sea bottom, shakin' his head at the nautical word play... :rolleyes: I do want to see this built, but then I live in a mid-rise a few blocks away. And I can see how the locals in that immediate area (and some who live farther) don't like it. |
|
Looks like a fight is about to ensue... I do agree with the developer's statements about downtown Burlington -- aside from the big festival weekends, it's pretty quiet most of the time despite some great restaurants and unique retail establishments.
What kind of downtown do we want in Burlington? THAT QUESTION has never really been explored. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/59...condo-project/ Quote:
|
"Adi said 21 businesses left downtown Burlington last year partly because there are not enough people living in the core."
That certainly is interesting. Burlington seems to be in a weird spot now where there's no room to build new single family housing, but building upward is going to be fought tooth and nail by residents. Basically their population growth is close to done. |
As of a few days ago the "Nautique" signs on the site have been removed. Not sure if that means anything more than the developer getting their knuckles rapped for doing too much to promote a project that has yet to be approved, but it will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.
|
- The building is already 75% sold out from a VIP registration event
- Sales open to the public this Saturday - The building got a 2-floor height decrease from 28 to 26 floors (It's still Burlington's new tallest) - urbantoronto.ca - Grand Opening Announced for Nautique Lakefront Residences This thread needs a name update: [Burlington] 374 Martha Street | ? | 28fl | Proposed ---> [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26fl | Approved |
Not approved yet. It's going to the OMB next month.
https://www.burlington.ca/en/service...tha-Street.asp |
|
|
Burlington council to hold special meeting on Adi's Martha Street condo proposal
(Burlington Post, Michael Gregory, Mar 11 2016) Burlington city council has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday afternoon to discuss a “legal update” on a 26-storey condo development proposal for Martha Street. An application related to the property is the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing between the city and Adi Development Group that begins Monday. Both sides were unable to comment on the nature of the council meeting when contacted by the Post late Friday afternoon. The hearing is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. at city hall in Room 247 and is open to the public. |
Burlington developer seeks to adjourn OMB hearing on Martha Street condo
(Burlington Post, Michael Gregory, Mar 14 2016) In a surprising turn of events, Adi Development Group has asked that its Ontario Municipal Board hearing for a 26-storey condo downtown be adjourned until at least the fall after acquiring a neighbouring property late last week. The request was made by the developer's solicitor at the opening day of the hearing at city hall today. "We do not make this adjournment request lightly," said Adi's solicitor Denise Baker during the proceedings. "Allowing for the adjournment will allow my client the opportunity to work with the city to potentially avoid a contested hearing altogether, or at the least result in a reduction of the number of issues..." Burlington city council is meeting tomorrow to decide whether it agrees with the request concerning the property at the corner of Martha Street and Lakeshore Road. Adi is seeking amendments to Burlington’s Official Plan and zoning by-law to build the mixed-used tower known as Nautique Lakefront Residences at 374 Martha St. On Friday, the developer closed a deal to buy neighbouring 380 Martha St., which is approximately .086 acres. Quinto M. Annibale, a solicitor retained by the city, said it would be outside the OMB’s jurisdiction, in accordance with the Planning Act, to proceed with a hearing given the change in scope. Read it in full here. |
Burlington highrise battle adjourned until 2017
(Hamilton Spectator, Michael Gregory, Mar 16 2016) An Ontario Municipal Board hearing on Adi Development Group's proposed 26-storey waterfront condo development has been adjourned until next year. When the hearing resumed Wednesday, the OMB agreed to put the proceedings on hold until Feb. 2017. Earlier this week, the solicitor for the Burlington developer had requested the OMB hearing be postponed until at least the fall after revealing that Adi had purchased a bungalow neighbouring the 374 Martha St. property last week. Adi is seeking amendments to Burlington's official plan and zoning bylaw to build the mixed-use tower known as Nautique Lakefront Residences at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road. Burlington city council met behind closed doors with its solicitor on Tuesday and decided that it would not oppose the adjournment request. Shortly after the meeting, Mayor Rick Goldring said Adi's application continued to be "very important" to city hall given the height and density. "We want to make sure that all new buildings and infill projects make sense and are appropriate for the locations," he said. "This particular site, at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore, is an important gateway to our downtown, so the building must be designed in an appropriate way." The city and developer are now scheduled to meet again on Feb. 21, 2017, for a 10-day hearing. Read it in full here. |
Can someone please change this back to "proposed" from "approved"? Because clearly it's not the latter and it may be a while until it is.
|
BURLINGTON HIGH-RISE: City councillors reject revised plan for 26-storey condo at Lakeshore Drive
Hamilton Spectator By Teviah Moro 13 Oct 2016 BURLINGTON — City councillors have rejected a revised plan for a 26-storey condo tower across from the lakefront, setting the stage for an Ontario Municipal Board battle one called "the scary part." "In my 10 years on council, I do not remember a development application proceeding in this manner," Mayor Rick Goldring said Wednesday. "This is extremely unusual and it's not the way we have been doing business in the past, but we've been thrust into this particular situation." Adi Development Group wants to build its 240-unit Nautique on a small lot at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street. The city has rejected making the official plan and zoning amendments that would allow the developer to build to the desired height and density. Burlington's official plan allows for a maximum of eight storeys where Adi wants to build. In March 2015, the developer appealed its original application — 28 storeys and 226 units — to the OMB because council hadn't made a decision within the 180-day limit set by provincial legislation. A year later, Adi was granted time to revise his plan to incorporate a recently purchased parcel next to the parking lot eyed for the tower. The OMB also ordered the city to review Adi's revamped plan — 26 storeys and 240 units — and hold a public meeting on the matter by mid-October. A staff report calls the new application "overdevelopment" and not "good planning." CEO Tariq Adi defends his proposal, arguing it will breathe more life into downtown by bringing in younger condo owners who will spend money in the core. The Nautique's "world-class design" also has ample parking with its 241 spaces on six underground levels, Adi says. But the developer also points to a 22-storey luxury condo complex, the Bridgewater, and hotel that New Horizon is already building just across the street on the lakeshore as a measure of the city's hypocrisy. But Adi's plan has been met with considerable backlash with residents worrying about the traffic congestion, parking problems and looming presence it could pose for the area. "The waterfront is no place for tall buildings," Deedee Davies told councillors at Thursday's development and infrastructure meeting. Building height should start low at the waterfront and rise as Burlington slopes into the escarpment, she said. "That way everyone gets to share our beautiful waterfront." The 22-storey Bridgewater is "already a bad precedent," and Adi's Nautique will "open the floodgates," Davies warned. Coun. Marianne Meed Ward agreed: "Tall buildings tend to lead to more tall buildings." But the Ward 2 councillor said the Bridgewater comes with public shoreline access. "So what are we getting with the Adi development? Just a tall building and I think the community loses." Adi has argued the chance to discuss benefits is "out the window" with his application before the OMB. A failure to hash out a "reasonable solution" with Adi puts the city in a bad spot, Coun. Blair Lancaster suggested. "So now we're into the scary part. This is the risky part … We're now handing over our decision to the OMB." Council must give a final endorsement of the planning staff report that rejects Adi's revised proposal on Oct. 24. An OMB pre-hearing is scheduled for Oct. 27 with a full hearing set for Feb. 21. 2017. [email protected] 905-526-3264 | @TeviahMoro http://www.thespec.com/news-story/69...keshore-drive/ |
If Burlington doesn't want it we'll take it in Hamilton ;)
|
Quote:
|
The OMB approved it ---> http://ward2news.ca/development/just-omb-decision-released-adi-proposal-martha-lakeshore-allows-26-storeys/
This thread needs a name update from [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26 fl | Proposed to [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26 fl | Approved |
On it goes... the city has asked the OMB to review their decision that favoured the developer.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8...ding-approval/ |
7 stories deep, foundations beginning
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attach...23-jpg.340485/ https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attach...22-jpg.340484/ UrbanToronto |
wow that's deep!
|
I believe this is the second deepest parking garage ever built in the province, behind only the 8-level Shangri-la parking garage in Toronto.
|
Should be lots of fun driving up and down all the ramps. Never mind navigating each level to and from a parking spot, as it looks like it will be pretty tight amongst the support columns... it's a fairly small site, isn't it?
|
relatively, yes, but the interior parking dimensions would still have to meet the standard dimensions (6m drive aisles, etc).
Having a parking spot on P7 would definitely be a gigantic pain though. My last apartment had parking on P3 and that was more than enough haha. |
Quote:
The last time I parked underground it was at the Homewood Suites downtown here. I don't know if it has more than one level, but there is much less wiggle room! I imagine standards have evolved as cars got smaller over the decades, but with so many large SUVs and pickup trucks around today there can be little space between vehicles. |
Looks like people who put down deposits 7 years ago are getting screwed over.
Apparently they have to find up to 300k more for the units they already agreed to buy due to increased costs, or get their deposit back with a 6% interest. https://www.chch.com/buyers-are-bein...t-to-be-built/ Ridiculous. They waited this long for construction to start and it's not even at ground level and they're supposed to fork over a lot more money while waiting another 2+ years before they can even set foot in their unit. |
"We should be letting developers do whatever they want"
|
On one hand it's unethical and shitty of the developer, on the other hand these buyers signed the contract - no one forced them to. I'd be super pissed too though. It's a really shitty thing for them to do, a clear and obvious attempt to make even more money on these units.
|
How is this legal?
Or is there standard fine print about such options when deposits are put down and initial paperwork is signed. |
Quote:
Yep. |
Quote:
However, some developers use this to make more money on rising housing prices which it seems like the case here. |
Quote:
It's shifting some cost-of-development risk to the buyers. For those purchasing strictly as an investment, maybe this kind of thing is more palatable (or at least "business"). For those buying for their future living space, it sucks. I wonder how often it happens. This got held up a long time by the fighting over whether it should even be built. But that particular risk was all on the developer's shoulders. I don't know what kind of answer there is to this, but in this case it all seems quite unfair. I'm a believer in caveat emptor but there are still a lot of grey areas to that perspective. I guess we know what kind of "Burlington developments" columns are coming soon to a newspaper site near us. :cool: |
I get a little bit annoyed with the Spectator's writing on housing. It just blames the developers constantly, but at the same time complains that there isn't enough housing. The developers do take on a huge risk with new projects, that should be acknowledged. The Spec is always arguing that the city/province needs to do more to build new housing. In my opinion that is absolutely not the role of government. The role of government is to create laws and conditions that keeps developers in check and allows a healthy amount of housing to be built. It's role is also to create conditions where developers can be confident that they will make a healthy profit. So in this situation, I do believe the government needs to step in an introduce legislation that prevents unreasonable increases based on basically nothing, like this one. But I don't think the government should be outright punishing developers for trying to build residential developments..... like so many Spec columnists believe.
|
|
|
So those who put down a deposit 8 years ago and were essentially forced to pay up to an additional 300k last year to keep their unit must feel great that they're still at least 2+ years from being able to move in [/sarcasm].
After all this BS, you would figure this build would at least move faster than it is. I hope the view of the lake is spectacular (for those who have a unit facing that side). |
Quote:
Are the tall proposals on Old Lakeshore still in play? That view may not last long: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=251448 https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=243185 There's also the one next door, which will block views for many west side units: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=237433 And these just down the road: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=211158 The people who paid big bucks for their units at 360 on Pearl must still be oh so happy. |
Seems to be moving a little bit faster, but this is still about 2+ years away.
https://i.ibb.co/bKzPTv5/PXL-20230714-163332992.jpg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.