[Burlington] 2243 & 2269 Fairview St & 864 Drury Ln | ? | 7 x 29-37fl | Proposed
 

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...G?format=1200w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...G?format=1200w
source

"A site plan has been submitted for one of seven residential towers in the former Holland Park area, with commercial beneath them. They range from 29 to 37 storeys — the tallest in the city — but Burlington wants intensification near GO stations, not downtown. There will be 2,494 residential units, and parking will be in a four-storey above-ground building at the north lot line, or in five levels underground at the south end. Phase 1 will be at the northwest corner, with access from Drury Lane along the old Holland Park driveway. The project will have 2,730 parking spaces... The project conforms to existing zoning — no height limit."

https://www.thespec.com/opinion/cont...ng-crisis.html

Brookfield Property Group joined a partnership with InterRent REIT and CLV Group to develop this project.

Hopefully it will be more attractive than the monstrosity just west of the GO station.

The site currently includes Nickelbrook Brewing. I assume they'll be relocating - I wonder where?

Pretty sure most of their production is now in Hamilton at the Collective Arts Brewery. Not surprising, considering how much they've grown. I've seen Nickelbrook products for sale down in the USA. Their Burlington facility is not nearly large enough to accommodate demand.

I'm pretty sure that's because Collective Arts bought Nicklebrook, which was the explanation for why the beer got significantly better.

Biggest tower development in Burlington history is moving forward and some residents are 'flabbergasted'
Monday, June 28, 2021

https://www.insidehalton.com/news-st...labbergasted-/

Seems the residents in the area are feeling rather dreary about this Drury development.

https://www.burlington.ca/en/service...drury-lane.asp

https://i.ibb.co/hWHy4VK/CLV-Group-D...pplication.jpg
happy face emoji emoticons

https://i.ibb.co/fq8xTfM/3-phases.png

https://i.ibb.co/LR9bgVt/skyline-best.png

https://i.ibb.co/522VJh5/middle-path.png

https://i.ibb.co/KGMZP5v/site-views.png

https://burlingtongazette.ca/2500-re...on-go-station/

Worry about noise pollution... when one of the busiest rail corridors in Canada has been there for more than a century, and Fairview is a major 60km/hr arterial that routinely sees cars and trucks travelling far faster? :koko:

I don't think shadows will be much of an issue on the south side, given the commercial buffer along Fairview and actual distance between the homes and the towers. North of the tracks there's probably a case for that at certain times of day.

But this quote really stuck out to me. Apparently this person is a traffic network expert. There is very little incentive for drivers to funnel through mazes of residential streets. Drury may see an uptick of use between Fairview and New, but even then with the stop signs and the two lights it's not a fast route, and the city can implement more measures to make it less attractive as a shortcut.
It will be interesting to see Ms. Little's commentary this week; she will surely write about it. After arguing for years that density and height belong in this part of town rather than downtown, what will she say?

I know there's much worry about the Mississaugification of Btown, but if it's going to grow it's going to have to be upwards since it cannot grow outwards (not without a drastic change in planning). Lower-rise developments within neighbourhoods have not been palatable to those living there, so what other alternatives are there than these larger condo/apartment blocks along the main streets?

It's the classic Burlington response of "put it at the GO station" then when it gets put at the GO station "put it somewhere else!".

Also typical to be upset about not requiring a rezoning so that you can nickle and dime the developer through an expensive rezoning process.

These ridiculous parking minimums need to go. That's people's main concern, and it's incredibly costly. When I owned a condo at Paradigm and rented it out, my tenant didn't even have a car. Many people had empty parking spots because they didn't require or couldn't afford a car. These new developments need to scrap having so many parking spots. People will also bitch about how a developer expects people to live here without a car, but evidently many do, so the parking ratios of 1.18 is absolutely bonkers.

I can't believe in a climate emergency and also in a city trying to reduce car dependency, a development right on top of Go transit and Burlington bus which has been steadily improving, they have this kind of parking ratios.

That's above the standard for Downtown Burlington, which would actually likely have higher demand than this location.

Downtown Burlington is mostly larger units for retirees, who are more likely to own a car, and also doesn't have access to GO for commuting. You could live in this development without a car, work in Toronto / Mississauga, and get by pretty easily. Walmart right next door for groceries, local amenities in the retail at grade, good bus service as you are right on top of the bus terminal for the GO station to access different parts of Burlington.

It's still Burlington at the end of the day, so parking rates would probably still have to be fairly high. My guess is they could get away with something closer to 0.9/unit instead of 1.2, with 0.15 of that being visitor and 0.75 being resident.

Parking space ratios have been another favourite sticking point with the high-rise opponents in Burlington, but on the opposite side of your point. There's a fear that if there are not enough spaces, the new tenants will park on the streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods and take away spots used by current residents and business patrons.

I agree with you that it's costly, and we need to shift thinking about this, especially for developments like this one that are so accessible to retail amenities and both regional and local transit.

Most suburbs have been planned around auto use, and that's especially true of Burlington (you get the city you plan for, Joan Little... and you were part of that planning way back when :rolleyes:). The change in perspective will be hard won, but it's worth continuing to make the case.

I'd be fine with anything lower, but I will continue to argue that no parking minimum is required. Burlington was designed around car use, but forcing people to own a parking spot is one of the weirdest things that exists today in my mind in relation to developments. The developer will build the number of parking spots it thinks is required to sell these units, and those units will be purchased by people without cars. The reality is that people will not walk 20 minutes to their car on some random side street, and Burlington doesn't have 12 hour parking like Hamilton so it's not like that's even an option.

I also think it's ridiculous that people on this forum argue against red tape, and height limits and other regulations increasing risk, and decreasing the number of housing units, but will vehemently defend legally required parking space minimums.

Some of these developments are ridiculous. 3000 vehicles? That's just insane. We need to think about removing parking minimums altogether if this is how we are going to build density.

That is the likely reality for most areas of Burlington.

Arguments that people who will live in these proposed buildings will take all the available street or lot parking is also a reality, for those who don't want to see them built.

More fluid municipal requirements are needed though.

Burlington doesn't have street parking anywhere near here. Almost all Burlington streets have a 5 hour limit, which is enforced. I lived in Burlington for almost all my life, not a single person from this development will take up a side street parking.

You're looking at it rationally.

Opponents generally do not, and tend to raise fears that are misplaced or flat out wrong. This has been happening downtown in Burlington for years (I lived there for 14... when things began to ramp up, so did the panic), and now that development is happening elsewhere I expect the tune will be the same.