[Burlington] 2020 Lakeshore Road | ? | 22+fl, 22+fl, 7fl | Proposed

[thomax]

Rendering:

Source

Enlarged:

Source
*The new 22, 8, and 7-floor Bridgewater Development is outlined on the right


Info:
- A Vrancor Group development
- New tallest building in Burlington
- Existing 7-floor Waterfront Hotel to be renovated
- Two new towers, each taller than 22 floors, will be built on the north side of the Waterfront Hotel
- The tallest tower (central tower) will be "a landmark multi-residential condo tower"
- The project is located at 2020 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario
- The project will be across the street from the new 22, 8, and 7-floor Bridgewater Development

[ScreamingViking]

Vranich is really on a tear locally. Lakeshore was really going to feel different east of Brant with the Bridgewater development, but if this goes ahead it will take that change up a few notches. Lots more people living downtown and it will be interesting to see how the retail/commercial environment changes.

Is there another story or website associated with this, beyond the reference on the site for 150 Main W.?

[thomax]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Is there another story or website associated with this, beyond the reference on the site for 150 Main W.?

I did some searching, but I couldn't find anything else.

[LikeHamilton]

wrong thread,

[thomax]

^ wrong thread, that's part of the Bridgewater development next door to 2020 Lakeshore.

Here's the proper thread for that: [Burlington] Bridgewater | ? | 22fl, 8fl, 7fl | Approved

[thomax]

I found an article with some new info: burlingtongazette.ca: Waterfront Hotel to be demolished - three structures will go on the site - planners excited about the potential

"The existing hotel will be demolished and three structures will be built – an 8 storey building, a 22 storey building and a 25 storey building."



This thread needs a name change:

[Burlington] 2020 Lakeshore Road | ? | 22+fl, 22+fl, 7fl | Proposed ---> [Burlington] 2020 Lakeshore Road | ? | 25 fl, 22 fl, 8 fl | Proposed

[johnnyhamont]

Plans revealed for 2 large towers in Burlington and residents have serious concerns
By Roland CilliersReporter
Sun., Sept. 12, 2021



On Sept. 8 the city held a pre-application community meeting for the proposed development at 2020 Lakeshore Rd. directly beside Spencer Smith Park. The plan is for two towers: one 35 storeys and the other 30 storeys on top of a five-storey podium.

The mixed-use development will consist of retail and service commercial uses at grade, offices, a banquet facility, restaurants, a 130-room hotel, and 557 residential apartments.
more: https://www.thespec.com/local-burlin...-concerns.html

This thread needs a name change:

[Burlington] 2020 Lakeshore Road | ? | 22+fl, 22+fl, 7fl | Proposed ---> [Burlington] 2020 Lakeshore Road | ? | 35+30 fl| Proposed

[ScreamingViking]

I sense that a Joan Little rant is forthcoming.

[ScreamingViking]

And here it is... took a few months. Parking among her chief concerns, as usual.


More waterfront towers for Burlington
This developer chose to ignore all of the building and design advisory committee’s recommendations, and public input as well, Joan Little writes.

https://www.thespec.com/opinion/cont...urlington.html

Joan Little
Contributing Columnist
The Hamilton Spectator
Wed., March 2, 2022

Last week, Burlington saw an egregious overdevelopment proposal at Brant and Lakeshore — right downtown, abutting Spencer Smith Park. All south of Lakeshore.

If we thought others were over-the-top, check out this waterfront hotel proposal. The six-storey existing 122-suite hotel has been owned since 2008 by developer Vrancor Group which is now proposing a new, much larger, development.

The most objectionable proposal (of many) is for Lakeshore Road’s “deemed width” to be reduced from 30 to 24 metres to enable the development — a six-metre difference, or about 20 feet.

Community Planning director Mark Simeoni pointed out that a deemed road width doesn’t just mean driving lanes. It includes sidewalks, curbs, boulevards, public art and buried services — pipes for water, storm water, sewers, phone lines, cable, electrical, etc.

In the official plan this area is neither in an “Urban Growth Centre” nor “Major Transit Station Area,” although the developer’s agent kept stressing those. Zoning allows up to eight storeys, but official plan wording requires a planning study on how it will be integrated with the park and provide lake views. In 2017 Plan B, a group of dedicated citizens formed, and Ron Porter made an excellent presentation last week on working toward a compromise.

Two attractive towers (but excessively massive and bulky) are proposed. The west one, near Brant Street is 35 storeys (the proponent’s definition). By Burlington’s, it’s 37. The east one, near Elizabeth, is 30. Proposed are a 122-suite hotel and 557 apartments. Also included are commercial and office space. But shadows from the west tower could reach right to Elgin Street.

Burlington wants towers on a three-storey podium. At ground level, this provides a human scale. These sit atop a five-storey podium, like a wall. The towers are connected at the fifth floor, with a breezeway below, in line with John Street. But it’s privately owned and publicly accessible. How long would possible condo owners want that?

This developer also wants less parking than officially required — 598 spaces versus the 697 required. Where is the parking overflow? Required setbacks are almost all ignored, and the list goes on. Interestingly, Bridgewater on the east side of Elizabeth (which actually provided extra parking for its hotel and condos), was only allowed three underground parking levels next to the lake, and four next to Lakeshore. This project proposes four underground levels. And there’s a problem. Level P1 is below grade at Lakeshore, but at grade on the lake side because of the topography. From Spencer Smith Park, visitors will view a parking garage. I’ve coined a word for what bad additions do to areas — “uglify” them.

Trees? No problem. Cut ’em down. Of 53 on site, four would remain. (Some aren’t huge, but some exceed a foot in diameter. Developers must provide “park dedication,” either in dollars or land. When asked if council could insist on land to be added to the park, the response was yes.

Burlington has attracted a group of architectural and design professionals for its fine building and design advisory committee. Major projects go to it for assessment. This developer chose to ignore all its recommendations, and public input as well.

The area is different today from when Vrancor bought the old Travelodge Hotel. There is a chic low-rise hotel — the Pearle — on Bridgewater’s property, which also has high-class dining. Could both survive? That’s a business decision.

Delegate Tom Muir pointed out that the applicant has launched several appeals on the property to the Ontario Land Tribunal, whose marching orders appear to be “approve everything,” unless Premier Doug Ford is ousted or reduced to minority status in June. Thanks, Coun. Lisa Kearns, for listing the active developer appeals in her recent newsletter. The OLT should be this year’s provincial ballot question. Councils used to the plan cities. Now a lone provincial appointee can overrule their decisions.

[lachlanholmes]

The OLT should be this year’s provincial ballot question. Councils used to the plan cities. Now a lone provincial appointee can overrule their decisions.

I agree, actually! Among other planning/development/housing policy issues, it's important to me to vote for a party that will stand in favour of a body that puts planning disputes to land use experts, allows proposals to be fairly assessed, that recognizes the dire need to build new housing, and that ensures urban growth can happen despite the frequency and volume of NIMBY pandering to local officials.

...which also happens to be known as the OLT.

[Innsertnamehere]

Meed Ward is the definition of a NIMBY mayor. Burlington is famously challenging to develop in under her leadership - and is a prime reason as to why the OLT needs to be in place.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by lachlanholmes

I agree, actually! Among other planning/development/housing policy issues, it's important to me to vote for a party that will stand in favour of a body that puts planning disputes to land use experts, allows proposals to be fairly assessed, that recognizes the dire need to build new housing, and that ensures urban growth can happen despite the frequency and volume of NIMBY pandering to local officials.

...which also happens to be known as the OLT.

Burlington has taken up the anti-downtown-growth flag quite furiously. Plus, the way council and city voices attack these proposals sets up a poor relationship with the developers from the get-go. That helps nothing.

There are limitations and there's a point too much density will be inappropriate for the city, but I think that point is still far away. However, I do agree having the land tribunal ultimately calling the shots the way they have been is not right.

What sticks in my craw is the columnists who trot out the same old reasons why a development is a wrong fit. This particular one was a city and regional councillor -- Burlington is a product of the leadership of her day! Her commentaries tend to be about traffic impacts, parking, building height, etc., and don't reflect the present realities and challenges the city is facing; they also seem to pander to the NIMBY crowd. And these opinions play out for developments all across town, not just the city centre. Stagnation is not an option, and nor is maintaining the car-focused urban fabric that was promoted by councils of decades past... yet we don't see progressive ideas, just conclusions like "The OLT should be this year’s provincial ballot question"... well, it won't be. And while that decision-making process hardened under the PCs, it's going to take time to switch to a more inclusive method of approving developments, and that may not even be a priority for a new Liberal or NDP government should they win the upcoming election.

[ScreamingViking]

Bets on the outcome of this future OLT battle? Anyone??


https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%...wn-towers.html

'REJECTED': City of Burlington says no to 2 massive downtown towers
Development would include two mixed-use buildings of 35 storeys and 30 storeys with five-storey podium

Roland Cilliers
Burlington Post via The Spec
Wed., April 13, 2022

The city has said no.

During a special meeting of council on April 12, the city opted to refuse the applications that would have allowed a mixed-use two-tower development at the site currently occupied by the Waterfront Hotel. The application proposes to demolish the existing six-storey hotel and develop two mixed-use buildings of 35 storeys and 30 storeys with a five-storey podium.

The city argued the proposal is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and does not conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Halton Region’s Official Plan or the policies of the City of Burlington Official Plan.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 2 Coun. Lisa Kearns released a joint statement on the refusal.

"Our planning staff have provided a very thorough rationale for why this application should be rejected. The application is not reflective of the feedback we have heard from the community over many years related to this landmark site. We have heard loud and clear residents want to see more parkland on this site next to our jewel of a waterfront park,” read the statement.

The site is widely regarded as one of the most important in the city as it’s positioned beside Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street Pier.

Public meetings were held in February on both the planning study and the development application.

For more information on the project, visit www.burlington.ca/2020lakeshore.

[Innsertnamehere]

when was the last time Burlington council actually voted to approve a large tower development? 2017?