Future of Downtown Burlington - Developer pushing the envelope

NRU
Sept. 30, 2015
By Geordie Gordon

A building proposal in Burlington is raising questions about the future of the city’s downtown urban form. Opponents say the proposal for a 28-storey, condo tower represents overbuilding of the site, while the developer thinks it will push Burlington to become more urbanized.

The contentious proposal for Nautique Lakefront Residences at 374 Martha Street in Burlington was submitted to the city by Adi Development Group in September 2014 and garnered significant opposition from residents and councillors. In a March staff report, the proposal with its 226 residential units and ground-level retail was deemed to be an “inappropriate level of intensification.” It was rejected unanimously by council and subsequently appealed to the OMB.

However, Adi Group CEO Tariq Adi considers the proposal to be part of a new vision for downtown Burlington. He hopes it will open up a new avenue of dialogue that he says has been missing in the city.

“What’s there has been historically old and mundane and we just felt it was the right time [to put the application forward], he told NRU.

“It’s unfortunate that we’re in a city that looks at density in a different way than an urban city, i.e. Toronto. Toronto looks at height, looks at GFA [gross floor area]. Those conversations don’t happen here [in Burlington], here it’s units per hectare and number of storeys, which is very short sighted as far as I’m concerned.”

Project architect RAW Design director Roland Rom Colthoff agrees.

“We see ourselves as urban architects and we see that this an insertion to help strengthen the sense of urbanity-the sense of a more cosmopolitan feel to the core of Burlington-to bring more people downtown and add to what’s happening on the street there,” he told NRU.

But Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward feels the proposal represents overbuilding of the site.

“It is so far out of line with our official plan, our official plan calls for four to eight storeys, this is 28. It’s quite simply over building of the site,” Meed Ward told NRU. “I’d love to see a development in that location, it’s a blank parking lot, worst use of urban land. But let’s have a development that represents good planning, that is in keeping with the official plan.”

Meanwhile despite being under appeal at the OMB, Adi is moving ahead with registering potential buyers and has posted a sign advertising the building on site, something that Meed Ward finds misleading.

“The objection that I have personally and the community has is the language ‘arriving soon’, that suggests that it is approved, and it is not. So there is nothing arriving and the hearing isn’t until March [2016], so there’s not going to be anything soon,” Meed Ward said.

That sign has some residents concerned that they somehow missed the approval of the building.

“It’s creating a huge amount of concern within the community that something has been approved without their knowledge, why weren’t [they] told, and when they hear that it actually still hasn’t been approved, it’s subject to an OMB hearing in March 2016, they’re even angrier,” Meed Ward said.

Adi says that putting up signage is all part of the development process.

“We put up signage, ‘coming soon’ kind of thing, and we always do that just to gauge interest and see interested parties and what they’re looking for and price points, etcetera, what the market can tolerate. It’s standard industry practice, everybody does it.”