Why Ghent Avenue Matters

As Cities go, Burlington may actually be the #1 Medium Sized City in Canada as some magazine or other recently claimed. Boring maybe, but heck, I think its pretty good, or I wouldn't have lived here for going on 28 years. But when it comes to media coverage of events in our town we're likely about 47th. If you're like me, busy with the day to day stuff of life here in Burlie you likely know more about the soap opera that is Toronto's mayor & council, the super size war on super sized soft drinks in New York, or the Lord the Mayor of London's hairdo, than the important stuff that goes on right here in Burlie. 

Like most of my neighbours, often I just stumble upon Burlington issues rather than read about them in the local news media. Part of the reason for this blog is to share some of these issues I trip over. So here's my take on two proposed townhouse developments in around the central Burlington that will effect all of us, even those of us living in the Mysterious East End. 

Two more townhouse developments in Burlie you ask, why do they matter so much to the rest of the city?

Two reasons:

They change the existing landscape, and these changes will set the template for future intensification in the rest of the city. Today I'm going to look at the development on Ghent Avenue and in a future post I'll look at the St Luke's precinct. 

Interesting to note the difference in the image from Google Earth (above) and the one from the City (below)

          On one side it's been reported that more than 100 trees, many native mature Carolinian tree species are to be clear cut. Gone! Poof! Replaced by 58 off-the-shelf townhomes. (A note of context here, the city of Burlington is talking about, maybe soon, starting the process of potentially, looking at opening the discussions on proposing -or not, a  tree bylaw.)

 

On the other side, the builder, with a good track record, has followed all the rules that the city of Burlington has put in place, and is living up to the spirit of intensification and the general direction for land use in the area. Furthermore the builder is planning on replacing the 4 city owned trees it plans to remove and planting more than 60 trees on the site. As a result, city of Burlington staff have recommended, as they should, approval of the proposal. 

The failure of this project has nothing to do with the developer, after all they're just doing what we all are, trying to make a good product and make a buck in the process. Nor is city staff to blame, they review the rules they have, and implement them. 

      So who's responsible for the FAIL? Well, who sets the rules that govern how developments like this are assembled, designed and built? Who ensures that Burlington continues to insist on a suburban model of built form when the rest of North America is moving towards one that's more innovative, more green, and more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit focused? Who stifles creative solutions and innovative urban designs? 

      To answer this, I'd like to quote my late friend Jane Irwin who pointed out to our city council that this council has continued very well in the footsteps of councils past, a tradition that's earned us the title of "Boring-ton".

So what? How does this affect the rest of the city? Firstly we loose those 100 or so mature trees. This will forever change this landscape in the central area of the city. Sure we get some new bushes, but you and I will be compost by the time, if ever, these trees mature and fill the central urban forest canopy. Approval of this project will set in motion other similar projects in the area that will further erode one of the features that makes Burlington, well, Burlington. Secondly this model of so called medium density, can, will, and is being replicated throughout the city. The monotony of the design is mind numbing, and so is the lack of respect for the existing landscape features. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of the goals of Growing in Place, (https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php) if anything I think it's too timid. Townhomes clustered in this way however; is a failed design model from the 1970's. I've lived in complexes similar to this one, and these 58 homes for 58 families are designed for, and with the car in mind. The street scape along Ghent, and within the development is a wall of garages.

       There is little ability in the layout and design for walking, cycling or even much interaction with neighbours and it represents a failure of imagination. Furthermore, the development increases the area's buildings, asphalt and concrete. Reduced tree, lawn and gardens, means surface storm water runoff will increase, and will add to the storm water load going into Lake Ontario. The reduction of greenery and the addition of hard surfaces like asphalt, will also increase the Heat Island effect in Burlington.

What it means is in many locations in Burlington is the same '70's show with new exterior wallpaper is coming to a neighbourhood near you. Ironically this kind of example of so called medium density means reduced transit use. While this sounds backwards, one would think that medium density means more transit use. But due to this dated design being car centric and suburban by its very nature it means more cars, and more car trips rather than fewer. Just look around the city, where and how these so called medium density projects are being built and you will find they are almost exclusively being built in a way that discourages any entry or exit other than in a car.

So when you see a pretty older home on a busy street with a FOR SALE sign on the front lawn, stop and take a photo, because chances are soon your neighbourhood will have its own so called, medium density 1970's style townhouse complex that you can drive right into.

Next Time I'll be looking at the proposal for the St Luke's precinct, or One of the great achievements of NIMBYism.