Burnaby Updates

[Zepfancouver]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Vin, you're right...

GenWhy?, can I use your quote "Vin, you're right", I'd like to print it on t-shirts for selling to SSP members, I'll split the profit 50/50

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

GenWhy?, can I use your quote "Vin, you're right", I'd like to print it on t-shirts for selling to SSP members, I'll split the profit 50/50

If someone is correct, they're correct. There is no contest.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

That area is way more than the Province's requirement. The up-zoning area looks way beyond a transit station. Compare this to, say, Marine Gateway or Broadway Stations, and you will see how vast it is. They really go all-out.

The Cambie Plan already allows development over a large area north of Marine Gateway, and many of the towers already built, or under construction, have higher densities and heights than the Provincial requirements. The City will have to revisit the Cambie Corridor Plan to match Provincial requirements, but the additional density that might result won't be significant. (Some projects that currently develop at 2.5 FSR may be able to get 3.0 FSR for example).

The Broadway Plan allows much higher densities throughout the corridor (not just at the station nodes) - that's why the Broadway thread shows there are people protesting about 20 storey rental towers proposed under the plan. There's already 30 towers submitted on the City's 'Shape Your City' website, and 30 more that are in the permitting system, and they're all at more than 6 FSR too (not 3 FSR and 6 storeys as in the areas of the Royal Oak Plan beyond the station node).

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

If someone is correct, they're correct. There is no contest.

Being right on a technicality doesn't change the fact that this plan would 100 percent not have happened without the provincial requirements. You can give the planning department credit for going beyond what's required, but the city of Burnaby shouldn't be getting credit for something they were forced into.

And anyways, the plan extending past 800m is likely more to with a desire to make a cohesive plan that fits into the existing road network (e.i. allowing uses to terminate at the next intersection), rather than any strong desire to go above and beyond

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Vin

That area is way more than the Province's requirement. The up-zoning area looks way beyond a transit station. Compare this to, say, Marine Gateway or Broadway Stations, and you will see how vast it is. They really go all-out.

Leave it to Vin to cite incorrect information to justify his viewpoint when there's easy pickings to back his point. The Royal Oak plan doesn't go above and beyond the TOD requirements of the province except at the margins - it's pretty much what the province is requiring height wise.

OTOH, their SSMUH plan is ACTUALLY a pretty meaningful plan as it mostly allows higher FSR than what the province is requiring - it allows higher heights so you can build a 4 story instead of a 3 story unit and seems to allow around 2-2.2FSR versus the province's proposed 1.5FSR. It almost makes up for the extortion level ACC/DCC rates but in general is a good policy. This is a much better policy than Vancouver's and could lead to some meaningful density especially as Burnaby's lots are typically bigger so the units will be very family sized.

That said, it's not like Mayor Hurley isn't going down fighting the policy change: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...es-few-options

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Leave it to Vin to cite incorrect information to justify his viewpoint when there's easy pickings to back his point. The Royal Oak plan doesn't go above and beyond the TOD requirements of the province except at the margins - it's pretty much what the province is requiring height wise.

The Province only requires densification 200-800m (or less) distance-wise from the train station. The Royal Oak one goes way more than that: up to 1.5m at the fringes. If the City of Burnaby does not want to densify that much, they can just meet the minimum provincial requirement, which apparently isn't so. Hence, you are the one citing incorrect and very misleading information here.

If Marine Gateway were to densify as per Royal Oak, it would need a higher density plan all the way to Main Street eastside, Arthur Laing bridge westside, and around 59th Ave north. However, we all know that Vancouver has no such great plans like Burnaby's.

Only good thing is that ABC is slowly trying to change all that.

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Cambie Plan already allows development over a large area north of Marine Gateway, and many of the towers already built, or under construction, have higher densities and heights than the Provincial requirements. The City will have to revisit the Cambie Corridor Plan to match Provincial requirements, but the additional density that might result won't be significant. (Some projects that currently develop at 2.5 FSR may be able to get 3.0 FSR for example).

The Broadway Plan allows much higher densities throughout the corridor (not just at the station nodes) - that's why the Broadway thread shows there are people protesting about 20 storey rental towers proposed under the plan. There's already 30 towers submitted on the City's 'Shape Your City' website, and 30 more that are in the permitting system, and they're all at more than 6 FSR too (not 3 FSR and 6 storeys as in the areas of the Royal Oak Plan beyond the station node).

You always say the darnest things, but sadly a lot of half-truths. Allowing higher density mainly along a major road (ie. Cambie Street) only serves to protect Single Family Homes a street away, and DOES NOT meet provincial requirements. Worse still, it takes away valuable commercial spaces along major streets, and put the highest number and concentration of residents close to the noisiest streets. Makes no cow sense at all.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

GenWhy?, can I use your quote "Vin, you're right", I'd like to print it on t-shirts for selling to SSP members, I'll split the profit 50/50

LOL. I think you can certainly make a profit here with a T-shirt that has the print "Vin, you're always wrong".

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Province only requires densification 200-800m (or less) distance-wise from the train station. The Royal Oak one goes way more than that: up to 1.5m at the fringes. If the City of Burnaby does not want to densify that much, they can just meet the minimum provincial requirement, which apparently isn't so. Hence, you are the one citing incorrect and very misleading information here.

If Marine Gateway were to densify as per Royal Oak, it would need a higher density plan all the way to Main Street eastside, Arthur Laing bridge westside, and around 59th Ave north. However, we all know that Vancouver has no such great plans like Burnaby's.

Only good thing is that ABC is slowly trying to change all that.

The ABC majority Council haven't approved a single new plan yet. All they've done is change the zoning to allow some multiplexes, city-wide - a proposal initiated by Kennedy Stewart's Council in January 2022. The Rupert and Renfrew Plans (initiated in November 2021) haven't been speeded up by the ABC Council, but cover an area that stretches 1.6km to the north, and 1.9km to the south, so even more than Royal Oak. But you're derailing the Burnaby thread by commenting about Vancouver.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Province only requires densification 200-800m (or less) distance-wise from the train station. The Royal Oak one goes way more than that: up to 1.5m at the fringes. If the City of Burnaby does not want to densify that much, they can just meet the minimum provincial requirement, which apparently isn't so. Hence, you are the one citing incorrect and very misleading information here.

I did admit you're right that the City of Burnaby goes beyond the 800 metre minimum (I think it's 850m) and is meeting the minimum height requirements per the TOD provincial requirements. Not sure where I mislead the forum with misleading information.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City;10186006[B

The ABC majority Council haven't approved a single new plan yet.

That's not entirely true as per your typical fashion. Maybe not large zoning districts like Burnaby's, but they have approved plenty of individual applications and smaller rezoning areas. I am also very confident that they are also seeking higher densities for already-approved plans.
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/e...-lands-8160866

Originally Posted by Changing City

But you're derailing the Burnaby thread by commenting about Vancouver.

No, you are. I am using Vancouver as a reference to show how impressive the Royal Oak Village plan is.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I did admit you're right that the City of Burnaby goes beyond the 800 metre minimum (I think it's 850m) and is meeting the minimum height requirements per the TOD provincial requirements. Not sure where I mislead the forum with misleading information.

Not you. You even took the trouble to link the Provincial requirement for reference, which I really appreciate: thank you!

I was referring to others in the typical mob.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not you. You even took the trouble to link the Provincial requirement for reference, which I really appreciate: thank you!

I was referring to others in the typical mob.

Absolutely, Vin, and I admit I don't know all the acts with this new TOD legislation.

I am very excited to see this Royal Oak plan as it's the first plan I've seen, not only executing the new legislation, but also one that replaces a fairly recent area plan. This gives us a good example of the Province's plan in action.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I congratulate Burnaby on their first CoV-scale density plan, and look forward to more in the future.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I congratulate Burnaby on their first CoV-scale density plan, and look forward to more in the future.

Burnaby touching their 3rd rail (single family homes) in their new area plans is going to be interesting for sure.

[jollyburger]

Bosa Properties' 50-Storey Solhouse 6035 In Burnaby Receives Final Approval

On Monday, Burnaby City Council granted final approval to the latest high-rise residential project planned for the Metrotown neighbourhood of Burnaby.

The project, which has been named Solhouse 6035, is set for 6031 Wilson Avenue and is being developed by Bosa Properties, who has several other high-rise towers in the works in the area.

Just down the street, at 5977 Wilson Avenue, construction is currently ongoing on the 41-storey Central Park House. Around the corner, at 5980 Kathleen Avenue, construction is also currently ongoing on the 35-storey Kathleen x Kemp.

https://storeys.com/bosa-properties-...solhouse-6035/

[jollyburger]

H&R REIT (HR.UN-T) has an agreement to sell its 50 per cent stake in the Brian Canfield Centre office building in Burnaby to its investment partner Crestpoint Real Estate Investments Ltd. for $82.5 million.

H&R said its share of the building was valued at $81.4 million as of Dec. 31.

https://renx.ca/hr-sells-stake-in-br...by-office-bldg

[jollyburger]

The SUCCESS project on East Hastings where that green strip of vacant land used to be. Excavation starts soon.

https://twitter.com/VanMarInc/status...005212/photo/1

[jollyburger]

Strata windup 6669 Telford Avenue $60 million

https://commercial.fraserelliott.com...th-bc-v5h-4a1/